Hi Joe, The essay is from an in-house publication (University of Maine at Farmington). I cite it on my CV as a non-refereed paper: Quackenbush, S. W. & Maybury, K. K. (2016). "The God who appears": An inductive-humanistic approach to undergraduate education. *Teaching Matters: Essays by Faculty of the University of Maine at Farmington *(Vol. 2). ~ Steve Q. On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Thanks Steve for the chapter. Can you provide the full citation > information, as I'd like to include some of these ideas in a larger report > I'm preparing on the subject as we work through our curriculum review? > Thank you kindly! -Joe > > > Dr. Joseph H. Michalski > > Associate Academic Dean > > King’s University College at Western University > > 266 Epworth Avenue > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=RH7ydcyM21HOB-qECQ9KNa7LwcAGONYbDm1Qzirl3HQ&s=sflJ16GzV0GJ2FC_O6yvVuS0AryFtj5e6z71KN2ExGw&e=> > > London, Ontario, Canada > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=RH7ydcyM21HOB-qECQ9KNa7LwcAGONYbDm1Qzirl3HQ&s=sflJ16GzV0GJ2FC_O6yvVuS0AryFtj5e6z71KN2ExGw&e=> > N6A 2M3 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=RH7ydcyM21HOB-qECQ9KNa7LwcAGONYbDm1Qzirl3HQ&s=sflJ16GzV0GJ2FC_O6yvVuS0AryFtj5e6z71KN2ExGw&e=> > > Tel: (519) 433-3491 > > Fax: (519) 963-1263 > > Email: [log in to unmask] > > ______________________ > > *ei*π + 1 = 0 > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask] > edu> on behalf of Steven Quackenbush <[log in to unmask]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 5, 2018 10:17 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: safetyism > > Excellent blog post. > > I'd like to share the attached paper that offers a possible response to > the problems raised by Lukianoff and Haidt. The argument relies heavily on > Paul Tillich's notion of "courage" (which our education system does little > to foster these days). > > ~ Steve Q. > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Lonny Meinecke <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > Thank you Gregg, nice blog share. This is a big issue lately - it seems to > swing to the left as a plethora of protection industries. That's all about > oversensitizing children until they are more suspicious than curious, and > that they have the right to hear only their side of the issue - but how can > they thrive if they do not take educational risks? How can they learn to > honor others if they refuse to hear other points of view? (And which make > you wonder if this is just another form of bullying/predation in the guise > of insulation from verbal harm). > > But it also swings to the right by suggesting exposure to self-harm (or > allo-castigation) builds character. This worldview is one we barely > survived in the 30s and 40s and it did not work out so well. I have spent > time with folks overwhelmed by bullying and trauma. Even battered rocks at > the seashore do not grow back. Exposure does not go away. One does not get > over lost trust; it takes a concerted effort to rebuild it by those who > robbed it from you, not those who never disillusioned you. Arguing for > exposure to verbal harm (or the right to cause it) is a 40's justification > that the strong should inherit the Earth. > > My generation grew up having to survive bullies in the approaches to the > schoolyard. No one cared. Adults thought it "built character" (rather than > creating a generation of disillusioned children, compelled to attend but > denied protection). The evidential support of the arms and education > industries over the survival of American school children tells me this > situation has not budged. We honor education; that's wonderful. But we do > not honor children anywhere near as much. Their education (fitness for > industry) comes before them. > > I love that you mention the great need for unstructured, unsupervised > play. This too is how I see education proper; it should be a delight to > investigate and share knowledge our forebears have been afraid to > investigate. Yet too, sedulous play needn't be preparation for an > aggressive, insensitive human imago stage. As Panksepp suggested, social > play requires tender boundaries too - or no one will play with you again. I > see this as extremely true for learners giddy to learn, only to be afraid > to learn because it hurts and no one seems to care (e.g.. being forced to > dissect animals as a child and being scoffed at if you refuse to do harm on > command). > > Enduring harm should not be a virtuous trait we nurture in our growing > children so they can compare verbal and psychological scars in nursing > homes as they wait for their impoverished and impatient offspring to divvy > up their lifelong treasures. Children and young adults should be *excited* > to attend seminars. Instead, they are worried they will be subjected to the > verbal right to permanently damage their hungry ears, just so folks can > compete for popularity as traveling lecturers. > > But this isn't what i really wanted to say. > > If I may? I'd like to just "cast this into the assembly" ("-ject" means > "cast" - it seems to capture this need for us to ask others when we need > others to help us think further than we can). It's about what concept creep > really seems to be. Would you ToKers with so many unusual and amazing > ideas, do me the kindness of being open to an unusual idea? > > Maybe our thoughts and our words are not products of our superior makeup? > Maybe thoughts are intrusive because they are always intrusive. Maybe we > are not our thoughts? (Maybe we are something better, but these thoughts > steal all our attention). > > My ongoing thesis asks the following questions. What if mental activity is > a separate species, not some product of our integral evolution? What if we > simply host mental phenomena, like any less commensal form of symbiotic > survival? What if we do no produce thoughts, but are more like animals > being farmed by their dominant mental phenomena? > > Then these weird things we try so hard to justify begin to make sense. > Then "we" are not defending our right to hurt each other with hurtful > words, because our *ideas* are defending their right to do what they please > (as they struggle to exist inside and among us). > > Then this is not some exceptional psychological concept called "concept > creep" (*our* failure to regulate *our* thoughts and words and acts). Now > it is a very standard scientific concept... a species-wide over reliance on > internal phenomena which makes us lose control of what we spawned inside. > > Then these are not *our* thoughts... because we are their tools,they are > not our tools. Guns are just like that. We defend the right to own them, > and wonder why we can't control their use. But where else in nature do > species make things they cannot control? We defend the right to think or > say whatever we like (all well and good), but then we become frustrated we > cannot control what we have thought or said (not so good). And living > children are begging us to think again before we say things we cannot > un-say. > > Like any cunning invention, thoughts wield us just as much as we think we > wield them. Here's an example: if I walk into a room and see a potential > weapon but have no idea what it is, is it a weapon yet? No. I have to know > it's a weapon. I will not reach in anger for a thing that cannot facilitate > my expression of anger. > > Another example: If I walk into a room and there is a sign whose words are > meant to hurt me lastingly (even if i never come back to that room) can > they hurt me if I am illiterate? No. Words only hurt us if we can read. It > is a trade off. It is not a win-win to learn to read. You may learn like > Fredrick Douglass that those you look up to look down on you, and wish you > had never learned to read. Because now what you held so dear hurts you > instead. > > A simple tenet: What I know will benefit me (when I am in charge of it) > only as much as I allow it to injure me (when I am not in charge of it). > > Whenever we invent a new technology, we are first unduly afraid. Then > later we look back at how "silly" we behaved in light of what that > invention has harvested (TV, social media). Each concept we create ends up > biting us in the rear. > > Why is that? Why don't we see our planet is dying? Why don't we see how > more and more children are collapsing inside, from mental issues all > centered around their failure to thrive - in a futile struggle for a > biological species to leave its biology behind and become pure intellect? > Instead we cheer in our assemblies at the extinction of nature and > childhood, and how superior we are to our dying planet, and how > oversensitive our children are to the impending death of their world. > > Thank you for this topic Gregg - you never disappoint :) > --Lonny > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: > write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] > or click the following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > > > > > -- > Steven W. Quackenbush, Ph.D., Chair > Division of Psychology & Human Development > University of Maine, Farmington > Farmington, ME 04938 > (207) 778-7518 > [log in to unmask] > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the > following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A= > 1 > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the > following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A= > 1 > -- Steven W. Quackenbush, Ph.D., Chair Division of Psychology & Human Development University of Maine, Farmington Farmington, ME 04938 (207) 778-7518 [log in to unmask] ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1