[Xmca-l] Re: remote_online learning?
Tom Richardson
tom.richardson3@googlemail.com
Wed May 27 02:24:53 PDT 2020
Good Morning Henry
Your confusions and eventual clarity explain and help a great deal,
mirroring my own as I read Damasio's account. I shall dig further with
gratitude to you.
Best
Tom
BoWen
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 22:29, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> No problem enabling your laziness with my shallow reading of Spinzoa. I
> confess that I have read nothing directly from Spinoza, but have read about
> his philosphy and about his life. It’s been a while since I read Looking
> for Spinoza: Joy Sorrow and the Feeling Brain. I am looking at the book now
> and am amazed with how much highlighting there is and how little of it I
> remember in detail. What got me into it was the distinction between
> emotions and feelings. Damasio is a neuroscientist, and the book are full
> of the neural correlates of affective states, being the “easy” problem of
> consciousness. The “hard” problem of explaining the reason any arrangements
> at all of matter can possibly result in consciousness is not explained.
> What got me into it was the distinction between emotions and feelings.
> Damasio associates emotions (fear, anger, surprise, disgust, sadness and
> happiness) with primal parts of the brain connected to homeostasis of the
> organism. Emotions are evoked prior to the more narrative experience of
> feelings. To tell the truth, I am still not entirely clear on the
> distinction, largely because he explains the difference through case
> studies of people who have suffered damage to different parts of the brain,
> losing me. Maybe I got it at the time, but looking through the book now,
> it’s not so clear. One interesting thing is that we can have social
> emotions, which means homeostasis is not just internal to the human
> organism.
>
> Anyway, the book is worth digging through. Hope that helps a little. Whew!
>
> Henry
>
>
> On May 26, 2020, at 1:31 PM, Tom Richardson <
> tom.richardson3@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Henry
> Thank you for your thoughtful, fact full reply.
>
> It would save me continuing to plough through Damasio's well-written but
> fairly lengthy book 'Looking for Spinoza', if you were to send me a brief
> personal summary of what he means intellectually for you - (or am I being
> lazy?) - since it is always illuminating to understand what our thinkers
> mean to/for our peers. I have not broached Baruch S's work for myself.
>
> Best wishes
> Tom
>
> On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 17:09, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tom,
>> Thank you for your rich, well-thought-out response to my question. And
>> thank you for recognizing that I wanted it to be generous. Perhaps a
>> quibble is that you associate the first stage of Stalinist rule as
>> capitalist, rather than industrial, as I understand it. I think that’s
>> important. Stalin’s top-down planning had the same hall marks as Mao’s,
>> Castro’s and the current North Korean leader. I appreciate your optimism
>> that any system devised by humans can create human thriving that is not
>> destructive of of humanity itself. We seem to have boxed ourselves into a
>> corner by destroying our niche, the world. COVID-19 and climate change,
>> IMHO, we are all, indvidually and collectively complicit. I hope that we
>> can get beyond romanticism and cynicism in meeting our fate. I think that
>> Vygotsky and Spinoza represent what can come of wrestling with open hearts
>> and clear thinking with our condition.
>> Henry
>>
>>
>> On May 26, 2020, at 3:09 AM, Tom Richardson <
>> tom.richardson3@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Good Morning (GMT+1) Henry
>>
>> I'm touched by your mail today. My life experience does not include such
>> practical engagement as yours, with any of the major social disruptions /
>> attempts at new organisation, of the C20.
>>
>> It seems dismissively facile to criticise amazing historic
>> re-organisations of social life like the Cuban Revolution, but it is
>> necessary. Otherwise the same mistakes will happen again and again.
>>
>> The political strand which I accept as most accurately analysing
>> historical and current reality characterises the liberation movements
>> (particularities, differences, I'm ignoring for sake of quick explanation)
>> post 1900, as nationalist, and mostly state socialist/capitalist. IE they
>> are top-down, state directed anti-imperialist/colonialist movements. The
>> self-organisation and free association of the producers that is the essence
>> of communist organisation is absent. Often there is some commitment to a
>> Kautskyan / Stalinist "two stage theory", requiring full
>> capitalist development to prepare the ground for the next step of
>> proletarian rule - eg in the South African struggle. We can see where that
>> has led so far.
>>
>> But the analysts I accept, posit that socialism in one country cannot be
>> created nor sustained while the basis of total global social reproduction
>> is the money based economy, taken forward by the capital-labour
>> relationship of commodity production - the so-called 'free market' whose
>> anarchy ensures an absence of any organised relationship to global human
>> needs, since it is driven by the *value-based circulation of commodities* dominating
>> all global production.
>>
>> The freedom is that of the individual / joint-stock company in the
>> pursuit of surplus value. And, yes, Marx, does provide an analysis of
>> "money" which indicates how a future system of production would/could not
>> be based on the use of money and therefore wages.
>>
>> There is so much literature about this to be investigated, (much of it
>> written by US authors, extraordinarily, given the Chicago School and the
>> legacy of McCarthy). I started with Engels 'Socialism, Utopian and
>> Scientific' which explained in a way that my pro-market, individualist
>> history teacher could not, why the Anti-Corn Law League had 'won' and the
>> Chartists had failed.
>>
>> Anyway, I am only recycling, from my own limited understanding, the sort
>> of analysis that the original authors of the literature I value provide in
>> overwhelming but convincing detail.
>>
>> While the way forward towards a future that communists see as essential
>> if the planet is not to be destroyed, or at least human life on it, is not
>> in prospect as far as any realist can foresee, at present, the reality of
>> the Barbarism that Capital brings (together with the technology necessary
>> for the possibility of real change), is clear every moment in our lives.
>>
>> Human resistance and creative answers to apparently insoluble problems,
>> and the reality that the working class has nothing to gain that sustains
>> *real* *fulfilling human* life from capital's continuation, sustain my
>> knowledge that my commitment to moving beyond capitalism, is both essential
>> and realistic.
>>
>> I trust that this attempted answer to your generous question makes
>> sufficient sense .
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:26, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Tom,
>>> What is it about “free market economies” is the cause of wage slavery?
>>> Is there at least some jiggering of the market that could end “destructive
>>> anarchy”? Do we do away with money? And I am serious here. I take it that
>>> capitalism is the problem, not the market, or money. I was in the doctoral
>>> program in economics at UC Berkeley during the late 60s. My concentrations
>>> were comparative economic systems and economic planning. I dropped out
>>> after only getting a masters degree in economics there, and went to Cuba to
>>> cut sugar cane with the Venceremos Brigade. I felt strongly Che’s call to
>>> make the New Man (though women were there too, and check out the film
>>> “Lucia”) of that era, but I think that central planning (Castro’) of the
>>> Cuban economy had a destructive and anarchic side. Castro apologized for
>>> his mistakes during the year of 10 million tons of sugar cane production,
>>> but the damage was done. Cuba has been a shining light in some ways for me
>>> and others, not least the health care workers, the original Doctors Without
>>> Borders, that beautifully exemplify the new human.
>>>
>>> So, really, what do we replace markets and money with? Or is it the
>>> “free” part that’s the rub.
>>>
>>> Henry
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 25, 2020, at 2:21 PM, Tom Richardson <
>>> tom.richardson3@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Annalisa
>>>
>>> "All that I figure is possible from the worldview you frame is:"
>>>
>>> Since I have suggested neither of the alternatives you state as the only
>>> way forward, it would surely invalidate your further argument.
>>>
>>> But I must admit that the idea of thirty thousand working class families
>>> and then some, organising to change the wage-slavery employment system
>>> that they are exploited by, would be a great idea.
>>> Here's to that day, as the freely associated producers of our social
>>> life organise to end the destructive anarchy of our present free-market
>>> economies.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 19:58, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Tom and others,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree that Capitalism is bad, and that it causes wealth and poverty
>>>> in extremes. Which then creates social injustices that would be much
>>>> lessened with less economic inequality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do not think that I ever said (did I?) to ignore the traditional
>>>> power structures. I said that every day we negotiate the power structures.
>>>> And when we decide it's not working we can create change. That possibility
>>>> is always an option, but it demands diligence, discipline, and discovery.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All that I figure is possible from the worldview you frame is:
>>>>
>>>> 1. it's futile. Give up. The structures will always be against us.
>>>> Settle in to your given hand of bad fortune.
>>>>
>>>> 2. grab a gun and kill as many people sitting in seats of power (which
>>>> means the chair of power remains to be replaced by someone else).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Forgive me if I reject both those options.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I said, perhaps in another post, the liberal position of citing data
>>>> and objecting to the existence of that data, isn't going to make power
>>>> structures change.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What would make change is for those 15K-30K families to organize and
>>>> among themselves decide how and what they can do to make their lot better.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's called organizing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Civil disobedience works because it is civil.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Annalisa
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <
>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Tom Richardson <
>>>> tom.richardson3@googlemail.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 25, 2020 3:25 AM
>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: remote_online learning?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * [EXTERNAL]*
>>>> Hi Annalisa
>>>> Good Morning - just a correction to figures about poverty in our town -
>>>> I should have been more careful,; fortunately the figures from memory were
>>>> an underestimate rather than an exaggeration:
>>>>
>>>> Almost 30,000 children are living in poverty across Teesside - and half
>>>> are from working families.
>>>>
>>>> And stark new statistics reveal that the picture is worst in central
>>>> Middlesbrough
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/all-about/central-middlesbrough__;!!Mih3wA!UzpqqoKO1pITTk2fSACEPEAKdX9lS-DB6KRcN_OsqP68UjnBttHBF_Z-qSWQ8KfjrXPuWg$> -
>>>> as hyper-local, official Government data reveals three quarters of all kids
>>>> in one neighbourhood are living below the breadline.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>> BoWen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 22:17, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alas, hello again Tom (& VO's),
>>>>
>>>> While I accept your assessment of our differences in approaches and
>>>> understandings, I do not see that it is obvious that there is no meeting
>>>> point.
>>>>
>>>> For example, innovation exists in science and in art, in business it is
>>>> entrepreneurship. I believe that there are good things that come from
>>>> business entrepreneurship, and there are bad things too. We love that art
>>>> and science are innovative, when they are, but there can be failings there
>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>> The captains of industry who believe they are self-made men, and who
>>>> believe that anyone who decides for oneself being on the assembly line of
>>>> the manufacturing floor is only a dumb pawn in a larger game, would be in
>>>> my estimation the worst that kind of human that entrepreneurship generates.
>>>> Elon Musk is one example, perhaps.
>>>>
>>>> As much as I likely would not want Elon Musk over for dinner, I can
>>>> admire that he has been able to steward the creation of an electric car in
>>>> the midst of a sleepwalking auto industry that cannot envision automobiles
>>>> without a gas-eating combustible engine.
>>>>
>>>> At the same time what he gives he takes away: I'm not sure that I can
>>>> ever get on board a space rocket to inhabit Mars. I actually object to that
>>>> project because as long as we haven't worked out how to feed everyone on
>>>> this earthship, we should not be escaping it by polluting another planet,
>>>> even if, as Carl Sagan told us, there are billions and billions of them out
>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>> "They" in the form of (other they)'s do not have power unless we give
>>>> them that power. That power is always up for debate every minute, every
>>>> day, every year.
>>>>
>>>> Given that there are now 38 million unemployed in the US (I can't name
>>>> the numbers elsewhere and I'm sorry about that), that's like the entire
>>>> population of California being on the dole. It is a significant number, and
>>>> it may be that many of those people start their own businesses, not because
>>>> of education or desire, but of necessity.
>>>>
>>>> Many of the young and unemployed are educated. That could be a
>>>> combustible cocktail, depending upon their self-awareness and outward
>>>> worldview.
>>>>
>>>> One strange article in NYT described a scene designer who has been out
>>>> of work since the health order shutdown, and hasn't received any
>>>> unemployment yet because she filed in New Jersey, while her partner did
>>>> because he filed in New York. Then she got an offer to work in a company
>>>> who is making ... wait for it.... facemasks, so now she is toiling over a
>>>> machine, sewing facemasks.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think I could live in that situation because of the stark
>>>> irony, if that is a just word for that. I mourn the loss of her creativity,
>>>> but I hope it is temporary.
>>>>
>>>> Now out of necessity, she's had to travel that path. So I can agree
>>>> with you that because of the government order to shut down business, and
>>>> because a company who hired her decided to make facemasks, because what
>>>> other ingenious product would or could one manufacture right now? they have
>>>> shaped her working life. Have they shaped her social life, though. I mean
>>>> completely? She still has her contacts on her iPhone, she likely returns
>>>> home to her partner to cook dinner and search for more work. Her desires
>>>> and dreams are likely impacted, but has she completely given up? Should she?
>>>>
>>>> I am not pro-revolution, only because they create rivers of blood in
>>>> streets, etc. I'm more of the mind that incremental choices can together
>>>> create a tipping point of social change.
>>>>
>>>> For example, consider the tiny house movement. Or how young people will
>>>> share resources, or reevaluate buying things, or what they eat.
>>>>
>>>> People make the best lemonade only with the best lemons.
>>>>
>>>> There is going to have to be a reckoning of having so many unemployed
>>>> people. It can't be ignored. To just pretend that everyone will be happy
>>>> with a lower wage job (lower than when the pandemic hit), is only going to
>>>> drive people to desperate measures. The country will want to put people to
>>>> work and this could be an opportunity for collective change, for creating
>>>> meaningful jobs.
>>>>
>>>> Because who wants a civil war.
>>>>
>>>> So there will have to be some sort of appeasement for the social
>>>> reality that people must have their basic needs met. The temporary stimulus
>>>> is a lifeline, but the real economic difficulties will start when people
>>>> start to return to work, and there are less jobs with the result being
>>>> there is less money circulating in the economy overall. With interest rates
>>>> so low, and pumping more money into the economy is only going to raise the
>>>> prices of things, possibly wages, but not the buying power.
>>>>
>>>> People will cut bait from the lives they once had, and simplify. Moving
>>>> to less crowded cities and towns, returning to live with parents. Perhaps
>>>> creating cooperatives. One area for discovery with so much time on one's
>>>> hands is handcrafting. I think there will be a blooming of new businesses
>>>> that incorporate *real* labor. This may also usher in more vocational
>>>> training programs.
>>>>
>>>> One article I read today discussed the eating of meat, and how it is a
>>>> destructive social practice including its impact on climate change. Largely
>>>> that industry depends upon of automation, and now with slaughterhouses
>>>> being virus hotspots, do you want to trust that the meat you buy is not
>>>> tainted with COVID? Or that you are forcing a worker into an unsafe work
>>>> environment and catch the virus?
>>>>
>>>> If people were decide to stop eating meat, or reduce even its
>>>> consumption because it's too expensive, and if the government stops giving
>>>> subsidies to these agro-corporations, then these polluting companies will
>>>> fail. That would be great news.
>>>>
>>>> Then the writer pointed out that if we returned to diets higher in
>>>> plant-based food, that would increase demand for real farms, real
>>>> entrepreneurship and generate jobs, as it takes more people to grow
>>>> vegetables, than it does to raise pigs or chickens. We would also become
>>>> healthier as a population. There is already a network of farmer's markets
>>>> for local produce, so it may mean a growth in that area.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose what I'm trying to say is I do not think it is so cut and
>>>> dried that we are subject to the worst forever. I think with so much time
>>>> on our hands people are free to organize and decide to help one another in
>>>> mutual aid. We do not have to rely on traditional power structures, and we
>>>> do not have to resort to bloody revolutions.
>>>>
>>>> Depending upon what you are looking for in life, there is a third way
>>>> arising.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Annalisa
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <
>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Tom Richardson <
>>>> tom.richardson3@googlemail.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 23, 2020 4:24 AM
>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: remote_online learning?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * [EXTERNAL]*
>>>> Hello once more Annalisa
>>>>
>>>> Our difference of approach to and understanding of the modern state and
>>>> the production of social life obviously admits of no meeting point as far
>>>> as I read your astonishingly wide-ranging and impassioned response.
>>>>
>>>> Without the simplicity of my reply intending to signal a facile
>>>> sarcasm, I must bluntly state that I begin from the acceptance that
>>>> nefarious or not, 'They', in the sense of government and corporations, do
>>>> have the power to control and shape the organisation of social life. We
>>>> can, if enough socio-political pressure can be brought to bear through
>>>> social movements, rebellions, revolts, shift certain aspects of that
>>>> fashioning of our lives.
>>>>
>>>> But at present, the relationship of wage slavery imposed by Capital
>>>> ,and the society shaped by that relationship, are dominant throughout the
>>>> life of our planet.
>>>>
>>>> Sad at such an impasse, since we both wish the best for humanity
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 21:46, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Tom, and VO's of XMCA
>>>>
>>>> Concerning your questions about our new normal now that COVID19 is with
>>>> us and here to stay, I think your guess is as good as anyone's. I am not
>>>> sure if we as humans have ever been burdened with such an event as this,
>>>> and at the same time are able to watch the unfolding events and respond (or
>>>> not respond if you are a stable genius) quickly from the feedback of data,
>>>> news, anecdotes, and other forms of perception of how the virus is
>>>> impacting us.
>>>>
>>>> What is worth remembering as well, is that epidemiologists have been
>>>> warning us for decades that a pandemic was a clear an present danger to the
>>>> way we live and negotiate the modern world. We see in sensurround how right
>>>> they were.
>>>>
>>>> As I consider your question, I have to think that people mow might be
>>>> sorted into two classes, well at least two classes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. People who seem to think the virus is just another flu and once
>>>> we find a vaccine, all will return to Christmas 2019 (or whatever December
>>>> Holiday or pre-pandemic time you mark your calendar as before the pandemic
>>>> hit, which of course depends upon where on the earth you are located).
>>>> 2. People who seem to think the virus has changed us and there will
>>>> never be going back to Christmas 2019 (or whatever December Holiday...)
>>>>
>>>> I suspect the Americans of the neo-conservative persuasion who have
>>>> been motivated to protest health order social distancing believe that not
>>>> only this is a conspiracy to control fredom-loving people, but that we
>>>> should return to Christmas 2019 as soon as possible, they are of Cohort 1.
>>>>
>>>> I think Cohort 2 are going to be people who take in the facts and the
>>>> data and are actively attempting to sort out where do we go from here. I
>>>> feel confident you are in Cohort 2, as ar most people on this list.
>>>>
>>>> Now, as Carol M has pointed out, in a lot of ways our discussion about
>>>> online learning is a first world concern, for those who have an internet
>>>> connection that is ubiquitous not only at home, but at school, work, on the
>>>> bus, on planes, in cafes, and other public gathering spaces, like city
>>>> halls, or town squares. That's another reason why it's hard to take Klein
>>>> seriously, in terms of *tone*.
>>>>
>>>> I recall reading something from George Lakoff when he indicates that
>>>> there is a liberal stance that seems to believe that if one objects loudly
>>>> enough with "sky is falling" rhetoric and then feed out various data, that
>>>> using this strategy the audience will become motivated to protest in the
>>>> streets, write letters to congress, run for office, or whatever civil
>>>> action must be done, and with alacrity. It doesn't work. I do not think
>>>> being against anything ever "works." I think only being for something
>>>> works.
>>>>
>>>> Let's look at Klein's article as an example. If she were to be
>>>> rhetorically successful she would outline the problem she identifies (Mr.
>>>> Schmidt goes to Washington), but instead of all that is wrong, talk about
>>>> what can be right. Not to say she should agree with Mr. Schmidt and his
>>>> ways.
>>>>
>>>> I feel her article could be a lot heavier on what works with education
>>>> and how to enhance that further. She does mention how money should b used
>>>> more for school nurses, smaller classrooms, etc. This is where she could
>>>> have expanded beautifully into a viable solution to spark everyone's
>>>> imaginations. But she didn't do that. She is more motivated it seems to
>>>> mark Mr. Schmidt and his technological minions to masterminding a New World
>>>> Order that will steal our souls and tether us to the Matrix from now until
>>>> the end of time.
>>>>
>>>> I also feel she would have been more conducive to discourse by writing
>>>> an open letter to Cuomo and Schmidt, and to invite a response. This is also
>>>> leading by example to cultivate democratic processes that are near and dear
>>>> to all of us. Instead she "otherfies" them, and this is also not useful.
>>>> And I am not saying that as a stance to defend Mr. Schmidt or Gov Cuomo, in
>>>> any way.
>>>>
>>>> So back to your question, I do not think that there is any way we will
>>>> be extricated from this reality of COVID 19. We will have to pick our
>>>> stones across the river carefully so that none of us slips and is carried
>>>> down the rapids. I feel it is more useful to say we are a family of one
>>>> kind, and all of us have to stay together to make it across. And that all
>>>> of us deserves a life jacket as a measure of survival because not all of us
>>>> will get to the other side without getting wet, or falling in.
>>>>
>>>> The tension between CEOs and their contempt for the slow-food of
>>>> democracy is well known. If only they could persuade all of us to eat fast
>>>> food, then they could take over the world as the next McDonalds, in terms
>>>> of technological vision, whatever a McDonalds would look like on a screen,
>>>> as an app, whathaveyou.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately what seems to elude folks who have not worked in tech, or
>>>> those who see tech as just another new Ford in the garage, is that
>>>> technology is always in flux. There is always development of new hardware
>>>> that needs new software written to use it, so there is a double-quicksand
>>>> of events upon which technology is founded (and funded) upon. That's what
>>>> Moore's Law is about.
>>>>
>>>> Technology in order to "be itself" must always move fleetingly, like
>>>> the shark must to breathe. Technology will never be able to last the halls
>>>> of government. For that reason, any rendition of technology in government
>>>> (and school systems for that matter) will be like bad combovers that are
>>>> meant to convince us that we are now more attractive and appealing (not
>>>> meaning to offend those who live by their combovers...)
>>>>
>>>> Where I feel technology could best serve us is to help create
>>>> grassroots democracy tools, to support what we know is possible and could
>>>> even threaten the basis for representative democracy and bring it closer to
>>>> a straight agora democracy.
>>>>
>>>> Some might call this anarchy, and I could argue along the lines of
>>>> David Graeber that anarchy is a more pure form of democracy practiced in
>>>> all "primitive" or "ancient" cultures, it's not a perfect fit, and I intend
>>>> to make that reference loosely. My point is to say there should be what
>>>> David K calls involution of what government is, to what government was, and
>>>> to supplant that, or rather what causes those parts to be pushed to the
>>>> margins is to imagine a government where there is mor connection to
>>>> agora-like venues where one person speaking in a Zoom-like frame is of
>>>> equal stature of any other person speaking in the frame. One can sort of
>>>> imagine this with the Zoom-empowered senate hearings which I watched for a
>>>> while on the NYT front page. It was really strange to me. I suppose the
>>>> danger is that we get to hear Sally Mc? from Arizona use her time to blame
>>>> the Chinese for the virus, etc, for more time that we would like. But
>>>> that's democracy.
>>>>
>>>> So one fallout could be that grade-school kids and their resulting
>>>> perezhivanie from Zoom-based classrooms, will adopt the tool for political
>>>> discussions as adults. Might that be a good thing?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe.
>>>>
>>>> At the same time, do you remember a book that came out in the mid90s
>>>> called "Silicon Snake Oil"? This is yet another phenomenon of technology,
>>>> that people oozing charisma will claw their way to the microphone and pitch
>>>> an idea about the next vaporware, who will then make unsubstantiated
>>>> promises and claims directed to feed our fantasies and dreams, and who will
>>>> then abscond with all the money, only to request not to look at the man
>>>> behind the green curtain, or if pulled by the ear into a senate hearing
>>>> will say "I thought it was a good idea at the time." etc.
>>>>
>>>> I think that is the view of Klein about all technology, and there are
>>>> merits in that, but there are also other ways to think about it.
>>>>
>>>> This article about Marc Benioff in Wired recently discusses about the
>>>> social entrepreneurship of his wealth:
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.wired.com/story/gospel-of-wealth-according-to-marc-benioff/__;!!Mih3wA!Tjf28eHnOL5f1WbeRh-7EHG8XCVoRTsqz5df6xnEngXORjztYkl0rW452WS2qbXNQHVv7Q$
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.wired.com/story/gospel-of-wealth-according-to-marc-benioff/__;!!Mih3wA!QlFQ9K0fpCeY8Ago6eD8wEZsCoPsUNbxY-9nGASn68fLoIl7bpzI7P4YyuMxRNSRIbnKqA$>
>>>> Who by they way now owns the magazine Time, the way Jeff Bezos bought
>>>> the WaPo, and Lauren Jobs bought The Altlantic, and Pierre Omidyar funded
>>>> The Intercept.
>>>>
>>>> I do invite, as much as you can stomach, anyway, for any educators or
>>>> other members of our vibrant list to make regular reading of Wired
>>>> Magazine, which is a far more interesting read on technology than something
>>>> like Fast Company. I encourage this reading, if only to know the enemy, as
>>>> it were. Wired articles are far more nuanced and sophisticated than when
>>>> the magazine first got off the ground in the early 90s. I find reading it
>>>> helps to connect some dots for those who do not consume technology culture
>>>> all the time. Just pick and choose what you are curious about.
>>>>
>>>> We must become familiar with the vernacular of technology if we want a
>>>> hand in the game of how it plays in education, our stomping grounds. This
>>>> will require effort on our part. That is not to say we must adopt all the
>>>> shiny new toys. But we can be like a Consumer Report for education, and
>>>> evaluate and measure the good the bad and the ugly of technology and its
>>>> use in the edu sphere.
>>>>
>>>> We cannot sit on our laurels and wait for someone else to decide for us
>>>> how technology will be deployed. That stance is what the mythology of
>>>> inevitable technology rests and self-perpetuates.
>>>>
>>>> We must be more tech literate, and we must be the first to coin words
>>>> and how they manifest in edu venues. What works what doesn't. I don't see
>>>> any other way to fight back and to keep control of the educational
>>>> narrative, where of course we want to hardwire zopeds, manifest and lead
>>>> critical and nourishing perezhivanie, and model by example sterling
>>>> mediated learning experiences for students and teachers.
>>>>
>>>> What other projects can there be?
>>>>
>>>> For me, this is "fighting back" because it makes the sort of shark-like
>>>> entrepreneur recede for a time (as they will always be looking for a way
>>>> into edu's tax coffers), because we are successful getting education right.
>>>>
>>>> I do not accept that entreprenuership is what took the sanctity from
>>>> teaching and learning. But that's an argument to be made. I feel it is only
>>>> one side of the argument.
>>>>
>>>> Once I had an male acquaintance tell me that one reason women are in
>>>> inferior roles is because they let this happen to them. As you might
>>>> imagine, I had a real hard time with that argument and I had to clench my
>>>> jaw to now spew various vitriol upon him. But after I thought about it, in
>>>> a narrow sense he is not wrong because not it is true that enough women in
>>>> history identified the value to struggle for rights even if they would not
>>>> see equality in their own lifetimes. There are many explanations for why
>>>> that did not happen, that are not facile to depict. But then I also had to
>>>> think of how much women's struggles have succeeded because they did decide
>>>> to not let this happen to them anymore. But now women are learning in the
>>>> US, anyway, that nothing fought for is a permanent fixture, and so we must
>>>> become resigned to the perpetual struggle for equality, as all marginalized
>>>> people must.
>>>>
>>>> So now I direct this to our context of education in the venue of online
>>>> learning. This is not an easy question, and it is not intended to
>>>> trivialize the work and efforts of many on this list, but it is instead a
>>>> question of inner reflection, or a taking of inventory of one's own life:
>>>>
>>>> How much has each of you done to take measure and fight for meaningful
>>>> education in the classroom?
>>>>
>>>> Could you have done more? Can you do more?
>>>>
>>>> Then the same for asking yourself how have you integrated technology
>>>> appropriately into your learning methods and general perezhivanie.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this might provide some further food for thought concerning
>>>> preservation on the sanctity of learning and instruction in the classroom.
>>>>
>>>> So all this is to reply to you Tom, that in short, the nefarious They
>>>> can only take control if we let them.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Annalisa
>>>>
>>>> ps please excuse all typos, which are all made on my own.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <
>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Tom Richardson <
>>>> tom.richardson3@googlemail.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:26 AM
>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: remote_online learning?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * [EXTERNAL]*
>>>> Hi Annalisa
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for providing the details of your deep and committed
>>>> background in distance / online learning. Mine is obviously shallow, which
>>>> must have triggered you and 'Robsub' somewhat.
>>>>
>>>> But my questioning is in the newer context of the Covid19 threats to
>>>> global society and the solutions being sought to extricate us from them.
>>>>
>>>> Governor Cuomo's conversation with Schmidt to examine solutions to the
>>>> problems of present coping and future emergence from the pandemic is
>>>> understandable. Two persons with power and a need to act, discuss what
>>>> technology (in its widest hard- and software aspects) has to offer.
>>>>
>>>> In a democracy we can assess the solutions they propose and shape them
>>>> to what we know to be as near to optimal for our society as possible. Your
>>>> assertion of the efficacy of our agency which Klein seems to deny,
>>>> with her politico-economic caveats.
>>>>
>>>> Schmidt has an evangelism for the potential of technology, but
>>>> expressed with such restraint - he's no zealot. He also, in the video of
>>>> the ECNY conversation with Marie-Josee Kravis, sees the lack of
>>>> 'simplicity' in the three-tier democratic system of the US. He is a CEO
>>>> with an organisation geared to problem-analysis, solution choices, and
>>>> operational capability which can be put into action without delaying
>>>> debate. He expressed no hostility to 'democracy' but as he said, it does
>>>> not work simply.
>>>>
>>>> Klein reminds us to be wary if not alarmed, not because she is
>>>> despairing (I believe), but because that direct entrepreneurial drive has
>>>> profit making as its unavoidable aim. Whatever Schmidt's humanistic
>>>> feelings, if profit doesn't result from his and his companies actions, they
>>>> will not survive. That competitive drive is also present in his aspirations
>>>> for international dominance (see his remarks on the rise of China's
>>>> technology).
>>>>
>>>> So far, the sort of distance / online learning you have worked on, has
>>>> been nested in the context of family and (normal) school life. That
>>>> normality had implicit in it human values, customs and structures, whatever
>>>> differences of class, race, gender and culture were present. The melding of
>>>> state and enterprise in a newly-developing novel (5G?)high-tech 'solution'
>>>> to mediating education presents a situation which need to be examined I
>>>> believe. And my query, in that 'Kleinian' context was looking for answers
>>>> from those, like yourself, with wide experience of previous technological
>>>> 'answers' and their implications for the results within the learner.
>>>>
>>>> I affirm, along with you, the irrepressible resistance and sheer
>>>> cantankerousness we humans bring to unjust situations. But such fighting
>>>> back will often be unsuccessful in its aims, when the need to reduce labour
>>>> time with new technology is driving events - Luddism and machine looms? Our
>>>> human drive to change and adapt, our use of our agency to create or alter
>>>> our lives must not be suppressed. But what Klein is reminding us of is just
>>>> how tilted is the balance of power - the power of the state and behind it,
>>>> the drive from the vast corporate world, for profit. Our agency is so often
>>>> undone by the arbitrary intervention of those forces.
>>>>
>>>> Those are the forces which have destroyed what you name the 'sanctity'
>>>> of teaching and learning. I would name it the basic need for those goals,
>>>> but we share it. With the need to re-invigorate just such a precious
>>>> resource, we will continue to fight like hell. Despite their mere
>>>> humanness, corporations and states at present have greater knowledge and
>>>> power than 'mere' citizens. My intervention in xmca discussion was really
>>>> to say "They're looking to take even more control of daily life.
>>>> Within academia, you can analyse how they are making such changes
>>>> happen and continue to alert the rest of us, if you fear the consequences
>>>> of their changes."
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 22:29, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>
>>>> May I, in turn, thank you for your civil disagreement? 🙂
>>>>
>>>> Online learning is one area of study in my educational background. We
>>>> looked at Second Life (SL) and tried to create a learning space there,
>>>> once. I think that there is always room for innovation, but there is always
>>>> a transaction of what one forfeits for what one gains. I was underwhelmed
>>>> by SL's prospects.
>>>>
>>>> In the heyday of SL, which as a platform is barely in a coma right now,
>>>> I'd once heard that a medical school created a giant kidney sculpture, that
>>>> students' avatars could walk around to investigate and discuss with one
>>>> another how various kidney processes worked. It was a virtual biological
>>>> fountain in the town square. I'm not sure that this learning context would
>>>> ever beat out a human anatomy class, but I found the solution interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Blackboard was another platform we used, which I detested. It was like
>>>> looking at the teacher's chalkboard through a slice of swiss cheese.
>>>> Perhaps it is more "evolved" now.
>>>>
>>>> What was interesting about SL is that one could project a sense of
>>>> place, which we know is helpful for memory and retention. There was a lot
>>>> of open space for play involved in SL, enough to make it interesting, but
>>>> it was perhaps far too much work to create viable learning environments.
>>>>
>>>> I think what we have to accept (which I feel all experienced educators
>>>> already know and feel) is that flattening all education to an online
>>>> learning space of a 2D screen, as may be experienced with grade-schoolers
>>>> during the pandemic today, is destructive to learning, *because* of
>>>> associations of place with learning.
>>>>
>>>> In a way, online learning venues that we may enjoy as adults, such as
>>>> the AUP conference on Psychology in Global Crises, is a bit like driving,
>>>> drinking, and smoking. What I mean is that one must pass a certain age in
>>>> order to decide if it is good for me or not, or that I have the hand-eye
>>>> coordination to negotiate (as with driving). Consider recent ZOOMbombing
>>>> abuses, which would make any parent want to unplug the computer and
>>>> constrain learning to books.
>>>>
>>>> We live in a time where the classroom holds no sanctity whatsoever. We
>>>> must put the sanctity back into teaching and learning.
>>>>
>>>> I still maintain that we are not powerless to debate the ways in which
>>>> the situations and environments we determine are viable to create contexts
>>>> of learning.
>>>>
>>>> I find the lack of detail in the Klein article is not by accident, but
>>>> out of convenience. There has been plenty of online learning happening for
>>>> quite sometime now. But this has largely been in adult or in college-aged
>>>> learning venues . Not with grade school.
>>>>
>>>> I do think that there has been some online tutoring venues for
>>>> grade-school kids, but I'm not certain how much that has been formally
>>>> studied. I also wonder what answers homeschooling might contribute as well,
>>>> although that venue for learning has a decidedly conservative sheen upon
>>>> it, for all the homesteading mythologies those folk abide in. I would guess
>>>> that this is form of learning is one that they would welcome, because
>>>> parents would get to pick and choose what their children learn.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think this could ever be construed as a liberal arts education,
>>>> nor would it deliver new generations of critical thinkers.
>>>>
>>>> What I feel may be a part of the pushback against these propositions is
>>>> childcare, and how parents will require this to provide for their own
>>>> families. I found this NY opinion piece insightful:
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/opinion/coronavirus-parenting-burnout.html__;!!Mih3wA!Tjf28eHnOL5f1WbeRh-7EHG8XCVoRTsqz5df6xnEngXORjztYkl0rW452WS2qbXZW8YZIw$
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/opinion/coronavirus-parenting-burnout.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article__;!!Mih3wA!SZSEYLggVkbsFhK2-SLWJT1oidlnry4UU07CU8yscHieuVTRIi4U3vkjwqo1GLIpcTD9PA$>
>>>>
>>>> It may be we witness in a shakeout for free childcare that it is a
>>>> right, not a privilege. That would be a huge boon for many. But the
>>>> pandemic may also show us a new aspect of the validity of classroom
>>>> education and why we must fight to preserve it. We use it or we lose it.
>>>>
>>>> It may usher in more critical discourse about the meaning of the
>>>> classroom to the child's learning. if only for the attentional affordances
>>>> that the classroom provides to a cluster of young minds and their teacher.
>>>>
>>>> Last, in reply to your, "I cannot grasp what is intended/visualized by
>>>> the AI/digital experts," may I remind you that Thomas Edison believed that
>>>> he could turn the classroom upside-down with the invention of film, and
>>>> that education would be significantly transformed by watching movies.
>>>> People then worried if that meant there would be no need to learn to read,
>>>> etc. We see that what Edison visualized was simply not realistic. But is it
>>>> the case that watching films in a classroom doesn't provide some facet of
>>>> learning? Yes. But has it supplanted traditional forms of learning? No.
>>>>
>>>> If teachers discover there are legitimate technological additions to
>>>> already successful evidence-based learning environments, that support
>>>> well-known learning theory, technology can be welcomed if it can be
>>>> integrated with existing models.
>>>>
>>>> If teachers do not find such technology useful, then it's just another
>>>> way to enrich the pockets of Mr. Schmidt and other technophiles, where
>>>> money will be spent but the products unused. That would be tragic and
>>>> wasteful.
>>>>
>>>> One of the aspects I do not like about the idea of grade-school online
>>>> learning environments is how it inures children to surveillance, which may
>>>> also turn off a great many kids who would prefer wandering backyards, or
>>>> riding bikes in the park, to play with friends. I don't think learning and
>>>> surveillance is a constructive combination.
>>>>
>>>> There is a lot to consider, and perhaps this is where the alarm is more
>>>> appropriately felt, because these are new challenges, and there are not yet
>>>> words to describe what we find wrong with these problems, and so we must
>>>> better ourselves by searching for the arguments and stances we can unite
>>>> behind. Perhaps we feel alarmed because we must grapple with an unknown
>>>> interloper. We are fatigued because our senses are already shredded from
>>>> what is already difficult about living in a pandemic.
>>>>
>>>> This is why I do not feel Klein's tone is helpful to us. It stands upon
>>>> a mythology that technology is inevitable. After much study and
>>>> introspection, I will never accept that reality.
>>>>
>>>> To listen to Klein is to believe that a town crier were to some and say
>>>> "They are coming take all our tools and all they will leave us are hammers
>>>> and pins."
>>>>
>>>> I just do not believe this narrative.
>>>>
>>>> We cannot give up.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a fight ahead? Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Should we rally together to protect what needs protecting? Most
>>>> definitely, yes.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Annalisa
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <
>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Tom Richardson <
>>>> tom.richardson3@googlemail.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 20, 2020 7:31 AM
>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: remote_online learning?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * [EXTERNAL]*
>>>>
>>>> Hello Annalisa
>>>> Thank you for your reactions to the Klein article. I agree with almost
>>>> none of your opinions about the content nor the form. About the capacity of
>>>> human nature for both heroic altruism and lethal self-interested behaviour
>>>> acted out by the same person, I have no doubts.
>>>>
>>>> - What I really wanted an answer to was: 'What will the environment
>>>> created for this new online learning actually consist of, in the
>>>> widest sense of the situation for the learner and the context in which such
>>>> learning takes place?'.
>>>> - What can be confidently forecast about the nature of these
>>>> changes for the *perezhivanie *of the learner, which shapes her
>>>> social being and that which she perceives as being 'normal/abnormal',
>>>> 'acceptable/unacceptable' and 'changeable/unchangeable' in her society?
>>>>
>>>> Since little practical detail is given in Klein's piece and I haven't
>>>> yet listened to the complete video from the ECNY meeting, I cannot grasp
>>>> what is intended/visualised by the AI/digital experts.
>>>> I would welcome some approach to answers to those questions if that is
>>>> within your area of expertise; if not, I am content to let it rest.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 22:07, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Tom,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for posting the link.
>>>>
>>>> I did finally get around to reading the Klein article, and it is fairly
>>>> dismal the manner that she outlines the intentions of Mr. Schmidt. That is
>>>> not to say that she is far from the mark, but we are not just unthinking
>>>> pods in the matrix, powerless to articulate the way technology is distended
>>>> into our lives.
>>>>
>>>> I think what bothers me most about the Klein article is the tone. It
>>>> reinforces through negation a fallacy that technology is inevitable (and
>>>> resistance is futile). I say this because she presumes this narrative has
>>>> become the hegemony upon which she reacts. It is far too doomsday.
>>>>
>>>> At the same time, a lot of her concerns are valid. The trawling for
>>>> power in Washington by Silicon Valley is not unknown to us.
>>>>
>>>> Yet, I also had a real hard time with her juxatposing Schmidt with Bill
>>>> Gates. Gates is working to do actual good in the world by projects such as
>>>> the humble toilet in geographic locations without waste treatment
>>>> facilities, or low water infrastructure (and we might as well include
>>>> Warren Buffet in that equation, because the lionshare of the funding
>>>> flowing into the Gates Foundation is from him. Buffet did not make his
>>>> billions through technology, unless you want to include the telephone).
>>>>
>>>> I happen to know that the Gates Foundation is funding efforts to
>>>> encourage agricultural developments in places like Columbia to grow coffee
>>>> to replace illicit crops, in order to scale down the violence that
>>>> coincides with the drug wars. These efforts are working.
>>>>
>>>> Why does she leave this out of the discussion? That's the general
>>>> problem I find with Naomi Klein, is the chicken-little-sky-is-falling
>>>> perspective.
>>>>
>>>> She seems to be similar to those trumpsters who blame the genesis of
>>>> COVID (if not upon China) upon Gates, as some strange mastermind move to
>>>> control the world.
>>>>
>>>> Tom, I think it is right and human that you responded to the bleakness
>>>> of the tone, but that doesn't mean this worldview is correct or accurate.
>>>> Technology will always be a tool for use. It is not monolithic. There is
>>>> the off button. We do still have a democracy and processes in place to
>>>> deliberate the way forward.
>>>>
>>>> As long as humans desire freedom there will always be resistance to
>>>> control systems, generating a constant search for the chinks in the armor,
>>>> or other loopholes to squeeze through. People will always use technology in
>>>> ways that were not anticipated, but just as that can be assertion can be
>>>> construed as dismal, it can also mean good news, that we always have agency
>>>> to decide how to use our tools.
>>>>
>>>> Also, one stick in the spokes that was glaring for me is that Mr.
>>>> Schmidt will never be able to address the laws for mandatory education for
>>>> disabled children with his goals for flattening the classroom into
>>>> two-dimensional online learning screens. He will never be able to walk
>>>> around that law.
>>>>
>>>> So there are many ways this "technology is inevitable" narrative simply
>>>> does not hold water for me.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this might be a little encouraging.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Annalisa
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <
>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu
>>>> >
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:46 AM
>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: remote_online learning?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * [EXTERNAL]*
>>>> Hello Tom Richardson
>>>> This topic has been the front and center in the "Re-generating
>>>> Chat Project" that has just finished its
>>>> planned two year efforts that focused on the challenges to human
>>>> development, and theories of "Development
>>>> in the Anthropcene. Two months ago, the word Anthropocene was replaced
>>>> by the code word, covid-19, a pandemic.
>>>> Both crises pose huge challenges to theories of development as well as
>>>> to actual development of huge numbers of people around the world.
>>>> The MCA-linked website, CulturalPraxis currently has a number of
>>>> essays on the challenges of this historical moment, and the opportunities.
>>>> In the United States, the crisis has deschooled society in the
>>>> most dramatic way one can imagine -- A way that literally forced
>>>> a massive re-mediation of human life. Education, the wheel house of
>>>> most members of this discussion over the years,
>>>> is now a family affair big time. Simulaneously, home-worksite relations
>>>> have been disassembled, both modes and relations of production are getting
>>>> a shock that is crumbling institutions (home, school, work,).
>>>>
>>>> We can really get the feel of Roy D'andrade's comment that doing social
>>>> science is like studying rocks in a rockslide. This rockslide moves a warp
>>>> speed and its invisible.
>>>>
>>>> Remediation of existing classroom structures is what we have been about
>>>> for 100 years.
>>>> Seems like there has never been a more appropriate time to start
>>>> providing working models of effective practices that do NOT
>>>> assume that things will return to Christmas, 2019.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for asking.
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:07 AM Tom Richardson <
>>>> tom.richardson3@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Greetings Xmca-ers
>>>> I would like to raise a question.
>>>> In the article by Naomi Klein linked below, apart from all the major
>>>> questions about our futures - personal freedom, health protection,
>>>> democratic control and the power of Big Digital Tech_AI, international
>>>> competition etc. that she raises, I wondered what from a Vygotskyan
>>>> approach to child/human development/education can / should be a reply to
>>>> these sentences on the 'home schooling' that has (or hasn't) been
>>>> happening recently:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Indeed, Schmidt has been relentless in pursuing this vision. Two weeks
>>>> after that article appeared, he described
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtAyGVuRQME__;!!Mih3wA!VRgkzssOuSyNvpVQWR2QH7dShhiXD5eWtYs2HahNwv_pKUU7G9GOQZMrzIpGsa_-KDBGFw$> the
>>>> ad-hoc home schooling programming that teachers and families across the
>>>> country had been forced to cobble together during this public health
>>>> emergency as “a massive experiment in remote learning”.
>>>>
>>>> The goal of this experiment, he said, was “trying to find out: how do
>>>> kids learn remotely? And with that data we should be able to build better
>>>> remote and distance learning tools which, when combined with the teacher …
>>>> will help kids learn better.” "
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/may/13/naomi-klein-how-big-tech-plans-to-profit-from-coronavirus-pandemic__;!!Mih3wA!Tjf28eHnOL5f1WbeRh-7EHG8XCVoRTsqz5df6xnEngXORjztYkl0rW452WS2qbVj_Ug5Ww$
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/may/13/naomi-klein-how-big-tech-plans-to-profit-from-coronavirus-pandemic__;!!Mih3wA!VRgkzssOuSyNvpVQWR2QH7dShhiXD5eWtYs2HahNwv_pKUU7G9GOQZMrzIpGsa-SnnFGDg$>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just asking
>>>> Tom Richardson
>>>> Middlesbrough UK
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> "How does newness come into the world? How is it born? Of what
>>>> fusions, translations, conjoinings is it made?" Salman Rushdie
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>> For archival resources relevant to the research of lchc.ucsd.edu.
>>>> For narrative history of LCHC: lchcautobio.ucsd.edu.
>>>> For new MCA-related website see: culturalpraxis.net
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!V4rtgUKjjshdiOxbIML_kuerunhUbHYomcCKiRVA5FkPs1WJIJwbuavyFoG613bJeWFP-g$>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200527/386f4476/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list