Re: [unrev-II] The future of higher education

From: Jack Park (
Date: Sun Nov 18 2001 - 11:41:55 PST

  • Next message: "[unrev-II] New Compendium case study document online"

    Quotations found at

    "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and
    catastrophe."H.G. Wells

    "The world we have made as a result of the level of the thinking we have
    done thus far creates problems that we cannot solve at the same level (of
    consciousness) at which we have created them. . .We shall require a
    substantially new manner of thinking if humankind is to survive."Albert

    "Never underestimate the power of a small but committed group of people to
    change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

    At 07:08 AM 11/18/2001 -0500, you wrote:
    >I fully echo your sentiment that the most important use for OHS/DKR is in
    >lifelong education. I like to add a dimension to that term "lifelong
    >education." We have come to perceive it as an extension of formal education or
    >of formal education with real-life experiences thrown in. Either way, lifelong
    >education is perceived as a personal thing.
    >I believe it is in the spirit of friends of Engelbart to attempt to define a
    >form of education that recognizes the need for educational complementarity,
    >something like x heads are better than one. I know, we are already making
    >practical use of that on an ad-hoc basis. Organizations attract humans with
    >specific skills to round out the desired overall skill of the organization.
    >Engelbart's work serves to perfect the interactions so as to do a better
    >job of
    >using multiple talents within an organization, or, as I myself prefer to put
    >it, doing a better job of using multiple talents engaged in a communal
    >Not to lengthen this post too much, but we must explicitly recognize that
    >educational complementarity does not limit itself to intellectual areas of
    >expertise, but also takes into account multiple intelligences such as those
    >isolated by Howard Gardner of Harvard:
    >(1) linguistic, (2) logico-mathematical, (3) musical, (4) bodily-kinesthetic,
    >(5) spatial, (6 interpersonal, and (7) intrapersonal. Gardner is looking at
    >additional intelligences as well.
    >Looking at the list, one readily recognizes how schools especially value the
    >first two forms of intelligence. Grading, admissions, psychological
    >screening -
    >all these emphasize those two forms. Without detailed study, I am assuming
    >it is these two forms that are primary in creating social and/or financial
    >success. Our organizations are very much structured around that, but there are
    >circumstances under which other forms are (the most?) important prerequisites
    >for survival.
    >Doug does recognize multiple intelligences and their complementarity, although
    >not formally classified as done by Gardner. Nevertheless, Augment and the OHS
    >are still perceived primarily as tools related to the first two types of
    >Gardner's intelligences. (Inclusion of multimedia may broaden that base.)
    >I propose that we also pay due attention to complementarity of
    >intelligences in
    >the collective IQ. Now, don't ask me how we are going to institute that in,
    >say, the development of Fleabyte, which seeks to become a DKR ammenable to
    >utilization in an open hyperdocument system. I haven't got the answer and I'll
    >be pleasantly surprised if somebody else has. But at least we can
    >recognize the
    >need for explicitly cultivating the utilization of such complementarity in the
    >hope that by doing so we will eventually stumble onto solutions.
    >Jack refers to a document called "THE FUTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION: For All
    >Worldwide, a Holistic View," by Parker Rossman. It appears to be an important
    >document for us in terms of content and in terms of its mechanics of
    >into a better document for it wants to be a "living document."). In this sense
    >it is akin to our own groping. Problem is, we can't be all expected to come
    >fully to grips with it. If we, as Friends of Engelbart, are to succeed, we
    >recognize the need for applied complementarity in our, this most informal,
    >"organization." And this need applies to a number of topic areas.
    >My question now is, how can we best, and in a spirit of free-mindedness,
    >"organize" ourselves to effectively address topic areas so as to make
    >use of complementarity of interests and expertise?
    >What I am hoping for here is that we first stab away at this question (as we
    >usually do on this forum) and then discipline ourselves somewhat (as we rarely
    >do) to refine the aggregate of responses into a short, to-the-point proposal
    >for creating effective complementarity. I propose that somewhere in the
    >someone will step forward to assume the role of "threadmaster" to cast the
    >intellectual ingot for our e-journal.
    >That refinement is so essential. Some wag has said many decades ago that the
    >educational literature is more voluminous than nutritious. As an e-journal we
    >should recognize this and learn how to separate, refine, and then make things
    >digestible for communal use. In other words, we need to establish a
    >process and
    >manage it. (Yes Rod W., I feel the vibes.)
    >If we succeed in this we may be in a good position to have mutually fruitful
    >exchanges with Parker Rossman. May be exchanges that lead to co-operative

    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
    Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
    Refill any ink cartridge for less!
    Includes black and color ink.

    Community email addresses:
      Post message:
      List owner:

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sun Nov 18 2001 - 11:36:20 PST