David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
Jo-Anne Morgan
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:23 pm

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby Jo-Anne Morgan » Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:49 pm

This is very interesting. People's responses to JAMR's disagreement with their point of view are identical to those of the SES when disagreed with i.e. stonewalling and a refusal to engage.

We appear to have come full circle. 'Animal Farm' springs to mind.

woodgreen
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby woodgreen » Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:10 pm

Only partly true Jo-Anne. Those of us who are disengaging do not want to be reduced ( at least any further), to the Animal Farm mentality that JAMR ( to an extent)and the SES ( fully) represent. So not quite full circle - the people disengaging tend to be the one's who have disengaged with the SES but sruggle for a while to do so totally. It takes a long time and probably differs for each individual. It is also difficult to totally disengage and contribute to a Forum that tries to warn all people away from the organisation and allow people to post their views/experiences/etc. In effect we re-live things on the Forum which does not always help but is part of the way in which we are having to deal with this aspect of our lives. One thing I have learned from my experience is that there is not much help out there when you exit a cult ( at whatever time and age) and if I won the lotto this weekend I'd like to think I would invest in something that could really help people. In the meantime we are left mainly with internet forums, which as we see are not ideal for dealing with the problems that these organisations create for individuals, families and wider society. regards, woodgreen.
Ex-SES Member. (Member for 3 years in late nineties).

bluemoon
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:52 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby bluemoon » Wed Aug 10, 2011 6:50 am

Jo-Anne Morgan wrote:

This is very interesting. People's responses to JAMR's disagreement with their point of view are identical to those of the SES when disagreed with i.e. stonewalling and a refusal to engage.

We appear to have come full circle. 'Animal Farm' springs to mind.


I am not sure if you have read the exchanges between myself, JAMR and some others on another thread here: Another Guru in Deep Trouble. I spent a lot of time trying to discuss the issue of cults with JAMR and have engaged with him on this thread also. However it has occured to some of us that JAMR is intent on crushing a perspective rather than really trying to understand another view and experiences. In any case if you have the energy to read through all four pages of the other thread you may or may not still feel as you say above, I don't know. If you do read it all I would be interested in what you think, I have always repected your views Jo-Anne.

With best wishes, Bluemoon
SES London, 1990-2009, Female

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby JAMR » Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:02 pm

Bluemoon, you said,
Well thank you JAMR for your post above, in particular for the quote from the book I recommended and your comments on it at the end of your post. I rest my case, and as I said I no longer intend to engage with you.


Your case needs more support than an assertion and a good that implies a metaphysical entity that will not (as defined by the author) be subject to rational scrutiny. I have no issue with following something based upon emotion, but it should be positioned as an irrational position and treated as such until rational support is provided. The above comment is engaging with me, the only way not to engage with me is not to address a post to me.

Returning to the original topic of this thread it is interesting to note how things change in the SES for those that do not automatically fall in with the ideas presented to them. The warm smiling welcome new enrollers to the SES receive soon turns to smirks and eventually to the baring of teeth like a ferocious dog (quite literally) for those that, instead of leaving when the subliminal 'reward and punishment' messages grow strong, decide to stay and challenge the ideas through reason.


One of the issues with the SES s positioning itself as intellectual and rational, while still following a faith based, metaphysical path. This appeals to people who are flattered to be considered rational philosophers. Outside of that its just another faith based organisation like all religions and your book on the feminine soul. This is the realm of metaphysics and not subject to rational scrutiny.

One of the things I do agree with you about JAMR is that it was, has been for me, and always will be (judging from my own experience), futile to try to bring about any kind of gender balance within the SES masculine dominated organisation, which is hell bent upon its own agenda.


I found the women exerted plenty of power in the SES, men just lead the charge, one does not need a formal position to have power, but they usually carry the responsibility. The idea that women are disempowered in the SES, depends upon whether they use the system to their advantage as many of them did, or if they fight against it, in which case they got beaten up by the system. This is a typical pattern in any social organisation, there are those in formal positions of responsibility, those who fight against the system on principle, and those who work within the system to get what they want. Every organisation has its own agenda, from business, to schools, to sports clubs, religions, and some individuals cannot or will not conform.


I am not sure if you have read the exchanges between myself, JAMR and some others on another thread here: Another Guru in Deep Trouble. I spent a lot of time trying to discuss the issue of cults with JAMR and have engaged with him on this thread also. However it has occured to some of us that JAMR is intent on crushing a perspective rather than really trying to understand another view and experiences. In any case if you have the energy to read through all four pages of the other thread you may or may not still feel as you say above, I don't know. If you do read it all I would be interested in what you think, I have always repected your views Jo-Anne.


If you have made an assertion and have not backed it up with either evidence or logic it will crush itself. My intention is to see if your assertions will stand up to scrutiny, in doing so I have given back plenty of substance, and you are welcome to dismantle my logic and evidence. Where I do not understand I usually ask questions before I respond, something that seems notably lacking from other posters. It is true, I have mixed up posters names (but note these are bluemoon, bluegreen and woodgreen and I am not big on labels), yet compared to some of the misreading and assumptions others have made about my posts, all caused by sloppy reading and conclusion jumping, yet all I did was set the record straight. If this is seen as crushing, then you should certainly avoid any of the internet forums that are designed to debate specific issues, like religion, Darwinism, intelligent design. Here the foul language, vilification is several orders of magnitude worse than this forum.
Last edited by JAMR on Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby JAMR » Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:26 pm

Woodgreen, you said,
Well said Bluemoon. I was intending to post JAMR to ask him to stop badgering people on the Forum and at the same time tell him not to respond to me or engage in any of my future postings.


You are posting in a public forum and refer to me in the 3rd person as if this is way to talk past me. If you have issues posting me directly, then don’t post, or send PMs if you do not want me to read them. Telling someone else what you might or might not tell me to do, or not do, is communication by proxy. Why?

Not sure if Daffy has a view, but I'm going to leave JAMR's timewasting, pseudo - macho attitude, and his self-indulgence , in the outer cybersphere where it belongs!! (Please note my views JAMR).


Yet you are not leaving my comments, you are attempting to belittle me and my comments in a dismissive way and imply you are not really engaging with me. I am not one from indirect means of communication, if you have something to say to someone do it directly and openly without ambiguity. It appears Daffy has the choice to allow or ban people onto the forum, but if you post into threads we can all see, and direct comments about me, you will get a response from me. If you do not want to engage with me, send PMs or stop posting, or do not make assertions you cannot backup.

Only partly true Jo-Anne. Those of us who are disengaging do not want to be reduced ( at least any further), to the Animal Farm mentality that JAMR ( to an extent)and the SES ( fully) represent.

By using in inflamed image of Animal Farm without backing it up, your argument is becoming more emotional and rationally weaker.

So not quite full circle - the people disengaging tend to be the one's who have disengaged with the SES but sruggle for a while to do so totally. It takes a long time and probably differs for each individual. It is also difficult to totally disengage and contribute to a Forum that tries to warn all people away from the organisation and allow people to post their views/experiences/etc. In effect we re-live things on the Forum which does not always help but is part of the way in which we are having to deal with this aspect of our lives.


I spent a number of years at the SES and struggled to balance it with my life. I was even told (by the head lady of our school) that not having my wife in the school would probably mean our marriage could not last. Suffice it to say when I left I was concerned about leaving the safety net and crutch of the SES. I therefore accept and understand that many departees from the SES get traumatised, just as they do from many other religious groups, from business, schools etc when they part on bad terms. My original advice to bluemoon was to forget a losing battle against the SES because this was just giving the SES power over her, something I do not wish upon any individual. However, I see no point in making it an irrational mudsling against the SES. Emotional outburst from ex-members are less effective that a rational dismissal of what they are, just another dangerous faith based group that is still just as ordinary in many ways as any other organisation. Why give them an exalted power they do not have?

One thing I have learned from my experience is that there is not much help out there when you exit a cult ( at whatever time and age) and if I won the lotto this weekend I'd like to think I would invest in something that could really help people. In the meantime we are left mainly with internet forums, which as we see are not ideal for dealing with the problems that these organisations create for individuals, families and wider society. regards, woodgreen.


I am sorry that my approach has been so unhelpful to you and some others on this forum. Because I have sympathy for the experience of others from the SES does not mean I sugar coat or suspend my rational faculty and go on a witch hunt that places me in the same space as the SES. I am not trying to beat them, and I am certainly not going to join them. I am going to treat them as a scientist would treat an insect. An interesting socio-biological phenomenon, not something I would like to find in my bed or my food, but OK when found in the wilds.

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby JAMR » Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:33 pm

Jo-anne, you said this,

This is very interesting. People's responses to JAMR's disagreement with their point of view are identical to those of the SES when disagreed with i.e. stonewalling and a refusal to engage.

We appear to have come full circle. 'Animal Farm' springs to mind


Other posters appear to have interpreted your post to mean that bluemoon, woodgreen etc are the same as the SES in the way that they have reacted to my posts. i.e. bluemoon et al, are stonewalling and disengaging, however its not clear from your comment that this is exactly what you meant. What is the Animal Farm in your analogy? The SES? Which players are bluemoon et al, which am I? Are you making a comment about the SES and the content of its teachings? The content of my comments?

bluemoon
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:52 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby bluemoon » Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:12 pm

I am not going to write directly to JAMR as I have already explained that I find his attitude to be antagonistic. I have read his responses but still do not believe his motive is sincere in the respect of understanding, but rather in the respect of grinding other views down.

However, since this is a public forum where others can read the posts even if they don’t contribute, I would like to point out a few things which have IMO been misrepresented by JAMR.

Firstly, the constant repetition of the same arguments that JAMR poses does not mean they are the truth or more valid because they are repeated, many of which have already been responded to. Also, the claim that a perspective is only valid of it can be broken down in a particular so-called ‘logical’ fashion, and if ‘empirical’ evidence can be provided to back it up, is IMO an assumption. There are other ways to dialogue without ripping apart the points made by others which tends to imply a total lack of respect for any other perspective than that of the person doing the ripping apart. So, why should others dialogue with such a ferocious mindset, which is itself not necessarily valid? The quote from the book about the feminine that JAMR posted, and the claim that because it cannot be ‘empirically’ proved means that it is invalid, is not correct in my view. Indeed the whole point of this book is that it is because of this kind of assumption that it was written in the first place, to present a perspective about the importance of the feminine that has been undervalued (to put it politely) for a very long time.

Bluemoon
Last edited by bluemoon on Fri May 25, 2012 8:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
SES London, 1990-2009, Female

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby JAMR » Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:55 pm

Bluemoon, you said,

I am not going to write directly to JAMR as I have already explained that I find his attitude to be antagonistic. I have read his responses but still do not believe his motive is sincere in the respect of understanding, but rather in the respect of grinding other views down.


Understood.

However, since this is a public forum where others can read the posts even if they don’t contribute, I would like to point out a few things which have IMO been misrepresented by JAMR.


You need to read my posts more carefully, see below.

Also, the claim that a perspective is only valid of it can be broken down in a particular so-called ‘logical’ fashion, and if ‘empirical’ evidence can be provided to back it up, is IMO an assumption. There are other ways to dialogue without ripping apart the points made by others which tends to imply a total lack of respect for any other perspective than that of the person doing the ripping apart.


You appear to think that being ‘rational’ is the ‘right’ way to do things and so imply that I am not really being rational (by using ‘so-called to qualify it). My point is that your approach is irrational and simply means that you are not using logic or evidence to support this position, and then beomes faith based. I have not suggested that irrational approaches should not be used, simply noting that as an irrational approach there is no need to try and rationalise them as you are doing. An irrational approach simply requires ‘just because I say so’, and it can be left. You are stuck with the idea that humans are rational and should therefore be able to argue this out. I do not hold the view that humans are rational, although we have a limited capability to do this. Yet you are holding irrational ideas and find the conflict between the socially enforced idea that we should be rational will clash with the irrational ideas you hold.

For example, I hold the irrational idea that I have an immortal soul. I have no logic or evidence that supports this idea but I am unable to confront my mortality. I am unwilling to subscribe to systems like the SES, religion, your book on feminine soul, that try to logically argue the irrational position. In my earlier post and did say that I have no issue with intuitive, faith based positions, but I do not think they should be presented as rational ones.

So, why should others dialogue with such a ferocious mindset, which is itself not necessarily valid?


I have not said my position is a valid one, I have asked you to support a position with some logic and evidence because you keep implying that you are being rational. I hold many irrational positions, and even though many of these can be explained in a rational way, the positions themselves cannot be supported. As a human I expect to be irrational and unable to support how I feel with reason, and since I am interested in being in control of my life (much of this in conflict with others trying to do the same), I behave irrationally.

These assumptions I mentioned are very similar, if not exactly the same, as those I spent 20 years dealing with in the SES. For example, the quote from the book about the feminine that JAMR posted, and the claim that because it cannot be ‘empirically’ proved means that it is invalid, is not correct in my view.


Here we agree. I did not say the book was invalid, I said it was irrational, however I am not easily prepared to accept the irrational views of others, I have plenty of my own irrational views. Where I take issue is that the book (and you) are trying to support an irrational position as if it were rational. Its enough to say, here is what I feel is right, it has no logic or empirical support, but so what. Religion used to be this way, and it was felt to be unnecessary to take a reasonable position, however now they have been drawn into the 20th century mindset that humans need to be reasonable to be valid. The issue with irrational positions is they are not subject to scrutiny, and vary from person to person, group to group. So if your feminine soul resonates with you, and you do not need it supported, it might still give you peace of mind and a sense of control in your life. You might ask me to simply accept it based upon your intuition, but you are trying to argue logically to support it, and that will fail.

Indeed the whole point of this book is that it is because of this kind of assumption that it was written in the first place, to present a perspective about the importance of the feminine that has been undervalued (to put it politely) for a very long time.


The book still puts up a front that it is still a reasonable position to hold. The part I quoted is a get-out-of-jail-free-card, about how the author intends to position the feminine soul – ie. by not subjecting it to analysis.

Also the ancient feminine mysteries, her initiations and teachings, were never written down. She is not easily fixed and defined, but is mysterious in her continual movement and change. She belongs to the silvery light of the moon and its many reflections rather than the harsh glare of masculine sunshine and its rational constructs. She is more easily alluded to and hinted at, expressing the mystery and matrix of creation that is always a wonder rather than something to be explained


The thing with this is that the above is quite well explained by biology and sociology, instead the author wants to deify something that is easily explained by rational means. If you want to take an irrational position, it should be based upon something that is not explained rationally.

Trying to discuss anything with JAMR is like being back in SES and I have only realised since I left just how much time and effort I wasted there.


You will find the same issue in any group. You and I have opposing ideas, so does the SES, so does the teacher of one of my kids, so does a customer of mine, and a work colleague, so do plenty of politicians and bureaucrats, and the end result is emotion and conflict, and since we hold our own ideas dear above all else, we will die trying to support them. Welcome to what it is like to be human, its almost never a rational place, however much we imagine it to be.

bluemoon
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:52 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby bluemoon » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:30 am

Re: JAMR's post above.

Now I am forced to either accept JAMR's dismissal of my points or to dialogue with him again.

So, in order to try to prevent you from misrepresenting my post again, I will respond.

JAMR wrote:

You appear to think that being ‘rational’ is the ‘right’ way to do things and so imply that I am not really being rational


I certainly do not think that, nor do I think that you are not being rational, if anything I think you are being too rational, at the expense of other ways of understanding and communicating. In other words I think this disecting of what people say can be used to misconstrue what they mean and that is what I take issue with in your responses, and what I want to clarify below:

Most of the above post by JAMR concerned ideas about what is 'rational' and 'irrational'. However in my post above JAMR's I did not say that the alternative to the 'rational' method of dialogue is an 'irrational' one, or even mention 'rational' at all, but logic and empirical evidence. The alternative is to discuss in a reasonable (rather than rational or logical) fashion and include emotional and intuitve intelligence. You are using another tactic used in SES - the use of words loaded so that others will get an impression that is not what the person said. This was one of the ways the tutors kept the students on track, by ensuring if anyone questioned the 'material' presented in philosophy groups their point was effectively dismissed so that they and others would 'cotton on' that if they questioned it further they would get the same treatment. 'Stories' were also used to this effect. The purpose of this was to ensure that the questioning student lost credibility, whilst the ideas presented by the organisation would be accepted (or at least not rejected). Ultimately after years of this type of 'thought reform' with all kinds of other tactics used as well, especially in the residential programme, the ideas simply become part of the students life so were accepted by default, if not willingly. But I digress.

You also dismiss a book which you said you would not read summing it up as 'irrational' when you have not even read it (according to your own posts regarding putting in 20 hours work which you said you are not interested in doing). And whilst I am responding I did not suggest you read this book in order to accept MY ideas, or even the ideas of the author, as you stated in one of your posts. That was not the motive, I suggested that book because at that stage I still thought our discussion was for the development of understanding and that you may be interested in it. Now all I sense is that you just want to stamp on anything that you don't agree with. Hence you try to ridicule and dismiss as 'irrational' and therefore pointless, something that you have not even read, as well as misrepresent what I said above.

Bluemoon
SES London, 1990-2009, Female

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby JAMR » Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:07 pm

Bluemoon, you said,

I certainly do not think that, nor do I think that you are not being rational, if anything I think you are being too rational, at the expense of other ways of understanding and communicating. In other words I think this disecting of what people say can be used to misconstrue what they mean and that is what I take issue with in your responses, and what I want to clarify below:


I do not see the connection between the level of being rational and the degree that I misconstrue what you are saying. Unless I misread this it appears that you are saying that as my posts become more rational, they misconstrue more. Is that what you are saying? I also do not understand how something can be too rational unless there are tings you do not want to be understood and subject to scrutiny. While I accept that being exposed to the raw facts can be difficult and objectionable to many people, I do not see that the issue should sit with the rational agent in this. Surely this is an issue with the subject of the scrutiny?

Most of the above post by JAMR concerned ideas about what is 'rational' and 'irrational'. However in my post above JAMR's I did not say that the alternative to the 'rational' method of dialogue is an 'irrational' one, or even mention 'rational' at all, but logic and empirical evidence. The alternative is to discuss in a reasonable (rather than rational or logical) fashion and include emotional and intuitive intelligence.


I am not fussed by the semantics we use. My interest is an accurate description of reality. I have no issue with the use of intuition to get an accurate view of reality and I have no issue with using logic and empiricism. My point about an irrational position is one that is held in the face of evidence that shows that position not to be good representation, or one with nothing to support it but the person gut feeling. The book we talk about later provides us with a good example.

You are using another tactic used in SES - the use of words loaded so that others will get an impression that is not what the person said.


I do not mind what words we use as long as we are agreed on their meaning, I am using a simplified dictionary definition for the words of reasonable, rational, logic, empiricism etc. I agree that words carry plenty of baggage and people lose sight of what they really mean.

This was one of the ways the tutors kept the students on track, by ensuring if anyone questioned the 'material' presented in philosophy groups their point was effectively dismissed so that they and others would 'cotton on' that if they questioned it further they would get the same treatment. 'Stories' were also used to this effect. The purpose of this was to ensure that the questioning student lost credibility, whilst the ideas presented by the organisation would be accepted (or at least not rejected). Ultimately after years of this type of 'thought reform' with all kinds of other tactics used as well, especially in the residential programme, the ideas simply become part of the students life so were accepted by default, if not willingly. But I digress.


You do digress. The continual reference back to the SES when irrelevant makes it larger than it really is.

You also dismiss a book which you said you would not read summing it up as 'irrational' when you have not even read it (according to your own posts regarding putting in 20 hours work which you said you are not interested in doing).


I asked it was reasonable for you to expect me to read this book that summed up your hoped for vision around gender, when you did not offer to spend that amount of time understanding my views on gender (or anything else), or even take an hour of your time to summarise the key points in the book. You are twisting my words. I also said that the topic of gender conflict does interest me, but I wanted to see why you thought I should be the one investing the time.

And whilst I am responding I did not suggest you read this book in order to accept MY ideas, or even the ideas of the author, as you stated in one of your posts. That was not the motive, I suggested that book because at that stage I still thought our discussion was for the development of understanding and that you may be interested in it.


I am interested in it, however I would expect that an hour of your time outlining the key messages is better use of time to get me up to speed than getting me to read the entire book. Are you able to represent the key messaage?

Now all I sense is that you just want to stamp on anything that you don't agree with.


All I want to do is voice my disagreement and support why I disagree, this should not feel like being stamped upon unless you are unwilling to question your own ideas and if my points about the book are invalid, you are at liberty to disagree. If however, you tell me that you intuitively feel my criticism is wrong as opposed to giving something reasoned, you have a better chance of getting the message across. I am not easily swayed by slogans and other peoples intuition, they need to back it up.

Hence you try to ridicule and dismiss as 'irrational' and therefore pointless, something that you have not even read, as well as misrepresent what I said above.


Investing the time to read the book cover to cover will certainly give me the full sense of the topic, however if you recall my comments about quotes in the introduction, the author makes a number of clear categorical statements, and uses vvery appelaing imagery to get around the lack of support he offers the position. Unless he is deliberately misleading the reader with this and changes mid way through, these statements are subject to analysis as well as support. As I mentioned in my previous post, the reason behind the statements like
“She is not easily fixed and defined, but is mysterious in her continual movement and change”, and “ She is more easily alluded to and hinted at, expressing the mystery and matrix of creation that is always a wonder rather than something to be explained”.


This stated intention to avoid transparency is easily explained, and is an approach that has been used throughout history, either to avoid exposing reality to others, or justifying some unsavoury facts. The SES is accused with not being transparent, for good reason, and this book counsels the same. Religion does the same thing, politics is mostly a web of naked deceit.

Is reality that hard to bear for relatively simple subjects like differences between men and women? What chance have we of facing issues like mortality if we are unable to deal with gender as openly as our minds should be capable of doing?

bluemoon
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:52 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby bluemoon » Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:32 pm

JAMR wrote:

You do digress. The continual reference back to the SES when irrelevant makes it larger than it really is.


The SES is the whole point of this forum, and was relevant anyway to illustrate the point I was making above. However, the rest of what we have been discussing could be considered irrelevant or certainly not entirely relevant to other users of this forum, and I am conscious of that, so I will keep this response short.

You mentioned that it would be helpful to you if I could provide a summary of the key points of the book I suggested. I do not remember reading that request in your posts before, but it is not something I would dismiss out of hand if I had the time. However apart from time constraints I cannot find the book at the moment and I read it about a year or so ago, so could not at the moment provide what you requested. I also do not think that would be appropriate on this forum and so would have to be dealt with privately or on some other forum. However if I find it I will let you know and who knows may even treat you to a summary at some point! In any case I am not sure if you are serious and your view from a tentative dipping in is so negative I think it would be a waste of my time quite honestly. As I have said before it is possible for us to agree to disagree. You are not interested in the book, and that's fine, you don't need to keep repeating that you feel it is unfair of me to have suggested it, I meant it kindly.

So, I think this has gone as far as it can.

With best wishes, Bluemoon


PS: One more thing! Your quote from the book:

“She is not easily fixed and defined, but is mysterious in her continual movement and change”, and “ She is more easily alluded to and hinted at, expressing the mystery and matrix of creation that is always a wonder rather than something to be explained”.

and your statement:
This stated intention to avoid transparency....


You are missing something, this quote is poetic, I think the author is alluding to the wonder of the mystery rather than the science of explanations in terms of cold, hard facts. Take this poem for example, this is what I think he is alluding to, I am sure you will appreciate the point of this poem:

When I heard the learn'd astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and
measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much
applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
Till rising and gliding out, I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.
Last edited by bluemoon on Fri May 25, 2012 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
SES London, 1990-2009, Female

Jo-Anne Morgan
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:23 pm

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby Jo-Anne Morgan » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:00 pm

Hi JAMR, to clarify my comment:

'Animal Farm' is the book by George Orwell in which the very creatures who criticise the farmer end up behaving like the farmer. In this case the 'farmer' is the SES.

My experience of the SES was that if you started a debate about an aspect of the 'philosophy', they would engage in that debate up to a point. However, if you weren't satisfied with their answers and tried to continue the debate, they would use various tactics to shut you down, none of which involved trying to refute your argument. I was told on one occasion that I was 'upsetting the group'.

It seemed when I made my comment that some of the responses to your arguments and refutations on this forum were reminiscent of that response. You seemed to me to being accused, in so many words, of 'upsetting the forum'. That's what I meant. However on reflection I think my impression was generally incorrect so I withdraw the comment and the analogy.

Jo-Anne Morgan
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:23 pm

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby Jo-Anne Morgan » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:24 pm

Hi JAMR,

I'd just like to take up your following statement to bluemoon:

The continual reference back to the SES when irrelevant makes it larger than it really is.


For my part and I think for others as well, the SES is or has been large in our lives. That's why we look at this forum. It was very large in my life at one point. It had a profound effect on me and the subsequent feeling of betrayal and sense of let-down was correspondingly profound. I left, not because it was taking up too much of my time because it wasn't, but because its views on all sorts of aspects of society were anathema to me. These views hadn't been clear at the outset and were actually denied at every opportunity. In other words the organisation was profoundly dishonest. The final straw was finding this Board and reading about the disgusting treatment of children and discovering the weasel words by which senior SES people sought to minimise that treatment.

Given that debates take place through the prism of the SES on this forum, I don't think mention of it can ever be irrelevant.

J-AM

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby JAMR » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:03 am

Bluemoon, you said,

The SES is the whole point of this forum, and was relevant anyway to illustrate the point I was making above. However, the rest of what we have been discussing could be considered irrelevant or certainly not entirely relevant to other users of this forum, and I am conscious of that, so I will keep this response short.


I am not saying the SES has no relevance in some instances, just that it appears to be the point of reference for more issues than are relevant.

You mentioned that it would be helpful to you if I could provide a summary of the key points of the book I suggested. I do not remember reading that request in your posts before, but it is not something I would dismiss out of hand if I had the time. However apart from time constraints I cannot find the book at the moment and I read it about a year or so ago, so could not at the moment provide what you requested. I also do not think that would be appropriate on this forum and so would have to be dealt with privately or on some other forum.


The reason I think it has relevance is due to the issues some women have with the SES position on gender, and you thoughts the book was the best way to position gender and the differences between men and women. I see no reason why a discussion on gender with alternate views to the SES is not appropriate for this forum.

However if I find it I will let you know and who knows may even treat you to a summary at some point! In any case I am not sure if you are serious and your view from a tentative dipping in is so negative I think it would be a waste of my time quite honestly.


I have looked around the book, some reviews, the into, some excerpts and I would say it will avoid being to analytical and factual, it also implies the metaphysical and these are all things that open the door to fantasy and wishful thinking. You would almost certainly find my review of this book a challenge.

As I have said before it is possible for us to agree to disagree. You are not interested in the book, and that's fine, you don't need to keep repeating that you feel it is unfair of me to have suggested it, I meant it kindly.

It was more the idea that I should take time to review your vision of feminine etc, when a first step might be to ask what pre-existing views I already had, and it seemed an obvious starting point for you to provide a précis of that vision.
Also I already explained that I can't go into details about the SES gender issues because the leader of the organisation threatened me with libel if I do.


I recall your posts about this, so they threatened you with a libel suit if you made comments about the SES wrt to gender. That seems an extreme position over some comments on an internet forum, however I have seen something like this happen where a website was closed and some of the posters were cautioned by an organisation.

PS: One more thing! Your quote from the book:

“She is not easily fixed and defined, but is mysterious in her continual movement and change”, and “ She is more easily alluded to and hinted at, expressing the mystery and matrix of creation that is always a wonder rather than something to be explained”.

and your statement:
This stated intention to avoid transparency....
You are missing something, this quote is poetic, I think the author is alluding to the wonder of the mystery rather than the science of explanations in terms of cold, hard facts. Take this poem for example, this is what I think he is alluding to, I am sure you will appreciate the point of this poem:

When I heard the learn'd astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and
measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much
applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
Till rising and gliding out, I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.


Yes it is poetic and I have no issue with poetry as long as it is not being done because there are no facts or no undertanding of them, something we see in much primitive mythology. Noting your view of the starts above, astronomy and cosmology have been a hobby of mine since I was a child, and I find that the more I understand of the facts, the greater my wonder of the phenomenon. I get very little from myths when they are presented as fact.

Kahlil Gibran wrote in the prophet

“Your children are not your children, they are the sons and daughters of Lifes longing for itself."

I have a passion for evolutionary psychology and my increased understanding of this make me marvel more at the profundity of Gibrans words. Perhaps other people experience the two sides of knowing and understanding versus imagery and feeling, differently to me, but they create no conflict in me.
Last edited by JAMR on Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby JAMR » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:24 am

Hi Jo-Anne, you said,

'Animal Farm' is the book by George Orwell in which the very creatures who criticise the farmer end up behaving like the farmer. In this case the 'farmer' is the SES.


I am familiar with Orwells work, my question was around where you placed myself and the other posters as the characters. Note that only the pigs ended up replacing the farmer and betraying the rest of the animals.

My experience of the SES was that if you started a debate about an aspect of the 'philosophy', they would engage in that debate up to a point. However, if you weren't satisfied with their answers and tried to continue the debate, they would use various tactics to shut you down, none of which involved trying to refute your argument. I was told on one occasion that I was 'upsetting the group'.


Yes this was common, but I see it in very organisation, from schools and business, if you have different or opposing views, they will push to retain the original view of their organisation. This is an issue every individual faces when they are members of a group.

It seemed when I made my comment that some of the responses to your arguments and refutations on this forum were reminiscent of that response. You seemed to me to being accused, in so many words, of 'upsetting the forum'. That's what I meant. However on reflection I think my impression was generally incorrect so I withdraw the comment and the analogy.


So you have reversed the position or no longer have a position?


For my part and I think for others as well, the SES is or has been large in our lives. That's why we look at this forum. It was very large in my life at one point. It had a profound effect on me and the subsequent feeling of betrayal and sense of let-down was correspondingly profound. I left, not because it was taking up too much of my time because it wasn't, but because its views on all sorts of aspects of society were anathema to me. These views hadn't been clear at the outset and were actually denied at every opportunity. In other words the organisation was profoundly dishonest. The final straw was finding this Board and reading about the disgusting treatment of children and discovering the weasel words by which senior SES people sought to minimise that treatment.

Given that debates take place through the prism of the SES on this forum, I don't think mention of it can ever be irrelevant.


Perhaps you missed my earlier posts on my own experience of the SES. After many years as a student and tutor, I found their drive to mould me and my lifestyle, more than I could tolerate, despite the benefits I felt I gained from what they taught. This means I am well aware of how relevant the school is. The point I made was that the SES seemed to get used as the default point of reference when comparing to comments independent of the SES. The continual reflection of the SES shows how powerful its influence is, and I suggest that by being aware of this is a good thing. It might help put SES in perspective as most organisations operate in similar ways, and that there is plenty of life after and outside of the SES. Like I said, do not make them bigger than they actually are.
Last edited by JAMR on Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:19 am, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest