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