Past Oral Care
I spent today working hard at stuff I like working hard at. In my spare time, I pick apart the education system to see how it works and how, perhaps, it can be made to work better. It alarms me at how much we do in the service of education without understanding what it is; it terrifies me to see how, sometimes, we pay so much lip service to unknown gods that it's a wonder we don't blow our budget on lip gloss.
In any system, in any society, people fall prey to the Golden Age syndrome. We tend to think that the past (specifically, our own past) was better than the present, or that we were wiser or less foolish than our successors. We claim that we are confident about the future and place great responsibility in the hands of our heirs, but we second-guess them and baulk them and constrain them. Sometimes, this is good simply because our putative successors are unready as yet to meet the ghastly wasteland that lies ahead (a picture that we have sometimes painted for them). Sometimes, it is because secretly we fear two things: that people will blame us for not being cautious enough, or that our successors will achieve what we thought was impossible – thus showing us up as fakes.
In every society that has ever been of note in our fractured and fragmented accounts of history, there are the 'old men'. Gerontocracies abound, and not every society has found ways to deal with them. The former Soviet Union is a case in point. 'Old men' need not be men; they need not even be old in a chronological sense. But they are the voice of a specific kind of limiting conservatism with is arthritic and afraid. You will know them when the large bulk of a society is ossifying but makes claims to glory and dominion, power and authority. That was Brezhnev's USSR; it was also so in the last days of Rome.
But this is not only about the 'old men'. This is also about the 'young ones'. Again, 'young ones' need not be young; they are identifiable by a galvanic and restless imagination, a need for difference, for testing and overcoming boundaries. Where the 'old men' over-justify and are dishonest through withholding of information 'for the greater good', the 'young ones' under-justify and are dishonest in the name of 'transparency, creativity, newness'. When the large bulk of a society is in perennial flux and nothing is held as certain; when 'truth' is used as a label meaning 'sterile, boring and irrelevant material', you have encountered the 'young ones'.
The worst thing is when society becomes polarised between 'old men' and 'young ones'. Then one of the major forces in society urges restraint and petrification in the name of safety and security, while another major force counters it with cries of iconoclasm and anarchy in the name of freedom and creativity. When both are successful, society is the loser, a corpse picked apart by jackals and vultures, each group convinced that they are doing the best with limited resources.
There is a thin and often maligned barrier that keeps either from full ascendance. That narrow wall is a kind of reason. It isn't logic; neither is it obfuscation or philosophy. It is the voice of deliberate agenda to determine what a better world is like, and how we might reach it through means which are congruent with ends. 'Good means leading to good ends' characterises it best. Many scoff at it, claiming that it is naïve and impotent. And in a fallen world, it sometimes is.
When we know the apocalypse is upon us, when we say, "Aw, we should have listened to the voices which counselled moderation, hope, dialogue and kindness," and realise that there is none left for us; then, we will have lost everything that was worth fighting for, whether old or young. It has to be our aim, despite the knowledge that the future will certainly contain much evil, to shoot for the stars and to dream great dreams. It has to be in us to make the effort to work for a future and not lose hope or break faith.
In the end, people will still accuse the idealists of, "No action, talk only." It is a common accusation, and sometimes too true. It is a statement that the oral will not suffice; it must be rebutted by the moral and humane. It is not enough to pursue endless pinnacles of excellence without asking what they're for. It is not enough to do science without solving the mystery of why there is such a thing as scientific law in the first place. And most of all, we should learn to lead quiet lives, minding our own business (which is indeed, the business of the world), not being a burden to anyone, and working with our hands to make as much that is of lasting value as we can.
In any system, in any society, people fall prey to the Golden Age syndrome. We tend to think that the past (specifically, our own past) was better than the present, or that we were wiser or less foolish than our successors. We claim that we are confident about the future and place great responsibility in the hands of our heirs, but we second-guess them and baulk them and constrain them. Sometimes, this is good simply because our putative successors are unready as yet to meet the ghastly wasteland that lies ahead (a picture that we have sometimes painted for them). Sometimes, it is because secretly we fear two things: that people will blame us for not being cautious enough, or that our successors will achieve what we thought was impossible – thus showing us up as fakes.
In every society that has ever been of note in our fractured and fragmented accounts of history, there are the 'old men'. Gerontocracies abound, and not every society has found ways to deal with them. The former Soviet Union is a case in point. 'Old men' need not be men; they need not even be old in a chronological sense. But they are the voice of a specific kind of limiting conservatism with is arthritic and afraid. You will know them when the large bulk of a society is ossifying but makes claims to glory and dominion, power and authority. That was Brezhnev's USSR; it was also so in the last days of Rome.
But this is not only about the 'old men'. This is also about the 'young ones'. Again, 'young ones' need not be young; they are identifiable by a galvanic and restless imagination, a need for difference, for testing and overcoming boundaries. Where the 'old men' over-justify and are dishonest through withholding of information 'for the greater good', the 'young ones' under-justify and are dishonest in the name of 'transparency, creativity, newness'. When the large bulk of a society is in perennial flux and nothing is held as certain; when 'truth' is used as a label meaning 'sterile, boring and irrelevant material', you have encountered the 'young ones'.
The worst thing is when society becomes polarised between 'old men' and 'young ones'. Then one of the major forces in society urges restraint and petrification in the name of safety and security, while another major force counters it with cries of iconoclasm and anarchy in the name of freedom and creativity. When both are successful, society is the loser, a corpse picked apart by jackals and vultures, each group convinced that they are doing the best with limited resources.
There is a thin and often maligned barrier that keeps either from full ascendance. That narrow wall is a kind of reason. It isn't logic; neither is it obfuscation or philosophy. It is the voice of deliberate agenda to determine what a better world is like, and how we might reach it through means which are congruent with ends. 'Good means leading to good ends' characterises it best. Many scoff at it, claiming that it is naïve and impotent. And in a fallen world, it sometimes is.
When we know the apocalypse is upon us, when we say, "Aw, we should have listened to the voices which counselled moderation, hope, dialogue and kindness," and realise that there is none left for us; then, we will have lost everything that was worth fighting for, whether old or young. It has to be our aim, despite the knowledge that the future will certainly contain much evil, to shoot for the stars and to dream great dreams. It has to be in us to make the effort to work for a future and not lose hope or break faith.
In the end, people will still accuse the idealists of, "No action, talk only." It is a common accusation, and sometimes too true. It is a statement that the oral will not suffice; it must be rebutted by the moral and humane. It is not enough to pursue endless pinnacles of excellence without asking what they're for. It is not enough to do science without solving the mystery of why there is such a thing as scientific law in the first place. And most of all, we should learn to lead quiet lives, minding our own business (which is indeed, the business of the world), not being a burden to anyone, and working with our hands to make as much that is of lasting value as we can.
Labels: Education, Reflection
etched with acid at 6:11:00 pm
2 Comments:
and so in our fallen world, how can we reverse what has been done?
and thanks for the welcome =D
As an idealist who is learning from people like Mr Tan and Becca (and learning so much...)
My take is this some things you need to do first before you talk. Other things you need to talk first before you do. this is one of the applications of the principle of doing the right thing at the right time.
But how do you know when to do and when to talk? The simple answer is experience. What has experience taught me?
Read my book on life to find out... =)
It's in the writing, with no deadline for completion / publication as yet.
Autolycus, I hope you will be a reader while I write? And help me correct my inane Xinglish into something that is understandable by non-Xinners ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home