C-129. R-path: an R-curriculum
A developmental theory (aka philosophy) is implicit, if not always explicit, in how we think about and carry out the educational function (App. IV). We have made much of Realization as such a developmental perspective (App. XIX; C-111) … for the problem solving capability we need in order to improve our quality of life (0). So what does Realization say about the educational curriculum?
The first thing it says is, “Don’t fold the fan!” Which is to say, do not fold the R-transform’s two dimensions (C-108, C-111, C-122, C-135) of Valuation and Realization together so as to see Realization particulars matched to Valuation particulars … such that the curriculum becomes a more or less limited cafeteria of more or less valuable subjects and skills to be acquired (aka learned). (With problems to follow: “industry” and “deportment” as sole behavioral concerns; over-emphasized STEM- type salients [0:Sp; C-87]; and piece-meal instructional reforms.)
Contemporary education’s curriculum, whether formal or informal, and at whatever level, comprises high-valued cross-sections of that Realization which has so far been attained. Not especially well integrated either, because the Grasp of Realization’s path is weak (e.g., “Learn as much as you can about [this or that];” “Model yourself on this or that successful and/or respected person”). We emphasize what we value (e.g., “from [particular] experience[s]”) … and not what we (still) need to Realize – i.e., needed functionality. Which is to say: V/R>1 (C-122). And, the R-transform (C-111) has not been invoked (C-135).
R-Sense is forfeit. Accord with the Nature of Things (III; C-9) is violated. Development, individual and community, is crippled. Public education is thwarted, because public development is itself shortchanged, deprived of resources devoted to its Realization.
That this cafeteria-style approach does not work all that well is painfully evident … to students, teachers, parents, employers and policy makers. Even though it must seem to have been designed to please them! (Well, not all of them … just all but some inquisitive students [e.g., “What if…?”], some teachers not satisfied to be instructors [e.g., “Let’s try…”] and parents concerned about how well prepared for life their children are. All three are looking ahead … but unaided by the behavioral principles of imperatives and requisites (Topics VI-XI), the needed functionality, of the Nature of Things – and unaided by new technologies designed to advance them functionally.)
What might an R-curriculum suggest as needed components? Components relevant at every level of education, in formal mode or another. Starting in pre-K, for example, with R-block technology, abetted by an R-primer (C-128) to introduce and help organize the needed components (App. XIX).
In brief:
R-1. Collisions: what they tell us – i.e., needed functionality (III) – taking steps to avoid and arrange collisions, the step’s Involve Grasp interdependency (C-105), whose capacities and capabilities fuel step making and taking … to improve viability and quality of life;
R-2. Step capabilities: to arrange and avoid collisions – their development and dynamics (V, XI; C-71), extending the Involve Grasp interdependency from moving to minding … overcoming a simple reactive form of behavior, but needing ever more functionality to control self and/or situation (C-115);
R-3. Composing structures: Body and/or Step molecules (III: “Life: the double crystal”) for problem solving – e.g., technologies (App. VII) … using cognitive and communicative capabilities developed in R-2 to give minding more (C-105: Involve Grasp) compositional strength;
R-4. Functional aspects of evolved and/or developed (i.e., composed) structures (C-97, C-114) – assessing how well a behavioral entity works, in its process and in its products (C-16, C-133).
Thus, for example, R-1 suggests a concern for primary and tertiary Reads and Tells in addition to the secondary R&T of the “3R’s.” (Primary read: What do collisions tell us about what is called for? Tertiary read: What is the difference between a story and a history?)
R-2 suggests a concern for developing behavioral strength, balance and interdependency with respect to needed capabilities – emphasizing not just good choices but also preparedness for problem solving. (What minding resources can we, do we bring to problem solving?)
R-3 suggests a concern for Adept, to be able to compose solutions, in addition to Adopt (as choice among solutions) and Adapt as behavioral strategies. This is art in the most general sense, whether exemplified in making friends, making conversation, writing and speaking, making teams work, making communities work … whatever.
R-4 suggests a concern for what has been left behind (in this World of Possibility!) -- if we settle for the muddle of things as they have been and/or are (C-114), if we settle for learning and don’t invest in all of knowing (C-93). We have progressed beyond built-in mere reactions to what we encounter … but not nearly far enough, not as long as we have unsolved problems and solutions that do some harm -- and sometimes more harm than good (0:Ps).
(c) 2015 R.F. Carter
The first thing it says is, “Don’t fold the fan!” Which is to say, do not fold the R-transform’s two dimensions (C-108, C-111, C-122, C-135) of Valuation and Realization together so as to see Realization particulars matched to Valuation particulars … such that the curriculum becomes a more or less limited cafeteria of more or less valuable subjects and skills to be acquired (aka learned). (With problems to follow: “industry” and “deportment” as sole behavioral concerns; over-emphasized STEM- type salients [0:Sp; C-87]; and piece-meal instructional reforms.)
Contemporary education’s curriculum, whether formal or informal, and at whatever level, comprises high-valued cross-sections of that Realization which has so far been attained. Not especially well integrated either, because the Grasp of Realization’s path is weak (e.g., “Learn as much as you can about [this or that];” “Model yourself on this or that successful and/or respected person”). We emphasize what we value (e.g., “from [particular] experience[s]”) … and not what we (still) need to Realize – i.e., needed functionality. Which is to say: V/R>1 (C-122). And, the R-transform (C-111) has not been invoked (C-135).
R-Sense is forfeit. Accord with the Nature of Things (III; C-9) is violated. Development, individual and community, is crippled. Public education is thwarted, because public development is itself shortchanged, deprived of resources devoted to its Realization.
That this cafeteria-style approach does not work all that well is painfully evident … to students, teachers, parents, employers and policy makers. Even though it must seem to have been designed to please them! (Well, not all of them … just all but some inquisitive students [e.g., “What if…?”], some teachers not satisfied to be instructors [e.g., “Let’s try…”] and parents concerned about how well prepared for life their children are. All three are looking ahead … but unaided by the behavioral principles of imperatives and requisites (Topics VI-XI), the needed functionality, of the Nature of Things – and unaided by new technologies designed to advance them functionally.)
What might an R-curriculum suggest as needed components? Components relevant at every level of education, in formal mode or another. Starting in pre-K, for example, with R-block technology, abetted by an R-primer (C-128) to introduce and help organize the needed components (App. XIX).
In brief:
R-1. Collisions: what they tell us – i.e., needed functionality (III) – taking steps to avoid and arrange collisions, the step’s Involve Grasp interdependency (C-105), whose capacities and capabilities fuel step making and taking … to improve viability and quality of life;
R-2. Step capabilities: to arrange and avoid collisions – their development and dynamics (V, XI; C-71), extending the Involve Grasp interdependency from moving to minding … overcoming a simple reactive form of behavior, but needing ever more functionality to control self and/or situation (C-115);
R-3. Composing structures: Body and/or Step molecules (III: “Life: the double crystal”) for problem solving – e.g., technologies (App. VII) … using cognitive and communicative capabilities developed in R-2 to give minding more (C-105: Involve Grasp) compositional strength;
R-4. Functional aspects of evolved and/or developed (i.e., composed) structures (C-97, C-114) – assessing how well a behavioral entity works, in its process and in its products (C-16, C-133).
Thus, for example, R-1 suggests a concern for primary and tertiary Reads and Tells in addition to the secondary R&T of the “3R’s.” (Primary read: What do collisions tell us about what is called for? Tertiary read: What is the difference between a story and a history?)
R-2 suggests a concern for developing behavioral strength, balance and interdependency with respect to needed capabilities – emphasizing not just good choices but also preparedness for problem solving. (What minding resources can we, do we bring to problem solving?)
R-3 suggests a concern for Adept, to be able to compose solutions, in addition to Adopt (as choice among solutions) and Adapt as behavioral strategies. This is art in the most general sense, whether exemplified in making friends, making conversation, writing and speaking, making teams work, making communities work … whatever.
R-4 suggests a concern for what has been left behind (in this World of Possibility!) -- if we settle for the muddle of things as they have been and/or are (C-114), if we settle for learning and don’t invest in all of knowing (C-93). We have progressed beyond built-in mere reactions to what we encounter … but not nearly far enough, not as long as we have unsolved problems and solutions that do some harm -- and sometimes more harm than good (0:Ps).
(c) 2015 R.F. Carter
S