6 ms·

TLDR; The modern school was built in accordance with an industrial age mindset; children are raw materials and a school produces a functioning member of/worker

by pappyo 10y ago

TLDR; The modern school was built in accordance with an industrial age mindset; children are raw materials and a school produces a functioning member of/worker for society. However, this institution stifles the child's "wildness" or open-minded learning that allows her/him to connect with the world, and become an eternally curious, more balanced human beings. I agree with the author's premise that the current (US public) school model is not conducive for a child's future. The school's churns out students so they can be ready for JOBS (or get into a college that will help you get JOBS). It's been easy to fall into that trap with capitalism as the driving force behind everything. Capitalism has been evolving over the centuries, forcing workers into more specific disciplines then ever before (seriously, how many of us have 3 or 4 word job titles?). However, that isn't to say structure doesn't have it's place. The author didn't to a good job of drawing some sort of line where structure is needed. A line is helpful here. That line should look like what we want our schools to ultimately achieve for our children and society. Are we a society of workers? Or do we want to be something else?

dominotw 10y ago
Living in any society automatically means you have to curtail your 'wildness'. Its 'society-tax'. The way you define yourself(eg: family man, software engineer ect) is definition of your relationship with the society. And anything that is defined is not 'wild'.
- pappyo 10y ago
  I agree, but we as a society should still have a say in how we curtail our wildness. It would appear that our say has been taken away, or at least hijacked, recently.
  - dominotw 10y ago
    >It would appear that our say has been taken away, or at least hijacked, recently. Taken away by who though? There is no secret cabal called 'society' out there. You are the society. society is pure reflection of your actions, your thoughts, your relationship with others. Society gives us security, no one is forcing people to send their kids to these 'wildnesss killing schools' but we do it because it gives use security and makes us feel safe. And that is the price you have to pay for that security, the security that your mind seeks. The conflict we think we are in with the society is merely a conflict within ourselves, the conflict of self that seeks both security and freedom .
- jeremiahwv 10y ago
  This is precisely the myth of our culture that the article is trying to debunk. Instead of considering "wildness" as the observable actions of an individual (in our culture generally equated with "out of line"), consider "wildness" as the state-of-mind -- or the embodied, subjective experience of an individual -- in which that individual experiences themselves as a completely sovereign individual enmeshed in a web of relationships with other completely sovereign individuals. There are many such wild humans living in our society even now. If you're looking for the guy running through the city in loincloth beating his chest and grunting gutturally, you won't find them. You will find them if you look for people walking through the world almost like everyone else, except their eyes sparkle like the stars. -------- And regarding your second point about having a role meaning that something is not wild: In the actual "wild", out there in the natural ecosystems of the world, roles and wildness existing very much hand in hand. Through a certain lens, biological diversity is exactly the separation of life into distinct and complementary roles. Wildness is not a rejection of role. Wildness is the the complete and unreserved embodiment of who-you-are (your unique and undeniable role/roles) and the expression of that in relationship to everyone else.
  - dominotw 10y ago
    >This is precisely the myth of our culture that the article is trying to debunk. So I can go murder someone I don't like because I am a 'wild human'. Personal freedom is different from social rules. You are not "wild" if you live in a society in any capacity.
    - jeremiahwv 10y ago
      I'm not sure how you got there from where I was.
      - dominotw 10y ago
        eh sorry. That was a thoughtless comment on my part.
draw_down 10y ago
Yes, this strikes me as the pedagogical equivalent of the Paleo diet.
ryanmarsh 10y ago
Trade offs between "wildness" and "functional" are fine unless the schools degrade to a point at which the innocence lost is no longer worth the meager functional value provided to society or the individual. We're all aware of the position of Americas schools relative to other industrialized nations. Where is the cutoff? Put differently, in a society of the future where "humans need not apply"[1] perhaps we might find a little more wildness to be of some redeeming value. 1. https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU
qazwsxedchac 10y ago
It's not a new idea, John Myers O'Hara expressed it well over 100 years ago: http://www.unz.org/Pub/Bookman-1902nov-00229:19 http://www.unz.org/Pub/Bookman-1902nov-00229:19

by pappyo 10y ago

dominotw 10y ago

Living in any society automatically means you have to curtail your 'wildness'. Its 'society-tax'. The way you define yourself(eg: family man, software engineer ect) is definition of your relationship with the society. And anything that is defined is not 'wild'.

pappyo 10y ago
I agree, but we as a society should still have a say in how we curtail our wildness. It would appear that our say has been taken away, or at least hijacked, recently.
- dominotw 10y ago
  >It would appear that our say has been taken away, or at least hijacked, recently. Taken away by who though? There is no secret cabal called 'society' out there. You are the society. society is pure reflection of your actions, your thoughts, your relationship with others. Society gives us security, no one is forcing people to send their kids to these 'wildnesss killing schools' but we do it because it gives use security and makes us feel safe. And that is the price you have to pay for that security, the security that your mind seeks. The conflict we think we are in with the society is merely a conflict within ourselves, the conflict of self that seeks both security and freedom .
jeremiahwv 10y ago
This is precisely the myth of our culture that the article is trying to debunk. Instead of considering "wildness" as the observable actions of an individual (in our culture generally equated with "out of line"), consider "wildness" as the state-of-mind -- or the embodied, subjective experience of an individual -- in which that individual experiences themselves as a completely sovereign individual enmeshed in a web of relationships with other completely sovereign individuals. There are many such wild humans living in our society even now. If you're looking for the guy running through the city in loincloth beating his chest and grunting gutturally, you won't find them. You will find them if you look for people walking through the world almost like everyone else, except their eyes sparkle like the stars. -------- And regarding your second point about having a role meaning that something is not wild: In the actual "wild", out there in the natural ecosystems of the world, roles and wildness existing very much hand in hand. Through a certain lens, biological diversity is exactly the separation of life into distinct and complementary roles. Wildness is not a rejection of role. Wildness is the the complete and unreserved embodiment of who-you-are (your unique and undeniable role/roles) and the expression of that in relationship to everyone else.
- dominotw 10y ago
  >This is precisely the myth of our culture that the article is trying to debunk. So I can go murder someone I don't like because I am a 'wild human'. Personal freedom is different from social rules. You are not "wild" if you live in a society in any capacity.
  - jeremiahwv 10y ago
    I'm not sure how you got there from where I was.
    - dominotw 10y ago
      eh sorry. That was a thoughtless comment on my part.

draw_down 10y ago

Yes, this strikes me as the pedagogical equivalent of the Paleo diet.

ryanmarsh 10y ago

Trade offs between "wildness" and "functional" are fine unless the schools degrade to a point at which the innocence lost is no longer worth the meager functional value provided to society or the individual. We're all aware of the position of Americas schools relative to other industrialized nations. Where is the cutoff? Put differently, in a society of the future where "humans need not apply"[1] perhaps we might find a little more wildness to be of some redeeming value. 1. https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU

qazwsxedchac 10y ago

It's not a new idea, John Myers O'Hara expressed it well over 100 years ago: http://www.unz.org/Pub/Bookman-1902nov-00229:19 http://www.unz.org/Pub/Bookman-1902nov-00229:19