The Preface

The Preface

 

The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim. The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.

The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography. Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.

 

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.

 

There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.

 

The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.

 

The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass. The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved. No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style. No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art. From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type. All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless.

 

 

Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

I’m a scarecrow

I’m a scarecrow

 

Lion: Hey Max, you heard the story of the scarecrow?
Max Millan: No.
Lion: You think crows are scared of a scarecrow?
Max Millan: Yeah, I think they're scared. Yeah why?
Lion: No, crows are not scared, believe me.
Max Millan: The god damn crows are scared.
Lion: No, crows are laughin'.
Max Millan: Nah, that's bullshit...
Lion: That's right, the crows are laughin'. Look, the farmer puts out a scarecrow, right, with a funny hat on it, got a funny face. The crows fly by, they see that, it strikes 'em funny, makes 'em laugh.
Max Millan: The god damn crows are laughin'?
Lion: That's right, they're laughin' their asses off. And then they say, "Well, that ol' farmer Jo down there, he's a pretty good guy. He made us laugh, so he won't bother him any more."
Max Millan: The god damn crows are laughin'...
Lion: Ohh, they laughin', woooo!
Max Millan: I gotta tell ya somethin', that's the most hare-brained idea I've ever heard.
Lion: It's true, they're laughin' their asses off.
Max Millan: The crows are laughin'... I guess the fish are reciting poetry...
Lion: I guess so.
Max Millan: Uh huh... and the uh, pigs are playin' banjo? And the dogs would be, let's see, uh... playin' hockey. And the uh... the uh...
Lion: Crows are laughin'.
Max Millan: Crows are laughin', right. Ya know, in the joint I've heard some tales, oh boy, golly I've heard some tall tales. But at least those guys had the decency to admit that it was bullshit, you know what I mean? They actually took pride, pride in that it was bullshit. But the crows are laughin' huh? I mean you're not playin' with a full deck man, you got one foot in the grave beyond.

 

 

Scarecrow

Learning to swear

Learning to swear

Oswald.  What dost thou know me for?

 

Kent.       A knave, a rascal, an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-liver’d, action-taking knave; a whoreson, glass-gazing, superserviceable, finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd, in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar, and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition.

 

King Lear
Act II. Scene II.

Non sequitur

Non sequitur

Everybody should read this article, at least to have a notion.

This definitely needs to be taught at schools/college.

It is amazing the amount of arguments one could avoid if only people knew some basics about formal logic.

 

An excerpt:

 

“Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies”

Presentación Edapi

Presentación Edapi

 

Here is the presentation I used today for my Edapi presentation.

The presentation was in Spanish, so that people from other departments could participate.

It’s not the same without audio, though perhaps it’s even better: you make up your own speech!

 

La guerra de los mundos on Prezi

 

Tons of thanks to those who came!

Why can't I own a Canadian?

Why can't I own a Canadian?

 

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

 

 

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

 

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

 

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

 

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

 

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

 

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

 

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

 

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair,  like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

 

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

 

 

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia

 

 

PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)

 

 

 

(Thanks to gerund)

On motivation

On motivation

This is an animated version of a lecture by Daniel Pink, very similar in content to the one that he delivered to TED.

Quite interesting and thought provoking (some people may even start to understand how the web and some new technologies are working…)

The learning revolution

The learning revolution

I strongly encourage everybody to watch this video, and its predecessor if you haven't seen it.
It's interesting to hear somebody say what you have been thinking for a while, and to hear new concepts and ideas as well.

Will technology replace teachers?

Will technology replace teachers?

"Technology will not replace teachers.
But teachers who use technology will replace those who don't."
Christine Meloni, 1998

“One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men.

No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man.”

Elbert Hubbard, The Roycroft Dictionary and Book of Epigrams, 1923

The meaning of the term “technology” has changed over and over throughout history, but people’s attitude has always remained the same. While some people love it and take advantage of it (and idealise too much at the same time), some others fear it and step aside. Technology is change, and we are naturally reluctant to changes. Especially if those changes are managed by people and knowledge that remain unknown to most of us. Probably, the wisest place to take is well in between these two extremes.

It is completely undeniable to me that technology, as well as most (if not all) things that happen in social life, encroaches into education’s sphere; and therefore, in teachers competence. Teachers (and students) are compelled then to face it, and take action, even if that means struggling against well-rooted conservative techniques.

Incorporating technology as part of our everyday education is not only useful but necessary. This is not only because the academic circle tends to leave aside those who are “behind”, but specially because students who have it as part of their regular life, need to incorporate it as a regular tool.

Although technology and its uses and benefits are very easy and clear to see, they should not be overrated. Some teachers (and students too) may believe that technology can fix those holes derived from some others lacks, or that it may reduce your amount of work. Unfortunately, technology is, and it will be for long, only a complement, a resource, a tool.

The same reasoning should be used with those who do not have (or are not willing to) access technology. Some people may be reluctant to go off the established paths. This is fairly easy to understand if we think of people living a different reality from the one we have in the city.

Maybe the point is not whether a teacher uses or not technology, but what attitude he/she takes about it. After all, technology is just a (minor) part of a bigger whole, and it may only be the indicator to look at when we need to reflect upon a teacher’s capacity to adapt to different and ever-changing situations.