Subject: Re: Childwrite Project Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 02:57:27 -0800 From: John McPherson CC: win@thebestweb.com, tice@writeme.com, e7750010@tsai.es, Frank@gerryts.demon.co.uk, GeoNelson@aol.com, jheflin@mail.portup.com, kuene@cts.com, anakin@dur.mindspring.com, mcole@napanet.net, tazz4@ix.netcom.com, mjoyner@botree.com, RickAshby@aol.com, straveca@erols.com, Swcgluck@aol.com I received another response from the "call for stories" I posted on the general-semantics list, and below I'll attach the response I made to it and the others I've received thus far. I know I haven't yet written any stories, but I need to get clear on just what it is I'd like to say, and then I'll be in a better position to say it. Already I've gotten clearer on a few things ... when my clarity grows to a certain point, I expect a story will pop out ... and then another ... and perhaps another ... :-) ===================================================================== Chris Turner wrote: >IMO, three things that kids should be taught that I was not (as a 'child'): I'll take the opportunity now to point out a possible intensionality regarding the term 'child'. Young human beings tend to grow/develop continuously throughout their 'childhood', so a typical 'child' of four is a very different being than a 'child' of ten, and both significantly different than a 'child' of sixteen. Extensionally, we change and develop, 'physically and mentally', and yet I've noticed what seems to be an intensional assumption on the part of many people, often institutionalized, that '(nearly) all "children" are essentially alike' and that at some magical threshold (say age eighteen) they suddenly 'are adults'. It occurs to me that a more extensional conception of childhood/adulthood can be represented via a fuzzy-logic membership function. I wonder in what ways implementing this simple more-accurate idea might lead to structurally/functionally more "appropriate" interactions, institutions, 'attitudes', etc. | ^ * | non-el 'growth' * | * | * | * | * | * | * *-----|---------|----------------|---------------------------- 4 9 18 years --> Regarding your three points below, it seems to me I might offer a general abstraction drawn from them: "Let's try to teach kids how to live more responsibly and happily, in all major aspects of their lives". 1. How to make goals and plan for the future: [...] It should be emphasized to them that the whole point [...] is to provide them with powerful _tools_ to better enable them [...] Here, we might point out the map-like character of 'goals' and 'plans'. To be effective, these maps of desired futures have to "be realistic", i.e., conform to what we're pretty sure is the way things work, while realizing that "no map is ever the territory" (our dreams are one thing, and working to achieve something-like-them is quite another) and that "no map ever manages to cover all of the territory" (the best laid plans of mice and men may not actually work out exactly the way we want, but on the whole it does seem much better actually to have a plan/goal and to work towards it) ... also, a neat tie-in with Murphy's Law can be brought in in this connection. 2. Teach kid the fundamentals of money and personal finance: [...] Money is primarily a tool for creating more money Well, I prefer to think of it more as a tool for obtaining those (extensional) goods and services that sustain and enhance our lives in the present, and probably also will in the 'future'. Realizing that unforeseen things sometimes happen (best laid plans...), it makes sense to put aside some of these 'tools' "just in case" (e.g., saving for a rainy day). Much more detail can be brought in regarding "money", such as the notion that it's kind of a measure or representation of the work/thinking/effort/ organizing-ability/etc. of others that has been valued by someone else. In general, if all interactions have been 'fair' (freely entered into and accepted by all concerned), then a quantity of "money" tends to represent not only a quantity of goods and services that can be obtained with it by the owner, but it also tends to represent a certain quantity of non-elementalistic effort on the part of the owner which has been significantly valued by someone else. Of course, this explanation needs to be radically extensionalized to 'intuitively' appeal to young children, but it could be as simple as "if you scratch my back for me, I'll scratch yours for you". essential in their plans for their future, not for running out and spending on 'toys' at the first opportunity. Well, "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" :-). It occurs to me that a more satisfying life, for many (okay, for _me_ :-), requires planning a budget that takes into account all things of significant importance to me, such as "saving for a rainy day" and buying myself a toy now and then ... in other words, I see your point and pretty much agree, though it may be more politic to assure the child that toys are part of the plan :-). 3. Somehow -- I won't suggest how here -- kids out to be taught about human sexuality Oh, I can't resist! One of the funnier-to-me Monty Python skits involved a teacher (played by John Cleese) demonstrating, extensionally, "sex" to his pupils ... he brought in his female assistant and proceeded to lecture the boys on the topic whilst actually carrying out said actions with his assistant, in flagrante delicto, as it were :-). No, I'm not necessarily advocating such extensional definitions of matters sexual, but the joke was too good to pass up. :-) and the responsibilities, child-rearing/ etc., that go with it. Yes. I'd imagine that the need to know about human sexuality tends to become "unavoidable" by the time young human beings hit puberty. We've got to make sure that some measure of 'reason' gets through before the hormones take over and blow reason out the window! I've thought about this topic, and it seems to me that a "minimally reasonable" mapping of sex _must_ include at least that: sex feels great and that's why most people do it, (heterosexual) sex might result in the girl's pregnancy and there is _a lot_ of stuff to cover in that regard, there are some very nasty diseases that (unfortunately) are given and caught by having unprotected sex, and of course that if one of the people doesn't want the sex, _STOP_! I believe that much of this can be extensionalized into simple/descriptive terms, and any stories written addressing this would probably be for a very specific age/development range (e.g., say twelve to fifteen, if that's the usual range for the advent of puberty). It is not beneficial to our children's self-esteem to be taught that 'sex' is 'shameful', 'sinful', 'dirty', 'unmentionable', etc., and that they should be 'ashamed' of their own. They need to understand it realistically so that they can manage it responsibly. I whole-heartedly agree, though I do have to wonder how ready the world (well, western civilization? well, America :-) is for such an enlightened view on this topic. It occurs to me that in this territory, 'emotional signal reactions' tend to run rampant! But ... maybe it's possible to write matter-of-fact disarmingly-honest and straightforward stories which tactfully and diplomatically bring up all these major facts/issues in carefully non-threatening ways, and letting readers draw their own 'conclusions', which of course will likely be based in part on their upbringings. Max Sandor wrote: It may make sense to limit contributions from the 'gs' side, tho, to basic semantical issues like the 'word is not the thing', or something like what I wrote just today for 'The Little Purple Notebook On How to Escape From This Universe' about 'Negations, Opposites, and Complements' (http://transmillennium.net/pnohteftu/ch28.html ) Hmmm ... I couldn't access the mentioned web page, but I wonder how much we need to "limit" our 'g.s.' contributions. G.s., it seems to me, is profoundly far reaching. It can be applied anywhere that humans perceive, conceive, plan, think about, notice, speak/write, listen/read, imagine, etc. ... in brief, almost everywhere in human experience. I don't think I've yet come across a topic or aspect of experience on which I could say nothing general-semantical. Certainly those of us choosing to write stories consciously focussing on g.s. might stick to the usual principles (the word is not the thing, the map is not the territory, every map is produced by a map-maker and so is drawn from his/her perspective, we live our lives on the wordless levels of experience, etc.), but it seems to me that we have unusual freedom in that we can put-in our two cents on nearly _any_ topic :-). If Chris wants to write stories which impart better maps of the territories of living more responsibly and happily, perhaps from a g.s.-inspired perspective, more power to him I say! Of course, at some point those most interested will need to start writing some actual stories instead of only talking about writing stories ... Richard Plourde wrote: Two forms of pathological uncertainty that I can think of might get represented by Chris's assertion, "The statement 'I know' is a contradiction in itself" -- a fearful assertion of lack of confidence in facing the world, How about replacing the pathological statement with something like "I kind-of know" or "I know well enough to get the job done, even though I can't ever know it 'perfectly' " ? or in a very different form, "What we think is not what goes on therefore there are no experts and one person's opinion is as good, or as bad, as another's" -- a smug and arrogant assertion of the virtue of ignorance. sounds like 'post-modernism' to me :-). I'd suggest a replacement like "what we 'think' can never be _exactly_ what is going on, but we can know _something_ about what's going on, and some of us who look deeply into a particular happening can know _much_ more about it than the others who don't". A *healthy* uncertainty, on the other hand, would concentrate not only on the difference between map and territory, but also on the differences between maps in the degree to which they have a similarity to the territory. A poor map fails routinely; a good map fails rarely. Choose good maps, but stand ready for the occasional failure of even good maps. Yes! Now, please state that in very descriptive / sensory-level terms, toss in a few examples that you think kids might enjoy, build a story around the descriptions and examples, no matter how "rudimentary" or unpolished, and send it straightaway to the folks in the Childwrite project (I can pass it on if you wish) who are eager to receive any and all stories you wish to write ... general-semantically yours, -- John McPherson (jmgs@lumina.ucsd.edu) * Host, General Semantics mailing list (send posts to gs@lumina.ucsd.edu, admin to gs-request@lumina.ucsd.edu) ftp://lumina.ucsd.edu/pub/.../gs_dir/000_gs.html "General semantics ... an idea whose time was bound (to come ;-)."