Mind's Eye Re: Question of Purpose

I was OK with the university scene until 1995/6 - that's when fees
came in and we started recruiting masses of foreign students and
dropped real entry qualifications more or less to ability to mist the
mirror. It would be OK if the qualifications and experience really
did something for most students, but for most it means debt problems
and most would benefit lot more doing a degree at 25 +. The key
stats are that the only students who really benefit financially are
already from well-off families and the lack of really skilled jobs in
the economy. We could have moved to a model much more involved with
industry, but instead the way funding worked made it impossible to
keep up he work we already did in that area - really good work project
based qualifications were replaced by classroom taught programmes. I
obtained several million in research/project funding but saw most of
it wasted. At least in this new line of work no one gets stuck with
the debt bill. I have to requalify as my assessor certificate has
lapsed - I'm half-way through and pretty dreadful! Even on this
course I've noticed about half my fellow students have been taken on
without enough experience to get assessing jobs. I've already been
offered work and once I'm up and running Sue will do the course - the
thinking is that we would be able to do a day a week each after we
retire to fund some travelling.
It's not teaching that proved the problem for me Allan - more the
difficulty in doing what was right for students - I'd be quite happy
doing lab work with some. Thanks for the kind words Molly - if I'm
honest what I'd really like a crack at would be the banksters and
crooked politicians. Rigs has me right in this respect. I must tidy
up the novel so I can send you guys a copy.

On Feb 11, 12:49 pm, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a much to be admired in your willingness to let go of the
> seeming crap and move into opportunities that seem to have more
> value.  I use the word seem because, for me, it is always a leap of
> faith and I am rarely sure.  Your recognition of the opportunities
> around you is also encouraging.  I am with rigs, I doubt if your days
> will ever be uninteresting.  You do seem to find it.
>
> On Feb 10, 7:11 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm doing the assignments for my assessor certificate this week (mine
> > lapsed)- the course is hopeless but I need the ticket.  The purpose is
> > to get work I feel is less of a rip-off than university teaching.  We
> > muddle along!
>
> > On Feb 10, 9:12 pm, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Agreed.
>
> > > On Febng1:29 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have noticed, over the years, that much 'purpose' is something else
> > > > - seemingly fabricated - as in mission statements as bad as higher
> > > > education institutions 'being about' providing high quality
> > > > educational experiences - something one could hardly think of as
> > > > differentiating one from another.  In practice we seem to be limited
> > > > to making the same old mistakes with statements of purpose connected
> > > > with fantasy.  We might do better to think more in terms of
> > > > structuring opportunities to nurture each other.
>
> > > > On 10 Feb, 15:30, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I think purpose is relevant to us, until it is not, like cause and
> > > > > effect is important until, it is not.
>
> > > > > On Feb 9, 10:42 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > That seems about right ID10.  The world is perspectival - all sorts of
> > > > > > stuff is justified from this perspective and that - many societies
> > > > > > have lived with slavery justified and so on.  All of us are brought up
> > > > > > to believe one parochial set of beliefs or another.  There seems to
> > > > > > have been a time before human perspective.  I think science has more
> > > > > > or less told us our purpose is to develop technology to leave the
> > > > > > planet - but this is purpose limited by assumptions it's better to
> > > > > > survive than not.  It leaves open wider questions of purpose that we
> > > > > > might gather along the way or give up on.  I'm not keen on purpose
> > > > > > gained from religious faith or faith in one's country - we all turn
> > > > > > out to have lots to be ashamed of in these respects.  I'm fairly sure
> > > > > > no that human purpose is now largely irrelevant and our future lies in
> > > > > > machine life.
> > > > > > .
>
> > > > > > On Feb 9, 11:31 am, "ID10ToT...@googlemail.com"
>
> > > > > > <id10tot...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Does the concept of purpose apply to species lower than humans or only to humans? If it does apply then at what level does it stop, sheep, fish, plans? And in case it stops at some level or ronly applies to humans is this definition based on the species having a spirit or a soul as some body may suggest, or is it based on having a certain level of consciousness? If it's based on the concept of a spirit or a soul then it's a matter of metaphysics and faith. If it's based on consciousness and we are talking in terms of the physical universe in which we live, then by definition purpose would be an invention of the human mind and it would be a matter of definition and how we view the world and view ourselves in it but it would be anything but a universal metaphysical thing on which we all could agree especially that it would look entirely different in the eyes of a more advanced species than our selves.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.