---
Earlier, we had harped about Harvard and raised, no doubt, some hackles and may have confused some things. So, it's time to restart the dialogue and, for now, here are some of the themes that pertain to the necessary discourse.
---
Harvard is a collecting point for the best and brightest. Who are the best and brightest? Those with mental acuity who, unfortunately, are not plagued by innumeracy (poor dears, those numerants, or poor us for being subjected to the outcomes). As such, they (not only those from the big H) have led us all astray through the mis-use of mathematics.
That is, they see the field in an operational sense leading, of course, to exploitation as motivation. Ah, our beloved mathematics, trashed.
Aside: What talent determines membership within the best-and-brightest set? Well, some of this is measurable using standardized tests, as we have seen develop (note the early interest by the U.S. Army -- there are analogs galore) in the past century or so. Some of the talent may (can) not be (subsumed under a metrical ontology); for instance, we see plenty high scorers who flunk out of life (but, then, we all know just how complex this issue is). Why the difference in scores (or what appears to be shown by scores)? Acuity was mentioned above. But, there would be energy, to boot (as in stamina to finish -- and, as well, trying to answer how perpetual motion is not assumed -- what? think about it!); also, patterns, and recognition thereof, are an important fact. It's an open-ended issue, folks (we'll get back to that and what it might (does) mean). And, preparation, as in S.A.T. tutoring, does NOT overcome innate issues (remember, as said above, that which is measurable is founded upon the very mathematics that is being mis-used -- so, suspicion is in order).
---
The image came from BING which likes to put out an interesting bit every day with comments. This particular one celebrated the 375th of the big H and got more of the blogger's attention than usual. What's this about the H-bomb (Lord, what does that smell like?)? Perhaps, their opinion is that anyone who doesn't bow in their direction is too stupid to know better (or something similar -- these types of things (egoism) are inherent and inflict even the, supposedly, best-and-brightest types -- many of whom never scored high on any type of ethics scale).
---
12/16/2011 -- Elizabeth Warren changes the opinion, somewhat; imagine, what if we got beyond situational ethics?
So given how higher-order education has kissed the behinds of the moolah'd, motivations related more to greed than not come to fore in those who pursue such achievements. What games are played by those who are possible candidates in order for them to be even considered by the institution? And, folks, not being accepted there does not make one a failure. Far from it.
Oh yes, being in Cambridge raises one's IQ (Institutional truths?)?
---
Why is greed mentioned? Harvard decided to leave the Lord's work and become secular (and elitist). From whence, then, will come any direction? But, have we not seen others (meaning, of course, non-big-H) who tell us that they are serving the Lord and then founder under their greed, too?
Aside: Lord? Yes, early on it was that One about Whom the Protestants (even amongst themselves) and Catholics fought. Then, it was (and still is) the One at the core of the battle between the Muslims and the not. ... But, there are many more from which to choose, from the modern view as expounded by big H. In fact, that there is NONE is considered (without any rational support) by many. Why that assertion? Modern theorem proving techniques show that Anselm's view on the matter reduces to one premise. Does that not say that it's an either-or choice? Yet, the blogger mentions the Lord. Why so? Again, given the basic choice, one can pick what label to place on that which is beyond what one knows (even in the sense of the total). Why not 'Lord' for this reason? There are many, many connotative attachments (call them memes, if you would) that can make it more interesting and emotionally appealing. Except, there will be those who would prefer anti-Lord. You see, has the big-H ever followed through reviewing the consequences of their secularism especially since it has bled over to our culture and times (leading to massive indentured-ness at the personal, institutional, and national levels)? Another aspect to this is whether or not the Lord is embodied. Some have a long tradition of saying so (too long to mention). What 'Lord' is there for the best and brightest (see above reference to moolah'd)? Too, whether it's known or not, the Lord is there!
---
Again, as we have said before, Harvard can extract itself from its mire by opening up to fostering the autodidact (perhaps, even pushing public service). Of course, their argument is that their students are self-directed. But, we want them to look at the talents beyond those amenable to numerant manipulation and to help these progress as needed to save humanity.
Again, they'll say that they do this in a sense. We'll see, if they can show this.
---
One has to ask, are not some of the best and brightest out there with the OWSs?
---
Now, when you consider the roles of the aristocratic over the complete history of us (the people, who else), what were these roles and how did they get to play them? Well, the types were smarter (see above about the best and brightest), in a way (or several ways). They were dumber in many others (this deals with being which is something still to be discussed). Yes, particularly the royals. What we have now is the means to measure to try to identify these types early on.
A perpetuating scheme, at the least. Then, we pave their way. As the crap of the recent downturn shows (and the big pockets of those who let loose the young'uns without supervision -- heck, the big pockets cannot even supervise themselves, how could we expect them to help others to be better? --- mind you), money as value is not much more than crap (who will lead toward a proper definition of wealth?).
---
One could picture a world in which the Harvard area would be where the dynamics related to those who rise (or can rise) come into play, even doing so in ways that we have not thought of. Are we talking sandbox?
---
Too, as we would learn things, we would improve situations such as preventing things like the most recent downturn that came about from the gaming of the idiots/geniuses (yes, computational mathematics is at fault, for one thing, since it empowered the a**es) in the finance world (our, as in OUR, beans). There are so many other ways that we will be at this for awhile.
---
Yes, the real princes and princesses (of all types) would be in that New England area having gathered from around the world. Highly endowed responsibility, indeed, would be accepted by the institution.
Actually, one could argue that it could not be replicated elsewhere (ye olde country?), except that we don't want to deny that internationalism will be imperative at some point (before the little green men show up?).
Remarks:
12/16/2011 -- Elizabeth Warren changes the opinion, somewhat; imagine, what if we got beyond situational ethics?
12/05/2011 -- It's interesting how idiotic the supposedly smart can be. The real issue: the failings of an idiot have a small influence; the failings of the 'real idiots' has wide impact (and, in so many ways). Somehow, we muddle through.
10/18/2011 -- How many of the 99% end up at this institution? Not fair? We know for a fact that not all of the 1% are related to the place. By the way, it's not always that ratio (1, 99); the ratio's use is effective in stirring up the pot, though.
10/17/2011 -- Finished the text on this old topic and added links (there may be more).
Modified: 12/16/2011
0 comments:
Post a Comment