Page 1 of 1

Get things going again

Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:24 am
by mgormez
Hi,

It is too quiet for me. What can it get going again here, is it an idea to setup a Wiki?

Re: Get things going again

Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:38 am
by bonsai
mgormez wrote:It is too quiet for me. What can it get going again here, is it an idea to setup a Wiki?


It sure is quiet. Anyone would have thought that everyone has gone on holiday.

Bonsai

Re: Get things going again

Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:09 am
by Matthew
mgormez wrote:is it an idea to setup a Wiki?

Hi Mike,
It seems pretty up to date already. Have you seen this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Economic_Science

Re: Get things going again

Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:23 pm
by mgormez
Matthew wrote:
mgormez wrote:is it an idea to setup a Wiki?

Hi Mike,
It seems pretty up to date already. Have you seen this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Economic_Science


Howdy Matthew,

Hey, looks good! Hadn't seen it in a while but it was screaming for an update. I know how important wikipedia is as I get the most visitors directed from their pages on other subjects.

Mmm.. Weird but I just see the page is lacking a direct link the Townend report.

Re: Get things going again

Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:04 pm
by Matthew
mgormez wrote:I just see the page is lacking a direct link the Townend report.

I've never tried it but I think it's pretty easy to append things on.

Re: Get things going again

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 7:50 am
by a different guest
Matthew wrote:
mgormez wrote:I just see the page is lacking a direct link the Townend report.

I've never tried it but I think it's pretty easy to append things on.


Which I guess is partly why wik is not necessarily well regarded as an authoritive source of info :|

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:22 am
by Leontius
Hello all,

As I said in my posting regarding Julian Capper, the SES exerted significant influence on the continuous process of generating the academic and cultural ethos of St James during my time there. 1986 - 2000.

The evidence in support of this claim is overwhelming and incontrovertible. I recognise that such a claim is neither new nor controversial but I am seeking a meaningful and unassailble basis from which to deepen my understanding of the relationship between St. James and the SES during this period. I want a plausible explanation for the formulation, propagation, and evolution of the bases from which the school's ethos was continuously generated. I want to understand the strategies adopted - consciously or not - for its implementation and how those strategies translated into my experience.

I have stressed the continuity of the processes because the object of my investigation is the continuum of my own experience. In other words, I'm not interested in the agenda-led trench warfare for the no-man's-land of a universally accredited version of "the truth" of St. James. I was inculcated with that method of critical analysis at school and, so far, my experience of its application has been consistently negative. It seems to occlude rather than illuminate but with the insidious twist of appearing to do the opposite.

I hope I haven't offended anyone with these remarks. I only wish to say that as I become increasingly aware just how bizarre my experience of St. James and the SES was, the more I realise that I have to genuinely understand it for myself. As welcome as they are, official apologies or the findings of the finest legal minds of our time will never provide an adequate explanation or description of how it was for me. It is likely that my investigation will not yield direct answers to the questions in the second paragraph but they seem to me to be good to think with at this stage. But I lack experience and fully expect manifold re-workings of investigative direction in pursuit of my goal.

At long last the point: How am I going to go about it? How might I analyse the recollections of the people involved in the specific events and systems which governed my experience?

Most importantly, what are people's thoughts on different types of dialectical approach I might adopt when I speak to people? Spanish-Inquisition-soft-cushions-and-comfy-chairs style probably won't work but then neither will the rapier filibustering of the Paxman. Maybe a “Richard and Judy” deep and meaningful but strictly brain-lite approach?

Thoughts anyone?


Best,

Leontius