# Universal education



## Olly Buckle (Jan 25, 2014)

The title sounds like a no-brainer, like ‘Love your neighbour’, but the injunction raises the question “Should we love prostitutes and thieves?” Similarly should we educate the good, the bad, the malevolent, the middle aged loser, and our enemy as well as our friend? Give them the high utility tools, knowledge, understanding and insight? Yes, knowledge brings understanding, understanding brings insight, all bring change, change is life, stasis is death, by giving the gift of life one changes the person to whom the gift was given.

Consider what at first appear to be two diametrically opposed scenarios. Two men are clearing foxholes, one laying down a covering fire the other dropping in grenades; a teacher is preparing a lesson, considering the subject matter, the knowledge to impart, and how to do it. They are opposites in that the first are trying to bring about change by destroying the undesirable, the second by fostering the desirable; nevertheless there are common factors. For example, in both cases understanding of the subject, and of the other people involved, greatly increases the chance of success. Raw recruits will be easy meat, experienced soldiers may recognise the pattern of attack and pose a danger, having an alternative strategy to slip into is wise. Being conversant with his subject the teacher knows what is likely to attract wisecracks and other foolishness, knowing the smart-aleck before he enters the class he is prepared with an appropriate riposte.

This goes further, in situations that repeat, actions based on practical experience are often useful, but may be limited, rigid and not adaptable if circumstances change; an understanding combining practical and theoretical concepts can provide the user with the tools to adapt when the situation changes. Knowledge and understanding in one sphere translate into another, we gain them in one subject, then look at another and see similarities and relationships. By this means we develop general rules, such as ‘garbage in garbage out’. Inevitably knowledge systems change us, but predicting the exact changes is impossible, they are the result of a complex environment interacting with a complex individual, we make general statements of probability, we don’t define the garbage. I think it fair to say that the more profound the knowledge, the greater the change, a collection of useless ephemera or the acquisition of mercenary mechanical skills will not affect people as much.

Learning about the Dewey decimal system, or how to build a custom Harley from scratch, will teach order systems and relationships which are transferable to other situations. This gives an over view which encourages further learning for more abstract reasons, it is like a snow ball, or a chain reaction, given that first push, or the first fragile atom breaking up, and you are off on a path to change. Even those who learn can get stuck in a rut though, the man who learns man made systems, such as mechanics or artificial classification systems, will only get so far if he tries to apply them to the chaotic natural world, though they may help him recognise the heart as a pump or distinguish reptiles from mammals. The rolling snowball is a good trick, but it can only make a bigger snowball, never a snowman

Most people are well meaning and will not deliberately misuse knowledge, when they beat children they do it ‘for their own good’, when they thieve they do it from ‘them’, knowledge and understanding change their behaviour. It is when more than the individual are involved evil becomes deliberate, as Russell put it “Morality is in direct inverse proportion to the number of people involved”. In general, the greater the level of understanding and knowledge people have, the more alternatives they have, with increased opportunities to communicate and ways to behave. This is likely to lead to more socially acceptable behaviour.

Despite this it is tempting to offer the education people ‘should have’, to selectively provide information seen as important, there will, of course always be an element of this, teachers also have interests, but actively pursued it leads to resistance from the pupil. The reasons for the significance of knowledge become apparent after one has attained it, prior to this attentiveness is fostered by the attractiveness of the process unless one has previous experience of the benefit or the benefit of the end result can be demonstrated before it is achieved, “You too could ...” 

Educate everyone, especially your enemies and the socially unacceptable, knowledge and understanding are high utility tools for change, what individuals change into is not predictable, but the overall effect is progress, throw the stone, make the pool ripple.

A concept of what constitutes ‘knowledge’ may be useful. The concept of knowledge as an accumulation of facts has fallen out of fashion, and I can largely go along with that, knowing when Julius Caesar lived and died as an unrelated fact is inconsequential. Read a biography of Caesar and potted histories of all the Emperors and you will know a lot about him, gaining an understanding of Julius as an individual and in relation to others, but exactly when he was born or died still remains inconsequential. If some event causes it to be of consequence however, you know where to find it, even if Google has crashed. Showing how to look for knowledge is like teaching a man to fish.

Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water, not all facts and man-made systems are useless; learning alphabets and multiplication tables by rote leads to literacy and numeracy; on the other hand ... let’s not go there, I was talking about ‘knowledge’, what people do with it I am happy to leave to them.

When we read or do math we draw on a past when we accumulated many small factual pieces of information, such as the particular sound (or sounds) that ‘A’ makes. They were not, however, random, they were part of a system which we discovered, and practiced until we became fluent. This is ‘knowing’ in the sense of knowing how to read, do sums, play the flute, or play football.

Many people know how to play flute or football at some level, some can do both, they understand the basic principles, but sometimes someone is special, a James Galway or a Wayne Rooney. They bring a different sort of ‘knowledge’ to the table. This is not knowledge based on simple, external, facts, or systems derived from them. These people have mastered those aspects of skill and mechanical knowledge; they also bring a, emotional, internal, element.
This knowledge that comes from within is the sort that knows terror, ecstasy, love, and hate; and knows what it is to be a revolutionary or a dictator, it brings its own form of insight and understanding. 

For a teacher the high points are when an external thing they have taught, a concept, a poem, a song, touches their pupil and awakens inner understanding; for the politician who votes funds to education rather than defence the priority is different, he wants the skills that will be of direct benefit to society and produce money to spend on defence, the benefit to the individual is necessary, but coincidental. The teacher deals with individuals, even in a classroom situation, the politician deals with groups, even when dealing with individual problems.

What sorts of knowledge should we share and impart? All of them; who can tell when a useless fact may become useful? When it may join with other facts from diverse sources to form a unity, a system, and what such a system might achieve? Who can tell what may touch the imagination and cause it to soar? And what a gift to give, who would rather subsist in safe, suburban, single, seclusion than experience the eruptions of emotional extremes at least once in their lives? Better to have lived a little than never to have lived at all.

One last thing, you never know what you may learn and who you may learn it from, the teacher should always be receptive and willing to become the pupil


----------



## dither (Jan 26, 2014)

A very interesting, and, if i'm not careful, a very thought provoking perspective.
Much of that, of course, is debatable, so much said, in just a few paragraphs.
So profound,so concise, so,,,,,exact,

so,

interesting, very.

A.T,
makes me wonder what the hell i am doing here.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Jan 26, 2014)

Goes without saying (I'm just sayin'), but well written, of course.

I am interested to hear your thoughts on a more focused education determined by aptitude. Do you think that there might be merit in a personal curriculum system?


----------



## dither (Jan 26, 2014)

.I wanted to delete a comment, and didn't know how to. Sorry.:apologetic:


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 26, 2014)

> Much of that, of course, is debatable,





> Goes without saying


Not that we are supposed to debate of course, but the juxtaposition of the two is interesting 

Thank you for your kind comments.

dither; in the bottom right hand corner of the postnext to 'reply' and 'reply with quote' you will see 'edit post' on your own posts. Click on that .


----------



## dither (Jan 26, 2014)

Sorry Mr. buckle but i've explored that one.:apologetic:


----------



## davidtrounce (Feb 7, 2014)

> ...what individuals change into is not predictable, but the overall effect is progress, throw the stone, make the pool ripple.



This is very much the history of the western mind. There is a reason it has progressed (in evil as well as good). Why is it that women in Sudan are still carrying water pots on their heads? What is it that prevents their husbands from at least rising to the technology of a wheelbarrow?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 7, 2014)

Thanks for reading, David. Potting is a quite advanced technology in many ways, 'Why did they stop there?' is a very valid question, 'why the women should wait for their husbands to come up with a better solution?' another. Of course the nature of things is that nothing ever quite stands still, but they do slow down some at times. However we are a writing forum and try to limit the discussion to the writing, otherwise it so easily goes off on a tangent.

Good to see a new member exploring and commenting, welcometo the forum.


----------



## davidtrounce (Feb 7, 2014)

Gentle nudge taken. I thought you were putting your post up for a discussion of its content.


----------



## Cran (Feb 22, 2014)

dither said:


> .I wanted to delete a comment, and didn't know how to. Sorry.:apologetic:


For reasons off-topic, ordinary members cannot delete posts entirely. They can remove any text from their own posts and replace them with a simple period (.) or message (comment deleted) via the [Edit Post] option.

_ETA: I didn't go through it with my editor's eyes on, Olly, but it looks like a good essay. _


----------



## ppsage (Feb 22, 2014)

Hi big O… There is a long and thoughtful journey made in this essay and I feel like it’s outgrown the very informal and folksy presentation. It’s awfully easy for me to lose my place and the train of thought. Ordinary things, initial statement of thesis and summary of argument and concluding recapitulation will help. These don’t have to be formal; they can fit into the voice. I also think the landmarks might be more…marked. The foxhole is good but there the lead is kind of buried and interpretation begins before the image is established. Same with other images—Dewey/Harley, Julius, flute/football—a slower delivery and bigger picture will let the questions come to mind before the answers are pitched and I will remember the course better. …………….. _“teaching a man to fish. Don’t throw the baby” _This spot runs clichés grill to boot. Funny? Maybe? …………………. Important work here Ollie, right now maybe a bit drier than what you’re capable of producing. Keep bowling. In appreciatyion, pp.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 23, 2014)

Thanks pp, I might try another rewrite some point. It started off as much more of a diatribe, and it really is quite a dodgy position to take, should one give lessons on explosives manufacture, or flying lessons, to those holding extreme religious views for example? Not quite so black and white then huh? I was trying to get people to question some of their recieved wisdom, but didn't want to go so extreme that they rejected the arguments without consideration, maybe I have gone to far the other way and they are accepting them without enough question, it is so hard trying to hit Doris Stokes.


----------

