Excellent interview - very thought provoking. Those that staff these programmes must be amazing individuals - to work with people with complex needs on a one-to-one basis, without judgement and with this type of patience and creativity must be a really rare quality.
Josh at TPM has been saying about how private companies (notably facebook) have taken over the ‘public square’ – the place where issues are talked and argued
In planning, we call it a 'third space' - that place designed into cities and neighbourhoods where people meet up, play a game, etc.
It's noticeable that in Japan and Europe these third spaces are always full of people passing the time of day. Here in NZ, and in the US as well - they more get designed for people to pass through (whether on a bike, or having a walk/jog, etc.) as opposed to places to just sit down and have a yarn or a game of checkers.
Amazing - both the opportunity in timing to get those unobstructed shots and the irony of the opulence, craft and creative expression contained in the subject matter.
ehara koe i a ia!
Thank you, lovely thought - beautiful language/meaning - and the same to you! I love this place because I learn so much.
You can teach morals all day long, getting people to live up to them is always going to be the hard part
Yes, indeed, but I think living up to them becomes so much easier when you learn how to reflect on your actions based on understanding the various/different ethical frameworks that make up the body of knowledge on ethics - and the earlier in life we get this kind of knowledge, the better to my mind.
I wouldn't envisage a NZ curriculum teaching morals _per se_, (i.e., the first-order set of beliefs or practices about how to live a good life) but rather I'd like to see the curriculum teach ethics, the second-order, conscious reflection on the adequacy of our moral beliefs (and hence our actions/decision-making). Thus the intention is not to deny anyone their own beliefs or practices, nor to try to instill certain morals (i.e., indoctrinate).
Ethics (the philosophy of) provides the justification of our moral positions - and what I've found over time in teaching those basic ethical frameworks (I teach three fundamental ones), is that students begin to understand how others come to have different first-order beliefs and practices (i.e., why other would take a different action or view a problem/solution a different way), and hence students then question/reflect on their own personal morals/solutions/actions against those other ethical frameworks.
As an anecdotal aside, I have this little exercise which has students pick/discover/get insight into their own ethical framework before such time as I teach them those three basic frameworks. It goes like this - pick one that is the <b>most</b> you:
1. I never tell a lie because lying is always wrong.
2. I would tell a lie if it was the best thing to do in the circumstances.
3. I find it very hard to lie.
It is by no means scientifically robust, but one has to start the learning/self discovery somewhere.
I ran this little exercise at a dinner out with friends who had known one another for years and years (i.e., from primary school and they are now in their sixties). One of the guys picked 1. and another who had picked 2. spent a lot of time arguing with the guy who picked 1. that that premise could not be how he really thought/acted.
It was such an interesting exchange between them - as knowing these two guys myself (but not for nearly as long as they had known one another), I would have picked them as indeed having very different ethical frameworks. No framework is morally right or morally wrong, or superior to another - they are just different ethical bases on which we develop beliefs and practices - and form opinions and take actions.
That fact that person 2. couldn't accept person 1. had the 'frame' that he had declared for himself, was a perfect example to my mind of the obstacles we need to overcome in order to develop shared meaning. And the real positive/hopeful lesson for me was that these two people were and had been really good friends for years and years, despite their very different ways of looking at things.
Apologies for the overly long response ... it's one of the hazards of teaching a topic one is so enthusiastic about.
The piece by Leonie Pihama is wonderful.
I must say, as both an alumni and a lecturer at Massey, I’ve been a bit surprised/disappointed that I haven’t come across more support expressed for Jan Thomas’ decision.
FWIW, I explained my position on it on this blog (it was the first blog entry that I came across on the subject) - I'm also me, Katharine Moody on that blog;
Simon Bridges on the issue;
Einstein. ; )
Look Dennis, it's a silly game. For every name you or Don put forward, I could counter it with another of same or different ethnoreligious background. None of this being at all rational or scientific.
For these specific individuals mentioned by both you and Don Brash (and being mindful these are just a small number of names chosen to suit the superiority argument), it could be that their socioeconomic background and educational privilege favoured the opportunity of expression of their ideas, demonstrations of their skill sets and attention paid to their contributions/endeavours - over those of their global contemporaries of other socioeconomic backgrounds, geographic locations, religions and cultures, e.g.,
And there must be many studies that suggest environment (including time and place of birth) matters, over genetics (race) and religious affiliation (culture).
So no, I don't know of the "maths" (i.e. statistical research) that has been done to quantify this proposition that a Jewish ethnoreligious grouping is any more "culturally advanced", (whatever criteria is meant by "advanced"), than non-Jewish ethnoreligious peoples of the world. Happy to have a read of that evidence if you're aware of it.
And I'm pretty sure that there is no correlation between being a wealthy Jewish mogul and cultural (or social) superiority or advancement.
Maximising tolerance does actually require you be reasonably intolerant toward particularly intolerant people.
Couldn't agree more. And Mark Taslov's points are extremely well made.
Don Brash's latest from last night is this pearl of wisdom;
“Jewish culture is more advanced that other cultures”.
And the evidence?
He then listed the disproportionate number of Nobel prizes and Oscars for film directing that Jewish people had won. This, plus the high number of CEOs in top US companies and the fact that Jewish entrepreneurs had started Facebook and Google