There has not been a technology of study or a technology of education.
There is a "school" technology but it doesn't have much to do with education.
Education, in its final touches, has very little to do with school.
Schooling can be very pedantic to no good purpose.
Education would take into account the relative importance (applicability) of the data being taught.
Significance must be accompanied by the mass. E.g. the development of techniques for displaying pictures is useful, who invented it when is not.
When you get into significance versus mass you get into action.
The student must be taken into consideration when teaching - i.e. what's he learning to do?
A student becomes introverted by giving him too much significance and too little doingness and too little mass.
This IS the way you make an impractical person.
Any trouble an instructor has in teaching has something to do with something he doesn't confront about the doingness or mass of the subject.
A person writing for people who do is too far removed from the doingness and mass to make a good studyable textbook, no matter who they consulted.
Photography is similar to auditing in that if you do certain things right and with good judgement you get certain results.
You can get so good at what you’re studying that you can think with it and improve on the textbook.
Just practical training is not enough. I.e. all mass/doingness and no significance also fails.
A pro can be counted on to produce extraordinary results. He knows all the right ways to do it and therefore knows how to fail at it and he can think that extra step.
The real pro knows the significance and has experience in the doingness and handling the mass.
Professionalism is sweated for.
You don't have to do everything that has ever been done in order to be a pro - i.e. the doingness can also be overstressed.
If he's not going to do it, strip the significance off of it. If he is going to do it, "pour it to him man!"
Doingness described (or even practised) that is never going to be done is just significance.
Also, by making the student do something he is never going to need to do for real, you convert things that should remain as significance into doingness.
A person might choose to do these old doingnesses for fun, but you wouldn't make a student do them. It causes an ARC break as there's no purpose to it.
The doingness and mass of a subject that should be taught, and taught hard, are the current applicable doingnesses and masses.
You teach enough significance so the student doesn't get stuck in the doingness he's being taught.
He needs enough significance to be able to think with the subject, and that's a little bit more significance than you'd expect.
An understanding of the history/development of the subject helps you to think with it. That's the purpose of learning these things, not to be able to do it the old way.
If involved in a "significance" doingness, the student reacts like he's in the field of significance, becomes "stultified, bored, protesting, annoyed".
This is an identifiable sensation (first mention of physiological phenomena).
"Education should be the action of relaying am idea or an action from one being to another in such a way as not to stultify or inhibit the use thereof."
It also permits the person to think with the subject and develop it.
A person who can think with a subject will be able to advance along with it.
The person must be able to follow disciplines to achieve the expected result, but also maintain a loose and flexible attitude.
You can also be engaged in a significance which is actually a doingness, e.g. "the action of contemplation". Also, the expert for whom the significance is his living.
A subject, starting out from a basic assumption, must not lose sight of that assumption (e.g. physics with conservation of energy).
We must go in the direction of processing rather than the theory and philosophy of the universe because the being is not educatable in a degraded state.
No comments:
Post a Comment