Culture Of Creation

"Culture is the best that has been thought and said", this was the definition formulated by Matthew Arnold in the 19th century. We select this definition among the others because it is the best that has been thought and said. Anyone who disagrees with this definition must most assuredly be a misanthrope - he doesn't want the best for his brothers.

In addition, Arnold provided a further conception of what Culture is. Culture as the "strictness of conscience" and the "spontaneity of reason".

This definition as above fits into and animates a concept we who are lovers of Mankind love, the 'Creative Consciousness'.

We will return to this concept soon, for we are behooved by our topic to make a detour here. It could have come latterly but we will need what we discuss here to assist us in our midwifery role at the side of our darling Creative Consciousness.

A strictness of conscience and spontaneity of reason are not just concepts defined from abstract terms but gleaned from human nature. It is our nature to have a strictness of conscience and a spontaneity of reason. Strictness of conscience interprets as rationality or control or behavior according to laws and rules (right or wrong, true or false, profit or loss, lawful or unlawful). Spontaneity of reason is what usually classifies as irrationality where rules do not play a role and only the perception of something - an idea or thing - has the priority; whether right or wrong, true or false, it doesn't matter. In the normal human, these two work together so that we can judge an idea or thing we have perceived so that, for the scientist's instance, we know if it works or not.

A Creative Consciousness is oriented towards "bringing out". Bringing out what? is the question. To which we human lovers answer "bringing out what is human". You now see the reason for our little detour? We human lovers are not just seeking to see citizens or roles, we seek to see Men, Best Men. With time, we learn more and more about what 'Best' is because as our working definition says "the best that has been thought and said" which is just a general definition undelimited by time - in 2100, it will be what has been thought and said in the 2100 years, and others not included in our structured calendar, before.

In the context of a culture, the two principles govern synergistically, none is superior to the other and this gives our Creative Consciousness a greater impact because it is defined by a Unity in Diversity. Diversity because the different principles and their sub-principles (which can be deduced from their explanations) produce different thigs or ideas. These unite to produce a composite we all can be proud of as it represents our collective humanity no matter our social or geographical origin - we are humans in a nation aren't we?

In the context of an individual, however, one principle naturally predominates. If one does not, the person will be stuck. This is where we usually say "he's like this" or "she's that type of person".

What does this mean?

We have a people who create according to their talents or as my friend Simple Kay will say, "according to their desire". For him, talent is desire. You produce that which comes naturally to you. You become a tree for the rest of us to eat of your fruits. Some may be against you naturally, in actual terms, but in the context of our collective vision or humanity, we are all eating your fruit. It is contributing to the grand banquet that is the Culture (of Creation). You give us what is special to you, your gift to us.

Be proud of yourself, faith in yourself and give to us.

Some person is dominated by a "strictness of conscience", he goes where rationality is needed, where control is needed. We will call this role 'a controller'.

Another is dominated by "spontaneity of reason", like me, so he goes where what we normally call creativity - which is producing new things - is needed. 'New' can mean unconventional or weird or alternative or non-normal. Spontaneity of reason, as Arnold would say, is dominated by 'free play'. We call this role 'an artist'.

Ultimately, all are really Artists because they all create something, and they produce "from their souls" as the usual artist would say.

This is our Vision for the future and I hope to market it to as many as possible. It is an open vision because it is born from we ourselves, from nowhere but ourselves. It is an all-inclusive philosophy for we human lovers are very soft-hearted. It is not from one person's belief system nor is it from some abstract premise. These premises are from we ourselves. The Vision is Us. Can whatever change that occurs tomorrow occur outside of this Vision, a Vision that already presupposes it? I doubt it.

One will ask "why do we need to know this at all?".

As my friend The Gazer says "we are doing stuff but we are not controlling it". What he means there in colloquial lexis is we are not conscious of what we are doing. In effect, we do not know what we are doing. Two reasons for this are we are purposeless and we have no philosophy guiding us. An unconscious nation is haphazard, inhuman and can never talk to itself because it does not know what to talk about. Take into consideration, my brothers and sisters, how difficult it is to talk to someone with whom you have nothing in common. You don't know what to talk about. It is the same here: we do not know what to talk about to ourselves because we have not presented a common. Until it is presented, you have nothing in common, in objective terms - one cannot see what is in another's head until it is presented in speech or action.

This philosophy makes us do something. Because, we know 'everybody' (since everybody is represented by the vision which everyone supports) supports us.

This philosophy gives us faith, direction and freedom. It is not a nationalistic philosophy, it is a humanistic one, with no barrier to who contributes. We only need contributors to this vision. Our citizens are simply, men.

You, I'm talking to you.. Yes! You! Humanity needs you, whatever it is that you have.

(In the above post, the word 'brothers' is chosen simply because I am male and this is easily accessed in my writing. As I do not wish to be dishonest with you, I write it as it comes to me, the way it makes me feel - the bond of brotherliness. Let it be clear that woman is not left out of this but if a different word made such meaning to me as that word 'brotherliness', I would use it. I know it must be uncomfortable for you, which leaves me in a dilemma for should I give you a lie and please you or the truth and invite you into my experience? I do not presume that woman can be replaced with man in any way by my statement of 'brothers' in the way used, and it is exactly for this reason that I use 'brother'; for it is much more familiar to me than a bond that women feel - I wish not to presume myself familiar with what is obviously foreign to me - and stand in disrespect of our honorable woman)

GOD vrs SCIENCE

At a recent scientific conference in New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists

 an expected question, “Can you be you be a good scientist and believe in God?

                                 
I find this question interesting and as I thought about it and considered how possible it would be
if I answered the question in the affirmative, though I am no scientist. I don’t know how many
up and coming scientists have already asked themselves this question but I pose it again not
only because it is interesting but also because the average Ghanaian (African) is very spiritual or
religious. Apart from the above, this question dates as far back as the beginning of science itself.
It has caused so many problems, the dreadful of it being death, to humanity. In our quest to find
our place in the world of science and in the midst of our spirituality, we need to be abreast with
the God versus science argument.

“Scientists hate God or find God very disturbing. In fact, modern science has found no evidence
of God and so it is not sensible anymore to think God exists”

The above statement is often presented as conventional wisdom but is it true? The general
issue in relation to the God versus science argument poses several questions due to the stance
various scientists take. Among these questions are; Does the study of science make belief in
God obsolete, Does God exist, What is the difference between Darwin’s evolution theory and
the creation of man according to the Bible and Do we believe the big bang theory or the creation
story according to the first chapter of Genesis? This array of questions brings about three major
arguments.

An extremist group is of the view that science and the study of nature disabuses the idea that
God exists. Belief in the super natural, especially belief in God, is not incompatible with good
science. This kind of belief is damaging to the well being of the human race. This school of

thought postulates that science has proven beyond doubt that no God exists. They apply the
basic natural laws to the various facets of life. “Science has failed to find natural evidence of
God. Natural law is all there is, No God; case closed!” “Science erases the need for God as an
explanation of our experiences and God either doesn’t exist or is at best a hypothesis.” “God:
the failed hypothesis.” These three statements are what people generally refer to as the standard
scientific lines on God. To them God’s place in science, that is if they include him, is to fill the
gaps. They only refer to God in the areas of study where the human intelligence and ingenuity
comes to a dead end. God comes in to cover for areas where man’s limitations begin.

The second group could be referred to as the “don’t mix” group. This group place God and
science as parallel to each other and there should be no way for the two spectrums to meet. To
them, science is just one worldview that has come to be accepted and science and religion need
not be at odds. They strike a contrast between science and religion by saying science speaks with
authority in the realm of what the universe is made up of (i.e. fact) and why it works this way
(i.e. theory) but religion holds sway one question of ultimate meaning and moral value. Science
and religion are two separate realms; “a non overlapping magisterial.”

The final group believes God supersedes everything including science. To them science has
proven that God exists; Science according to this group does nothing but explains the things that
God has done or created in the natural realm. Science cannot prove God’s existence because
human ingenuity and intelligence but God is greater than everything and is not limited by
anything not even science. God should not be used to fill the gaps in scientist knowledge but he
is everything science has found out and would find out. This group also says that God created
a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability o reason and to be creative that technology is
possible. Technology has shown that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers- not
random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the bible. A scientist’s
ability to discover a thing is a step in knowing God better. The fact that science cannot prove the
existence of God tells how limited scientific knowledge is. To them to reject God because of self
contradictions and logical failings of organized religion would be like rejecting physics because
of inherent contradictions of quantum theory and general relativity.

As conclude this piece, I leave the question open to you, Can you be a good scientist and
believe in God? Since this is meant to be an interactive medium I also wish to ask that in your
development with science and your relationship with God, which of these three schools of
thought do you identify with? However, I would like to borrow the words of renowned Albert
Einstein that “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Education and Culture

                Our culture slipping into the gutters      
 
The solution is not to try to get people to realize that our culture is slipping into the gutters. But to conceptualize a culture that the new Ghanaian will embrace. A new culture that reorients our way of thinking and reconstructs our attitude towards the world.
A sort of paradigm shift.

Education is not separate from culture . Education is rather an integral part of  culture. When education is separated from culture there is chaos.
Culture includes the customs,ideas and social behaviour of a society or a group of people. But its defined and determined by a very important factor and that is how a society wants to live.
Now sociology studies the structures , development and functioning of societies, And in retrospect ,societies that have lived centuries past or our own primitive societies will tell you  two things.
A society that knew what kind of life, its people should  lead always achieved great things and a society that didn’t know , always lost the  real essence of their culture.
An example of a society whose culture is slowly slipping away , is our society. Our culture is becoming a mediocre one, because its filled with too much borrowing. A little good from here, a little bad from here, we copy blindly, following fads.

I t is important we realize what it it we want and determine how we can get there.  Plato’s Republic shows an example of how first a country needs to know the kind of life they want to live.  And how they can construct their customs , beliefs  and etc  to make that life possible.
We need to realize culture is a creative enterprise, determined by the creative consciousness of its people.  In a recent discourse with friend she said and I quote;" Culture is the way of life people and in its dynamism it has no choice but to be creative. Otherwise there would be no distinctiveness among people . And a world without culture would absolutely monochromatic".
True, but we are forgetting to notice , we can consciously control the creative process. An example is what Lycurgus did with Sparta and what Plato's republic described.

The question where do we start?
We start with the integral part of culture; education.
In which modes and forms are educated through; mass media( TV, Radio,Journals,News Papers, Magazines), opinion leaders, community centres, schools.
We need a plan << a national policy>> of what life in this country should be and could be, then we work at it.

There is hope for tomorrow but we can only do something now. SO bit by bit, lets discuss how we can effect the change we all                 so want to see.
1.What kind of life do we want to live
2.How do we recreate the kind of culture we want
3.What kind of education should be given
4.How do we effectively create the Ghana we all drea of
We can only start now!

Wittgenstein and Me

I was reading an interview with John Searle about Wittgenstein, yesterday, and it made me recall why I got more involved with philosophy despite a deep calling to it that reaches far back into my tenderest youth where I always asked 'why?' and kept on dazzling my family with imaginative arguments and observations about what life was about.

The interview made me recall that a similar thing as happened with Wittgenstein happened with me. You see, I was reading medical science in the University and while doing my learning I kept on asking questions, questions that were at the foundations of what I was learning, the background of it, and it bothered my learning somewhat. It was a similar thing that occurred in Secondary School but this time I couldn't just evade them, it was like "if you're meant to do it, you have to". I didn't even bother to ask my teachers in the University because I knew they wouldn't have the answers and I didn't want to shame them. So, I went off on my own and taught myself it - Philosophy. As can be expected, it was in no systematic way but let me say emphatically that the first philosophers learned in no systematic way, the Platonian Academy was no systematic school, the Socratic which preceded the Platonian also wasn't (the Socratic was just a loose collection of friends who liked to argue, it is quite amusing how they related to each other, Socrates talking about "I will think on it till I have defeated it" :-)), even though there was an abundance of other systematic schools like the Sophists'. (Wittgenstein was studying Engineering when he got more interested in the foundations of the Mathematics he was studying, he was lucky that his professors who couldn't answer his questions redirected him; well, I didn't do that at all so I can't say anything negative or positive about mine :-))

Discussing this with myself, the following came to mind: some people have suggested putting Philosophy away and using it for practical purposes, Wittgenstein himself made such a suggestion. Thing is Philosophy is not something we come to meet and use, we create it. It is we as men who ask the questions and we label them as Philosophical. If we are to make it practical, we miss the point of its existence, it is already practical, serving to quell our doubts as men and to help as grow our minds. I am not against the 'practical' orientation, no, far from it, I am just switching the perspective to make the field of view wider and more truthful.

What does all this matter to our little discussion here on Science? Well, I was learning Science when my concern was more with the foundations of things, our present system doesn't allow us to switch courses, it appears that our system is an instrument of confinement, intentionally constructed to intimidate, then tame and depress the souls that live within it. It's as if it is a cyanide factory come to be built around us humans..a tear comes to my eye. What I seek to say is this: I wasn't moving away from Science, I was just going below Science to better construct its base, in another world, that would be a good thing because I am an aid to Science, I am being a link between Philosophy and Science, helping to produce that comprehensive network of knowledge that is originally the case when it is in our minds and not the disjointed one we have on the ground. There was a time when these things were more in fashion as I derive from accounts of former days where it was more a 'primitive' setting but it tells us how much we have lost.

My friend, Simple Kay, was telling me about an article where they were saying our culture is being eroded and so forth. I said at that time that it was bogus with the thought that "change is necessary" but on second thought, it is this "our culture really has slipped into the gutter, we have lost our culture of questioning which is quite tied to our spirituality". While I thought of this, my mind went to the issue of the arrival of Christianity; just how much was lost by that arrival? I am not saying, like some people, that we should jettison that noble religion, far from it, I am only asking for a re-evaluation of the perimeter in which we stand, if there is any perimeter at all, as at now, with everything that has happened counted.

This is where we stand on the ground today as a people, where do we go from here?

Jack-In-The-Box

Mr. President, you wanna know why we don't create big businesses, delightful inventions (a business can also be an invention) and so forth, it's because we've lost our Imagination. Now, everything has to fit into a box, into a pre-determined system. I forewarn you that if you keep doing that, that box of yours is going to explode one day. Even Jack can't stay in his spacious box. You don't predetermine things and say you want to do something, no, that is not how we proceed. I'm not saying "do away with all pre-determination", all I'm saying is "you cannot pre-determine everything, there is a point at which this must stop and allow for more blind work -- you can call it groping if you like but if you try it, you'll be astonished how much we humans can actually grope, well if you have enough Vitamin A for scotopic (night) vision, we have quite the good scotopic vision for color-dependent animals :-)". You can't plan everything, there is a point at which this must stop and give way for more 'improvisation', I put that in inverted commas because it is what it is called by people who like to pre-determine for we always tend to degrade what opposes us.

This box of yours will explode one day, and even right this minute, we can see the bulges, ever so impercptible but still there, as well as the disjuncts (disconnections).

THE SCIENTIST VS THE TECHNICIAN...

              
 It's outrageous the number of people we call scientists today, even the definition of a scientist in our dictionaries is questionable provided we let the truth of science prevail. Our self-imposed meaning of science has taken off the curtain that separated scientists from others--today we find it difficult to draw a line of separation between a scientist and an artist, and a poet, and a writer etc. Most people spend the most part of their lives in schools studying what someone wants them to know ignoring what they could learn outside the classroom, or perhaps anything which is not yet known to the world around and beyond. This is the curtain that separated scientists from those in other fields of study.... Science is like being on a journey that has no end and generally not built upon purposeful ideas such as job opportunities or financial accomplishments. Rather it's to feed the flourishing curiosity and anxiety to know beyond the known, to discover, to see what the eyes of others haven't, to taste the life beyond the superficial, to probe and to acquire so much knowledge that in the end we could as individuals through painstaking ideas make sagacious predictions of happenings that could be experienced due to our current observations being subjected to our knowledge. This is the journey that caught Einstein on his sick bed scribbling equations when he had only few days to live, he saw it wiser than writing a will.

Who is a scientist? Who is a technician?
A technician is a highly trained person whose job is to apply known techniques and principles in getting work done. He studies these principles laid down by others who didn't gear to settle on the knowledge from others but to seek the unknown. Hence the technician deals with the known while the scientist deals with the unknown. A scientist is therefore a person who seeks the true nature of physical reality, though some aspects of science are getting beyond the physical, merging with psychology and appreciating spirituality.
The technicians do well in converting ideas into materials, tools, machines, services that keep us going and growing. They make out a great deal of importance from the knowledge received. They make the scientists realize the relevance of their discoveries when they see them manifest. The connection between the two is like our feeding relationship with green plants. Green plants produce organic food substances  such as starch from inorganic substances, water and carbon-dioxide. Our part is to use the food they are producing.

It will be beautiful if one can be both a scientist and a technician; we can experiment to develop ideas, discover a lot about our physical world and apply to see how effective the ideas could be. Every scientist will apply his findings perfectly since no one knows better than the founder of an idea, of a truth (it’s easier to live by your own rules than to live by rules by another).  He can apply it in a better way than a technician, and could even engineer ways to advance and make the discovery better for his deeper understanding. The technician could also have a different look into the principles and techniques he knows. He could wander about the principles to find ways to get it work faster or easier. In this case the technician is also being scientific and this will help develop our country. U3nfortunately we aren't sure we even have scientists here; not even science teachers can be easily called scientists.

History tells us all scientists at a time were teachers. They taught others what they discovered, explained theories discovered by other scientists to their students. Does it mean all science teachers are scientists? No, a big no! In my country Ghana, most science teachers are technicians as well. They gather information from books in accordance to the school syllabus and pass it on to their students. They do this as a job; to earn some good money with no sense of enthusiasm guiding them... they are never passionate about the subject. The big dream of training scientists in Ghana will never be met until the right teachers--scientists who want to share their knowledge come on board.
When that happens, and when the ministry of education wants to impart the science ideology into the students, then science will be studied in my country. All we do now is mere history, storing information that is never used in the mind.
There is absolutely no need to keep the science knowledge stale. The expansive universe and all in it must be respected by expanding the subject, updating and correlating ideas perfectly so that students now wouldn't do the same old science practical done by others a decade ago. Science is meant to be a reality of understanding the world and solving its problems. We are unfortunately unable to go on that thread mill with our problems because we all want the jobs, every science student is aspiring for a job in a company to apply what he has studied for earnings.
For now most science teachers in my country are technicians, and their job is to memorize scientific information from books to share with students... no need for researches. These teachers had similar form of education years ago, and with so much in their mind, they can pour into our desperate minds...all we can afford is to acquiesce . But this can't be science for its lack of doubt. Science is doubt, and students should be allowed to explore beyond the expected. A scientist  is no Rabbi to be buried in a grave of limitations subjected by others, doing the will of others.

Isidor I. Rabi, Nobel Prize winner in Physics and the former Chairman of the Physics Department at Columbia University wrote:
    We don't teach our students enough of the intellectual content of experiments--their novelty and their capacity for opening new fields....My own view is that you take these things personally. You do an experiment because your own philosophy makes you want to know the result. It's too hard, and life is too short, to spend your time doing something because someone else has said it's important. You must feel the thing yourself...

As upcoming scientists, we need some independence in the methods of study and material to study. Do not restrict us to the syllables, and give us some room for doubting what you teach us, let us know all you are saying are perceptions of others but their validity is the fact that those perceptions work well in various fields in making life easy. Tell us science is easy and we could one day disprove some facts or make them  better. We need to realize we are the "science", and that science is not a bunch of information. Trigger that part of our mind that leads us questioning every minuscule of observation and anything you teach us. This is what will make us scientists.

The lab technician, the chemist, the doctor, the engineer and the science teacher are still technicians working solely with the principles and techniques acquired in school. The augment received in class from others seems to be the holy grail for them, and anything outside is alien. To be a scientist is the easiest but its method of teaching has scared a lot of potential students fearing the complexity of calculation system never applied in our daily lives.

In one of our talks about science and education, three students confessed aspiring to do science because their  teacher taught them rightly. Although he spent less than a year with them, he's left them in an ocean of passion for science. What did this teacher tell them to feel this way  for the subject most feared? One of them said," he once told us all he taught was just information and that  which we make of it is the knowledge, science knowledge is therefore subjective to every individual". We realized the teacher was a true scientist to have made them realized they could go on the journey finding their own  faith, and choosing what to believe and what not to believe.

The realization of the veiled truth in our physical world must be met by being true scientist in order to find ways to walk the walk of the universe we find ourselves. Let the doctor know he is a technician when he settles only on the known, disregarding the essence that there is a light beyond what is known. And let the mechanical engineer know that classical mechanics still needs some beginners’ minds, and the chemist, and all who want to be called “scientists”. There is a light beyond the boarders of the known.
Lets traverse this path together...lets do it together.

Teach Yourself Something Unique

Teaching yourself is one thing that I have always been a believer in. Because I believe you are your own best teacher and learning by yourself is very important. Why? Formal education will make you a living; self-education will make you a fortune.
Our teachers play a key role in our early education. But another truth I have found out and I would like to share with every eager mind out there is that things you teach yourself or better still discover on your own makes you stand out rather than blend with everybody; it makes you entitled to knowledge that you are the pioneer of. In teaching yourself you will have to resort to doing researches by reading books and articles written by other people, but it was your conscious effort to teach yourself what is in the learning materials that will make your knowledge unique. Discovery makes you different. And through learning and searching for knowledge on our own regarding a particular subject, we are able figure out things for ourselves that has been hidden.
The sum of all that I would like you to understand is you are your own best teacher.

When you learn something through your own research, it gives you an edge or leverage over others who are not entitled to what you have taught yourself through your own efforts. Others who never created the opportunity for themselves to learn what you already know, believe me you are one step ahead of them with the knowledge that is self-acquired.

Teaching yourself means educating yourself. For you to be reading this that means a teacher that could be a parent or a guardian gave you this knowledge of reading in school or at home-which is the foundation that you need and have already gotten. But you can also endeavor to learn on your own rather than waiting for a teacher, tutor, lecturers or teaching assistants or whatever form of instructor available at your level of education.

The truth is some teachers love their jobs and others don’t. So the level of patience that your teacher will display in making you understand something new is not what you will dedicate to yourself.

So as much as our teachers play an essential part in laying the foundation for our formal education, it is only yourself who can learn things that will take you to the heights that are known to only you.

The possibility that someone else also must have had the opportunity of learning what you have taught yourself is likely but at the end of the day you both end up learning entirely different things from the same book.
You must have read the same book from the same source but your level of understandings will be very much different. Successful people are people doing the same things right that others are doing wrong. And it is that uniqueness in knowledge that makes the difference.

The impact that self-tutorials can make on your life is limitless. Maximizing your knowledge base can turn your life around in unique ways. And it is not teaching yourself that is important but living by what you taught yourself or acting upon your knowledge is what will make you different and successful. And every aspect of life deserves some level of screening process. So you should learn how to take useful

Are Teachers Cheaters?

"None but geometers may enter"

This was written boldly atop the entrance to Plato's Academy in Athens. I'll tell you the significance of this in a while.

Many people think Science is a tall order for them, in fact, insurmountable. Their notions may be due to teacher's incompetence. Science isn't difficult (okay parts like Modern Physics may be too abstract) and do Science on a daily basis. A child who wants to learn how the lightbulb turns on can go like this:

Observation - after the light switch is flicked or pressed, the light turns on.
Hypothesis - the switch is responsible for the light turning on.
So he watches successive flicks or presses and with the gathering evidence, concludes that his hypothesis was valid, at which point it turns into a theory and a standard then. Look at your life and see how many times you do this, the underlying concept. You most assuredly do this, this is how Science is, basically. If only it was treated as such and not deified like it is in schools.

Now, the quote; I mentioned it because education in general may be simplified if we incorporate the use of learning styles. There are three recognized learning styles (there are others which I think are valid but aren't well-accepted in scholarly environment), visuospatial, verbal and kinesthetic. I am a visuospatial thinker and learner primarily and a verbal one closely secondarily. That then, fits me into Plato's bracket of geometers. When I was taught addition, it didn't make sense to me until Abacus was brought for me to visualize the adding process. A number meant squat to me. To date, a deluge of numbers annoys me, I hated the binomial theorem in Secondary School and still do. However, I loved the probability theory which had to do with manipulations that really didn't need numbers. The binomial theorem is translatable to spatial terms but can you do that in school? The fact that there's even a 'formula' is annoying. If you connect my mind to a PC and observe how I think, you would see dots, lines and all sorts of plane and 3D figures. Alas! I am a geometer!

In our classroom environments, we alienate different learning styles, different thoughts or ideas (nice that the blog is subtitled 'freethinking', innit?) and make students less capable than they are. Such alienation dampens confidence, reduces esteem, and by such reduction in belief, the student denigrates himself so that he cannot engage his normal processes (e.g. learning style) and do well as he is wired. Or, he denigrates himself and himself comes to believe that "he is no good" so that he becomes a bad student. This mode of operation of class affects too many of our students and makes us wonder how many geniuses are truck-pushers, mates and so forth, just because of an unaccommodating atmosphere. After all, it is just "what has worked" for us that becomes the standard. It doesn't make the different thought wrong, it doesn't.

If learning styles are more engaged, I believe our education would improve, and so would Scientific education. Scientific education would also improve if we just had more patient and humble teachers who would take their time to explain to students, to not think the students dumb and to make them know of the derivations to quell their misunderstandings. There is a particular line of thought that led to any given bit of information and it doesn't make any deviating thought wrong, it is what it is: deviant.

Memory Overrated, then Underrated

"Why bother committing to memory what can be looked up in 2 seconds" ~ Einstein

Well, that's the way I remember it but as I have forgotten where I read it, this is what I got right now as I searched:

"Never memorize something you can look up"

The words, the one way or the other, of the rascal, Albert Einstein. I must say I have always been an ardent believer in this. Even as a young boy in lower primary school, I detested and somehow looked with trepidation at my father's request of me to recount what the story of a novel I read was or was about. I tended to sum up works in nutshells a la Aesop's Fables (my all-time favorite book) and also tended to take my own thing from works i.e. what was actually not presented in the material.

Before I came into contact with these words by Einstein, I said these words similarly over and over again at various places viz. "why should I remember this when it's in the book" and then I'd scoff.

I have come to find that, through self-reflection and research in biographies and psychology texts, that such an attitude is one of the artist/inventor. They have no business memorizing anything, only discovering and constantly extending the bounds of the 'discovered'.

Recently, I read an article where one of the Google heads spoke about the internet dumbing us down since we could look up anything at the click of a button. That article was referring to the lack of, and bemoaning this lack, deep thinking involved in learning today. I am always one to 'deep think' so it doesn't refer to me. But, I will take my own spin on it and put it in my own context: that of memory.

I tend to keep my memory in my pocket. As a young boy, I'd argue well but because I'd forgotten my references, I couldn't prove my words when they weren't just clever guesses; you've had glimpses here, unintentional too. Nowadays, Hallelujah!!! The Internet allows me to just "put ya keywords in here" and shazam!!! that's my reference right there, my case is buttressed, busta, ha!!! I had been feeling guilty about my failing memory because of this, was even scared I'd one day forget my own name like Einstein did (allegedly) before the metioned article came along, so I decided to put in an experiment, a psychological experiment, and see. Well, well, well, the results have been telling as I expected (I didn't want to change though cos having 'flights of ideas' is so fantastic an experience) and my concentration has improved, my comprehension has improved, my patience in general has improved, my irritability too has reduced. These are the preliminary results as the experiment is on-going (I know you want to know the details of the experiment, I'll tell ya later), hit you back on it later.

This article is just a criticism of the position mentioned at the beginning and a minor exposition on 'Learning' and 'Memory' in Psychology. The position, though, can be seen more benignly as when not carried to extreme extents, it serves well for the wandering mind, the creative mind. There is a goodly amount of truth in that statement and all its variations.

Hope you enjoyed the article, my friend.

Instead of...

Instead of what Science should be, I will speak of what Science shouldn't be:

1. It should not be thought of as static. New discoveries lead to new info which lead to new theories, sometimes at the expense of the old. Science is very dynamic and though we need to learn what has been found so far, let's not turn it into what is always going to be found - a sad state in our schools.

2. Science cannot and should not be the starting point of every human endeavor. Nowadays, even art is becoming formulaic; the muse-inspired artist that Plato spoke of is a rarity. However, when one looks at it closely, one realizes that it was a similar situation in Plato's time which must have occasioned his thoughts on it and his effusive criticisms of the calculator artists.

Now, every little invention becomes standard practice, 'standard practice' - a scientific way of looking at the world. Art and Science always stand counterpoint to each other so I shouldn't be speaking about this as their eternal hostilities will just show what I seek to say, but it needs a human voice to back it up. That split between Art and Science is exemplified by the artist, William Blake, who criticized Science so vehemently; he however did not hate Science as he was too intelligent for that, he saw its use. Art is a liberator, Science is law. Science has to structure things, produce 'standards' lest our world falls. Art is just a happy toddler creating and forgetting what he has created leaving a mess behind him.

3. Science should not simply be theory, science is much valued for its practical use. Except for that, there will be nothing special about science and it would remain in the cot of Philosophy for all eternity. Science is what is empirically valid, we must find that in our schools and raise creative applicators, not only applicators; for an empirical method of learning already is in line with a practical style.

4. Learning, in general, in our schools is bogged down in minutiae. One thing that dismayed Einstein and led to him leaving school was a lack of creativity. Engage the students, let them think creatively about their approaches, sometimes it might not even match the 'standards' but it does not mean it is wrong, rather, the attitude to something like that should be "let's follow it and see where it goes".

5. There is also the issue of not investigating the fundaments of what we learn in our schools. We don't investigate the philosophical underpinnings of what is there, we should allow that. I remember once in my physics class that I asked a question and my teacher was stunned momentarily but came up with an apt answer, "I don't know but this one is useful so let's go on, we can find the other out later" at which we both smiled. This is an example of an encouraging teacher and a lover of learning. I was always depressed by the way school went, you couldn't question the assumptions made in developing a theory or something like that and you were made to just gobble it all up. It never was conducive to me, to me, I hadn't understood what I was supposed to have learned.

6. The fifth point leads to this: let's not get caught in the illusion that learning invariably has to be stepwise. One inane excuse they make is "that is an advanced level so let's not go there" when you ask a question that is supposed to take you to the higher levels. We are in school to learn, let us learn; you can't predict what my mind can do too so let's go and see. School almost ruined my love for learning; we must learn so let us learn.

Educational Policy: A way forward.

Vision
Inspire
Think
Notice
Practical Knowledge
Solve problems


Its dawn alright and I am starting out a new article.

Its 10th October 2011, and as I write this piece . Its been about 54years since a concise book was written on purposeful education for Africa.
Its been long road down here, and I wish to take up the subject again, because nothing has changed much since the last 54years.  In the previous years a professor of  Sociology Dr. K.A Busia wrote a wonderful book on what education should be. Most of the problems he saw and seeked change still exist today in most part of Africa. The purpose of this piece of writing is not to talk about how bad the education system is now or to analyze how come most of these problems exist.
I believe I am not the position to make such investigations. I am a SSS leaver and I have but experienced only  a third of the whole educational process in this country.
Someone might say then I dont have even a first hand experience of what the tertiary education is like to write an article to suggest a way forward. Well that will be very true. And I dont seek to contend with the fact.
Yet still, there is a saying that whatever is within is what reflects outward. On the grounds that I see what my friends and people in my community turn out when they graduate or even their attitude towards school, I believe there is still more to be done.

As I said earlier, I have no wish to talk about the issues in our educational system that plagues us all.This information is more or less redundant and stressing even makes it more so, because it doesn't help in anyway to change the current situation.

I wish to stress rather on a way forward. Mind you, my ideas may sound subjective at first. Probably because of the way I express myself and secondly because these ideas have no scientific backing. But I believe all the ideas I shall stipulate here are logical and when looked at carefully , is a feasible a way out. And secondly which idea at first is not subjective, all ideas are first subjective until affirmed and confirmed.

VISION:
It is a very simple fact that needs to be reckon with; you can't put up any structure without a blue print. You need a dream to achieve something, that sounded vague. A dream in sight is reality at bay.
We can say this in many different ways  but  truth is one, without a  target you are aimless.
It is very impotant that before this country can go forward it needs a dream, a dream of what life in this country should be like for the average person and what it takes to get there.
Aristotle puts it this way:The state comes in existence for the sake  of life; it exists for the sake of the "good life" and imparts it to its citizens".  
Vision is very important and the onus  falls on the opinion leaders of this country , to work with the people and find a way forward but its all talk in the air, to stress the point again, because little has been done so far with all the talk the professor did 54years ago.

In terms of   having the "good life" and imparting it to the people in what small way can we begin to turn things around?
The first block of socialization or education is the family. Considering this fact essential efforts could begin from there.
The family needs to have an idea of the good life is and what it takes to get there. When children are growing up parents are supposed to tell their children what they are capable of becoming and the efforts required to become that. Children need to be aware of the boundless opportunities that is open to them, and the need for them to experiment with ideas pertaining to the development of  first themselves and then their society. Children also need to understand that their efforts go a long way to help  the development of their country and that their role in this country is to leave a mark, a positive mark.

The young should be imparted with these ideas and the best place for them to start is their community. First by being introduced to volunteer works, and telling them the onus falls on them to find practical solutions to the problems they see in their community. The young will only know a situation is a problem if it conflicts with the true dream they believe in.
The community should be an organized entity where role models set a pace for the young . It should be an environment where children are guided , where  children are worked with to solve challenges. This is a sure grooming future leaders.

INSPIRE:
This word is a very essential part of human growth and development. What children end up becoming is because of what they are inspired by. Even at the point of death people are inspired to do the most never thought of  things.
Somewhere in all of us, lies great potentials and it always it takes some form inspiration to bring out the power that lies within. I could possibly write a whole book on inspiration and how it determines what we all become in the end... great people become great because of the sort inspiration they had and so do average men.

The role of parents is to inspire their children, the role of the community is to inspire its members, the role of the society is to inspire the people and this they can do with a dream.
The individual is the experience of the society, whereas, the society is the expression of the individual.

The teacher's role and the role of the school is to introduce the student to information and knowledge that will inspire the student to do greater things.

THINK.
Edward De Bono, invented the think tank, lateral thinking and many others, I cant possibly mention here.
He said something quite remarkarble; " the art of thinking should be introduced as a subject in schools"
Great men think and in a nation where there are thinkers, is a nation that thrives.

To be continued.............