Discussions with TB - a dedicated thread

[a different guest]

well SO many people are discussing things with TB, and all those threads are veering off-topic at an alarming rate - so how about we have a special thread for discussing things with TB. That should keep things tidy.

Now TB, you are a clever little vegemite - all you have to do is quote (in full) the post you are answering from another thread, and then answer it HERE!

Simple eh?

[lowpass]

As an adult and parent, and well versed in moral judgements, I now have a different outlook.

And your outlook now according to your own words is that these children were not "overly" traumatised by the sexual abuse they endured? You use the verb "overly". What degree of trauma caused by the abuse was visible to you? Please be specific.Do you believe children are damaged and traumatised by sexual abuse?

My school comparisons are 1st world examples only, including my personal experiences.

Incorrect, you wrote,

These are 1st world examples, how about visiting a school during those times in some 3rd world countries, like Ethiopia?

You originally wrote,

"Is someone going to tell me that a comparison between 1st and 3rd world children is not valid?"

Yes.The point in question is your comparisons validity (relevance) to our discussion about a school in London. The extreme differences in politics and human situations between UK and the 3rd world renders it invalid.

I do think that although the brutality at St James did have some differences with other schools in the UK, my basic point remains that many first world schools gave punishment in ways now considered immoral.

This is not in dispute. The two parts of your statement have no obvious connection.
The difference are what made St James unique from other schools, 3rd world or otherwise.

Deceit, anxiety and stress might be questionable ways to educate adults and children, but that is not the same as asking if they exist in educational systems. If you are not aware of these happening in other schools and institutions does this mean they do not exist? What if they do exist, but you have never considered it?

The solipsistic -If you are not aware how do you know it doesn't exist- type of argument is in this context kindergarden stuff .I could counter every statement you make with this form of reply. Didn't any of the Plato stick from SES?

let me say that 'beating for not meditating' and 'stop talking' are of course different. They do however apply the same principles of conforming minds to certain imposed standards.

And what is your point drawn from this reductive comparison, and what is it's relevance? It is the misuse of corporal punishment that is important, and the issue under discussion. Amputation of limbs and community service are both ways of dealing with stealing. To state that they are similar forms of "discipline' and apply "the same principles of conforming minds" "looking for common ground" while not incorrect from a remote abstract standpoint is to say nothing useful to the topic whatsoever and to move the discussion to sophist philosophing. Have you not noticed how you consistently veer off track?

Not having personally attended St James, I can only infer what it was like by the stories on this forum.

Despite admitting you have absolutely no experience of St James in the 70s you infer from these "stories" that past pupils are guilty of creating 'monsters where none existed'.

I did not intend to compare 3rd world schools to St James, if I did so, I apologise, I was over enthusiatic.

"Over enthusiastic?" your euphemism for being "in error'?

I take it from this comment that you have visited 3rd world countries and have seen nothing to compare to St James. You mentioned earlier that they were not comparable.

Thus I would not compare. it's very simple.
Once again the point is not about measuring brutality but about the redundancy of your analogies. (As an aside it is very tiresome and demeaning to developing countries to be constantly held up as an example for everything that is brutal bad and negative in the world. There are a lot of positive aspects that seldom get attention, and you may be surprised, a lot of good schools.)

You were in SES for twenty years, were you ever a tutor? Did you lead groups?

[a different guest]

just pointing out to TB that NYC also has questions to him that she would like to see answered here.

where are you TB?

and don't forget the my questions either!

[TB]

ADG,

just pointing out to TB that NYC also has questions to him that she would like to see answered here.

where are you TB?

and don't forget the my questions either

I am delighted to have you as my PA, but you know how uncomfortable I am with gender stereotypes. Can I call you a junior VP or something?

[a different guest]

oh just think of me as something like Bree in Desperate Housewives.

[TB]

ADG,

Or even Brie in "Cheesey Soap Opera".

I must say ADG, your style of snappy one-liners is very fulfilling not at all taxing on the mind. Bring it on.

[a different guest]

i don't know any "brie" from "cheesy soap opera" but if you anything about "bree" from the darkly funny Desperate Housewives you would be afraid, very very afraid.

[TB]

Hi NYC,

Gender equality does not imply gender sameness. I think you are aware of that, TB, but you seem to want someone to assert that gender equality is based on sameness so you can refute them, and argue that the sexes are different, therefore men and women should be treated differently. Yes, the sexes are different, although it is difficult to say how much of that difference is genetic or "natural" and how much environmental or cultural. (The SES is certainly strict about observing gender difference in the environment, but if these differences were really so "natural" and genetic, there would be no need to enforce them culturally.)

As you say I am aware that gender equality does not imply sameness. I think that some people do mix these up without really thinking about the implications. As far as genetic and cultural differences, the classic nature vs nurture debate, these are so interdependent that they cannot operate in isolation. As you say difficult, but not impossible to understand from a logical point of view, but politically very sensitive.
You mention that 'yes the sexes are different', but do not comment if there should be different treatment based upon those differences. "You then say that if the differences are natural and genetic, no need to enforce them culturally" Can you expand upon this? What if some differences are harmful to the culture, for example males predisposition to violent behaviour, surely there could be merit in culture managing this?

You seem eager to apply the philosophical method, TB, which is interesting, because in my experience of SoPP they do not use the philosophical method, premise-argument-conclusion, but instead read out loud an "inspiring" text and ask the students to apply it in their own lives for a week. Anyway, you state "If we are starting with unsupported premises how can we expect the conclusions to be correct?" but what you mean to say is "if we start with a FALSE premise the conclusion will be incorrect" -- an unsupported premise will still lead to a true conclusion, if the premise is true. A nit-picky point I'll admit, but your pedantic tone brings it out of me, TB.

I am not familiar with the philosophical method, if I applied it it was not done deliberately, and I am not sure why you link this point back to the SoPP approach. You seem to be implying that I should be using the SoPP method and not the philosophical method. If so, why?

You are correct, I should have used 'false' premise and not 'unsupported', my meaning was based upon 'false'.

I have a feeling there are a lot of people in the world you find it difficult to get along with, TB, and many of them are women. I would suggest to you, as kindly as I can, that you may not realize how patronizingly you speak. If your relations with women are happy and and harmonious, please accept my apologies for assuming otherwise. If you often feel the women you encounter are hostile to you for seemingly no reason, I suggest it might be your condescending attitude. Nobody likes to be addressed with condescension, although some will tolerate it more than others.

I do not think that the single dimension of the internet medium puts you in a position to judge me a whole person. If this is how you are assessing me (you have made some caveats in you coment) an assumptions of who I might not get on with based upon my posts are naive and simplistic, but that is my subjective view.

In my contacts with people (including women) I not only discuss 'forum type' topics but a lot more besides, so they see the total package. However, you are quite correct in thinking that my views on certain topics offend people when debates of this type come up. There is plenty of hostility around, and I get my share of it, however when people are hostile to me I usually know why. I would add that I debate similar topics on a number of forums, and the SES is the quickest to resort to personal slanging. Most other forums are better at attacking the topic, not the person. Daffy set up a thread to try and bring some peace, rapidly following which we had some conflict. I am suggesting that the people on this board are more prone to get personal because this board has retribution against St James/SES as one of its objectives.

As you say my tone offends people to different extents, but the reactions I get say as much about the people who react, as it does about me. I can be condescending, but that depends very much on what we are debating and who I debate with. There are many things that I am ignorant of and in these cases my attitude is quite different (when I am aware of the ignorance). I often do things I have no knowledge and experience of, and I make a very humble pupil. (not my opinion, but feedback from others). I am also a highly reactive person, and tend to go overboard when I get onto my soapbox. I am not proud of this, and I know it does not progress discussions.

Back to the content of your argument -- I think you fail to comprehend that difference is not an obstacle to equality. Men may be different from women, but still no better or worse. One historical period may be different from another culture, but not necessarily better or worse. SES is a highly hierarchical organizaion, it seems, & it's tough for someone steeped in hierarchical thought to grasp that although two quantities may be different from each other, one is not necessarily better since in the hierarchical system it's always one-up other-down or vice versa.

I have no problem in seeing that difference is not an obstacle to equality. I fail to see how my questions led you to believe this. I do think that most of our social structures do NOT respect this difference, SES is just one example but there are many others.
If you had asked me directly if I thought men were better than women, I would have replied "on what standard are you measuring?"

I agree that SES is hierarchical, but this is common to most structures, even loving families usually have a hierarchy, most business does, religions do. Even volunteer organisations and sports clubs do. They also apply specific standards to classify 'better' and 'worse'. You seem to think that I have SES branded on my brain and keep returning to them to explain my behaviour. Hierarchial thinking exists outside of the human species, most animal societies have pyramid structures of power. SES is not unique is how it operates power. Biology creates hierarchy, our cultural systems that exist are building upon this base. Cultural hierarchy did not arise in a vacuum.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to belabor this point -- that people do not have to be alike to be equal.

Agreed, and once again I am amazed you thought this was my opinion. But still you do not try and address what the essence of equality means at a practical level.

Of course, you may actually believe in your heart of hearts, TB, that men are better than women, whites are better than blacks, Brits are better than Pakis - or you may not, I really don't know. But the simple fact of difference is not evidence of one group's superiority.

Once again I would look for a standard to qualify better or worse. You are stating the obvious here, and still working on the premise that the questions I ask define my opinion. Men are better at sprinting than women, and black men are better at sprinting than white men. Human society does place a great deal of value in Olympic gold medals won in sprinting. I know these are just material benefits but we spend most of our time in their pursuit, and peoples value is judged according to this. (I am not saying I think this is right, just stating my view on what is, so I hope you will not read into this that I think Olympic medals define better and worse.)

TB, while it's big of you to apologize for your lack of sensitivity, you sort of ruin the effect with the implicit insult in "Excuse my complex grammar, I will work to simplify it." It's as if you believe your thought processes are so complicated and intricate that you couldn't possibly expect lesser lights to keep up - and graciously promise to dumb it down so the rest of us can follow you. You are insulting where perhaps you mean to be concilatory. You say yourself that "Not suprisingly most people do interpret this type of questioning and backfill with their assumptions," so why do it that way?

I meant my comment about my bad grammar sincerely, yet when I read it as pompous, however it was not intended.
As to my writing style. I re-read my posts and see how complex they are, and how badly they express my thoughts. However I think that many people do not read things carefully and logically, and begin making moral judgements before they know the facts.
Before someone jumps down my throat, so let me be the first to admit that this is exactly what I do. So before I responded to your post (and other posts that are something more than flippant comments) I carefully read it through several times to be sure I at least know what has ben said.

I ask questions because I am interested in human nature, how we think, how we politicise and how individuals interact with social structures. I also use questions to try and understand unclear posts, and I am not the only one guilty of unclear posting on this board, or any other. When I keep on digging to see how people arrive at their views, either through faith or reason, some get upset. I have to say that I think this happens because people become uncomfortable with being able to justify their opinions. SES people are good at doing this. They usually parroted the party line when questioned. I often found myself facing brick walls as they rolled out pat phrases.

TB, you dropped the word "equal" there, Emmalu9's premise is that "all humans have equal inherent worth" (regardless of differences) and I agree with FreeThinker that "equal inherent worth" is not all that hard to understand unless you just aren't payin attention (or have been schooled in an obsessively hierarchical system where people are not only treated differently based on rank but also have their fundamental humanity disrespected.)

There was nothing sinister in me dropping "equal". You mention that 'equal inherent worth' is not hard to understand, yet later falter when asked to define it, calling it intangible. I am well aware that having a sense of something does not always easily translate to a verbal definition. This is no reason to avoid trying. The progress of human knowledge is littered with examples where people have gone part the way to defining difficult topics. Recent work on the brain is now identifying areas that are responsible for out-of-body experiences, as well as religious experience, electrodes can now induce sensations like this. These things might lose something through reductionism, but even here work on the mechanism of emergence is showing how the 'whole can be greater than the sum of the parts.'

TB, your premise is that "all people are different," which is fine. Advaita Vedanta proposes that all the differences you mention, ethnicity, gender, intelligence, morality, etc. are uppadhis, temporary characteristics, not who a person is. But whatever, you may be so turned off by the SES that Advaita Vedanta is an enormous turn off as well. I don't wish to push Sanskrity ideas on anyone here.

I never had an issue with the SES concept of Advaita or uppadhis (although I had not seen this before your post).

You go on to say that "I believe that, by the way we measure value, this makes them unequal in many ways." But how do "we" measure value? In some cultures, the fastest runner will have the greatest value; in other cultures, the best computer scientist.

Once again we are in violent agreement. I made this comment to illustrate that people use this process, without really understanding it, to value things and other people. I know I am not telling you something you do not already know, when I say that our history shows how often we have used these uppadhis to measure value. I do not think we are any different today. We still offer the politically correct comments about respecting the 'inner person' all the while our systems operate as they have in the past - on superficial traits.

But more to the point, the "inherent equal worth" Emmalu9 and Free Thinker speak of has nothing to do with the value of the contribution an individual makes to the group. It's not related to a person's accomplishments. "Inherent equal value" is unearned. It is equal among people of different capabilities, not only because difference is NOT a hindrance to equality, but also because the rock-bottom worth of a person has nothing to do with how s/he acts and everything to do with the fact s/he exists. And I'm a little concerned about anyone who really needs this broken down -- can't you tell that you possess innate value, independent of your abilities? And that other people do as well?

Once again I think we are able to define this value. Surely it is life itself, and the quality of life that arises from having control over our own destiny. You mix some of your 'non inherent values' between ability, accomplishments, behaviour, and say that they do not affect our inherent worth. You say we cannot define this intangible thing yet say that it has to do with the fact that it exists. Do you mean exist in the sense of being alive, or of being having material body? This implies that this worth comes from life itself. This is very esoteric but its a start.

Given this inability to define equal inherent worth I ask how useful it is to approach like you suggest. We know it exists, yet we are confident it cannot be defined, unless we consider religious souls. Even if we cannot define it, it is easy to recognise and know that we have it. It has nothing to do with our ability, our accomplishments or the way we treat other people, even if that is 'foul' behaviour. I am not sure that we are left with anything at all.

Looking at your comment about 'abilities' and 'acts' as being how we cannot let these affect a persons inherent worth. How does Advaita view actions? Does it not teach that karma is created by our actions and affects our reincarnation. Or does karma only operate at the level below advaita?

I have heard a lot of adolescents say that they don't respect anybody just automatically, it has to be earned. They assume that others are NOT worthy of respect until proven otherwise. But I think mature people realize it's much better to respect EVERYBODY at a baseline level, no matter how foul the person's behavior.

I am personally unable to avoid devaluing a person based upon any foul behaviour. If someone has no integrity, lies, cheats and steals, I devalue them as human beings and would deprive them of the rights that we offer others. I believe in justice systems that carry penalties. At a more everyday level, if I am lied to by a vendor or customer, they have less inherent value in my eyes. I will be less likely to do business with them than those who act with integrity. In the same way that I deprive them of my business, I also have less respect or belief in their inner value. If you, as a mature person, can tolerate and show love of inherent value to people that behave the way many criminals do, then you are a far better person than I.

But let's leave aside the premise that "all people have equal intrinsic worth" in case you still don't undersand or agree, TB. You write that "I also believe that MOST should be offered equal OPPORTUNITY (as opposed to equality itself) to achieve things. But this should not overly affect others." I think your unwillingness to extend equal opportunity to all, even if it "overly affects" others, is symptomatic of a certain grasping unwillingness to give up the high status you've assumed is your birthright as an Englishman, TB. You follow with the example of not giving children or the mentally ill the opportunity to drive a car, but I think this is a bit of a red herring -- I suspect that if you are honest with yourself there are a lot of other opportunities you are really reluctant to extend to people who don't look or act like you do.

I am not sure I would consider myself as an Englishman as you seem to think(?), and my herring was not red at all, but you are quite right there is plenty of equality I will not extend to others. These are not based on sex or color however, but on their integrity. I will take an honest black person anyday over a lying white man. This applies in business or socially. I do judge people on their merit and contribution as well when it comes to business, but even this I will overlook if they have poor integrity.
I used the examples of 'children not driving cars' as examples to illustrate the logic. Why have you assumed that I threw it in only as red herring?

Reading over your last post, TB, you seem to be genuinely asking questions from the heart, not just attempting to get somebody to respond so you can slam 'em.

Thankyou. It seems though I need to learn to ask without alienating others.

Innate worth, the intrinsic value of a person is not tangible.

I disagree. You confidently assert that intrinsic worth is intangible, saying you cannot define it. You do not say so directly, but I sense you think it cannot be done by other people either, and you do not appear willing to try. Surely this stance is as presumptious as mine?
I think you can consider that respect for that life is as deep you can go at a material level. This is far deeper that the measures of race, gender etc as we noted earlier. In addition, a respect for that person to live their life with control over their destiny (in a practical sense) to me is one way to define this tricky 'intrinsic value'. In this way making it equal between people is possible.

Oh you'll know it when you meet it TB. Besides, what worry is it for you? You seem unwilling to admit innate worth exists.

I agree with you and I do recognise it, but it is rare. If you are not being flippant here, I am well prepared to agree that innate worth does exist. I think we disagree of how to define it. Are my posts so obscure that you think I believe innate worth does not exist, or does the reader also have some responsibility?

I think you mean to say OTHER people use these empty words to appear virtuous.

No, I meant what I said.

If I understand you, TB, you feel that worth -- your own and others - is dependent on what you do. I can only say again, I think there is a baseline of value that each person has, independent of what s/he does. I also hope that you get something, some pleasure or a good feeling when you volunteer your time & energy. If you don't, then don't do it?

Not completely, some of our behaviour, that which deals with other people, their ability to control their own destiny, I think does affect our value. Olympic gold medals do not count as affecting this. Steling and lying and murder do affect their worth.

I accept that even for the worst criminal act, possibly serial murder and torture, we should not decend to the same level and discard our own values of behaviour, howver in this case, I cannot see much innate value in people who act in this way.

I do get pleasure from voluntary work, however I am sometimes disappointed by how people show little grace when accepting benefit from others. Let me add that I am not a dedicated philanthropist, my work does not touch those at the level of AIDs orphans, tsunami victims etc. I think ADG asked if I expected starving children to smother me with gratitude. I have found the most gracious to be the most deprived.
The other aspect of this is the people that do voluntary work are excellent workmates. They are very honest, possibly because the lack of financial return means less hidden agendas.

Thanks for the post - I am not sure if you will change your view, however I think you misread some of my posts (just as I was poor at expressing them). As for my tone, I tried to moderate it, hopefully I partly succeeded. If I did not, then I apologise in advance for infuriating you.

[TB]

ADG,

don't know any "brie" from "cheesy soap opera" but if you anything about "bree" from the darkly funny Desperate Housewives you would be afraid, very very afraid.

I don't know 'Brie' either, probably because I her and the show up. I think you misjudge women in general. The shows producers are manipulating Bree into stereotypical behaviour. I'll bet she will make a great PA for me.

[a different guest]

The shows producers are manipulating Bree into stereotypical behaviour

it's satirical.

they not cover that in the SES?

you fetta beleive it!

[TB]

Witness,

Dear all,

Has anyone noticed how beneficial it is to have TB regularly posting like this?

His messages have contributed immensely to an intelligent critique of the SES and St James.

His posts remind us all of the tone and attitudes that we have experienced in St James and SES. His behaviour in the present confirms our shared views about St James and SES in the difficult past.

I have found TB's views on paedophilia particularly alarming, and remind me of the lack of understanding for children that SES has in general. The moral over-confidence that his messages are full of also are a replica of the language used by authority figures in SES.

Without TB, our discussions and memories would be less meaningful to the outsider. Now, many people considering joining the SES or St James will find this board on e.g. 'yahoo', and look at the discourse that takes place here.

Just like audiences of the best narratives in the world (Shakespeare?! Mozart?! The Upanishads?!), people often respond well to being shown rather than told.

No doubt TB will correct me on this one: In literary terms, I understand its the difference between 'dialectic' (being shown) and 'didactic' (being told).

Thankyou, TB, for showing us what we have left behind at SES and St James.

Please don't be scared off by the personal flaming that you have received on this message board. I for one want you to keep writing, TB.

I have not offered my personal feelings about sexual abuse, my discussion has focused on the moral fabric around it. Would you like me to share my prejudices on this, so you can see if you have reason to be alarmed?

The rest of your post reads like unsubtle sarcasm, your 'dialectic' and 'didactic' sound impressive but I am not well up on either theory. A few minutes on the web though and I will be an expert. Then we can do some meaningful label swapping.

[TB]

lowpass,

And your outlook now according to your own words is that these children were not "overly" traumatised by the sexual abuse they endured? You use the verb "overly". What degree of trauma caused by the abuse was visible to you? Please be specific.Do you believe children are damaged and traumatised by sexual abuse?

I cannot recall any trauma from any incidents, as I look back, however this happened in the mid 60?s. The most I recall is that two kids were supposed to be taking money for some sort of paedophile type abuse. The view I had was of a priest that used to offer boiled sweets to the kids in his office. When I was offered and accepted sweets one of my friends later told me that he had been asked by the priest to see his private parts. He said ?no? and left the office. When he told me this, he was quite matter of fact but not upset. I cannot say if it occurred days or weeks before he told me. There are no other details that I can recall.

I certainly believe that children are damaged by sexual abuse, as they are by any form of abuse, although trauma often surfaces years later. The stories on this forum are evidence to this. Why have you asked me this question, do you expect me to believe that it does not?

As far as your comments of 1st/3rd world schooling:

I think we are both splitting hairs here. I used direct examples of 1st world schooling where I spoke from experience. You are correct in that I also made a single comment to ask if 3rd world schools should also be compared. I did not offer personal experience as a student in 3rd world schools.

You say

Yes.The point in question is your comparisons validity (relevance) to our discussion about a school in London. The extreme differences in politics and human situations between UK and the 3rd world renders it invalid.

In fact the topic originally arose because of a quote from a cult website drawing comparisons to SES and cults, some of which are also 3rd world. I questioned the relevance of this, as well as how social organizations influence individuals, among them the military. When told the military did not apply to children, I pointed out that it did in some countries. I agree that UK is very different to 3rd world however if we are talking about children I do not think we should be limited by geography, as long as we are clear with what we are comparing.

TB wrote:
I do think that although the brutality at St James did have some differences with other schools in the UK, my basic point remains that many first world schools gave punishment in ways now considered immoral.

This is not in dispute. The two parts of your statement have no obvious connection.
The difference are what made St James unique from other schools, 3rd world or otherwise.

Sorry, but I see a close similarities on the levels of brutality, and also in "religious" type zealotry. What differences do you see that invalidates the comparison.

TB wrote:
Deceit, anxiety and stress might be questionable ways to educate adults and children, but that is not the same as asking if they exist in educational systems. If you are not aware of these happening in other schools and institutions does this mean they do not exist? What if they do exist, but you have never considered it?

The solipsistic - If you are not aware how do you know it doesn't exist- type of argument is in this context kindergarden stuff .I could counter every statement you make with this form of reply. Didn't any of the Plato stick from SES?

Actually my point was not mean to be solipsistic (something about which I know very little, so it must exist - right?). Its OK by me if we skip the a blow-by-blow account on this. If not, then I will do my Plato study and we can dance some more.

TB wrote:
let me say that 'beating for not meditating' and 'stop talking' are of course different. They do however apply the same principles of conforming minds to certain imposed standards.

And what is your point drawn from this reductive comparison, and what is it's relevance? It is the misuse of corporal punishment that is important, and the issue under discussion. Amputation of limbs and community service are both ways of dealing with stealing. To state that they are similar forms of "discipline' and apply "the same principles of conforming minds" "looking for common ground" while not incorrect from a remote abstract standpoint is to say nothing useful to the topic whatsoever and to move the discussion to sophist philosophing. Have you not noticed how you consistently veer off track?

This is getting very tangled, perhaps I am too stupid but I cannot begin to unravel your logic. We might be better to begin with a clean sheet on this one.

TB wrote:
Not having personally attended St James, I can only infer what it was like by the stories on this forum.

Despite admitting you have absolutely no experience of St James in the 70s you infer from these "stories" that past pupils are guilty of creating 'monsters where none existed'.

If by this you mean that the SES is an evil institution to the scale of other cults like the Davidians or James Jones (I am sure this exact point was covered in another exchange of posts?), then I disagree. If you call SES evil, how will we describe the Nazi regime, what superlatives are there that show the relativity?

TB wrote:
I did not intend to compare 3rd world schools to St James, if I did so, I apologise, I was over enthusiatic.

"Over enthusiastic?" your euphemism for being "in error'?

Keep your hair on Kojak.

No, I do not. I mean that I used a single reference to 3rd world schools. It was not in the context of my personal school experience. You read this differently, maybe I should have guessed that people would have reached this conclusion, and toned my comment down. There, some bad grammar and no admission of guilt.

TB wrote:
I take it from this comment that you have visited 3rd world countries and have seen nothing to compare to St James. You mentioned earlier that they were not comparable.

Thus I would not compare. it's very simple.
Once again the point is not about measuring brutality but about the redundancy of your analogies. (As an aside it is very tiresome and demeaning to developing countries to be constantly held up as an example for everything that is brutal bad and negative in the world. There are a lot of positive aspects that seldom get attention, and you may be surprised, a lot of good schools.)

Is your aside on 3rd world is based upon direct experience of the 3rd world? You mention that I should be surprised about a ?lot of good schools? in the 3rd world. Why would this surprise me? I have not said that there were no good schools in the 3rd world. Neither have I said 3rd world countries have no positive aspects.

"As an aside" looks suspiciously like "veering off track" to me. Shall we dance the tangent?

You say

You were in SES for twenty years, were you ever a tutor? Did you lead groups?

Actually I was 12 years in the SES and yes, I did some tutoring. Is there something behind your question? I sense you are looking for something more, and I will be glad to respond, but I am not sure what you are looking for.

[lowpass]

hi TB

yes, I did some tutoring. Is there something behind your question? I sense you are looking for something more, and I will be glad to respond, but I am not sure what you are looking for.

I was sure you were an ex SES tutor TB, you reasoning, turn of phrase, sound exactly like one. You even use identical patterns of argument, and often cloak opinions as supposedy emotionally detached observations. I was reminded by how every time as a child I tried to argue with the tutors it would veer into similar kinds of abstraction. If you have not already read the "founders" behind SES already you should give them a go, it was very revealing to me. Did it ever cross your mind as you sat there with your glass of water, the evenings typed lecture to hand, that it contained a load of rubbish that would collapse under simple research and common sense? Or did you enjoy the guru buzz so much? Mingling with a profound air at those wretched "breaks"? Actually i lived for those, sweet escape. Don't pretend you didn't, everyone loves that...Did you eventually get annoyed at the SES glass ceiling?


It is very hard to escape, to admit ones thinking is still "owned".
Very hard to see, especially as it is on the end of our nose.
Do you think you have fully deprogrammed 12 years?
Detachment is the tough one to get over.
Personally my philosophy is to look for the best from everything, and why I would not wish to swap my St James childhood or am seeking any retribution apology or whatever from ex teachers. Being fed large doses of indian mysticsm, ouspensky gierdjuif etc and simultaneously subjected to almost incessant pain and stress was a pretty unique mix, and did give me certain insights.

I speak from direct experience re schools 1st and 3rd.


sorry for the hominem in previous posts, i was "hot". I got over the "remember you are not the body" emotional detachment training rubbish years ago

best lowpass

[a different guest]

TB - why are queue-jumping questions - mine was asked BEFORE lowpass's. You may recall I asked just what gender differences that you personally beleive in do you enforce with your own children.

a simple answer in 100 words or less would do.

also tb - how come you use "z" spellings in some of your posts? Are you american?

[NYC]

Hello lowpass,

Being fed large doses of indian mysticsm, ouspensky gierdjuif etc and simultaneously subjected to almost incessant pain and stress was a pretty unique mix, and did give me certain insights.

Do you care to expand on this? if of course you don't want to "go back there," I entirely understand. But if you care to, I would like to hear what you've managed to gain from the experience.

NYC