Journeyman (Part 7)

I think it's possible to differentiate between a virtue and a value: a virtue requires a conscious and possibly moral choice, a value does not. That is why we use the phrase 'to make a virtue out of necessity'. Thus qualities like reliability, which inanimate objects and research data may possess, are not always virtues.

I considered linking 'value' to 'evaluation' — then a value is something you can evaluate, but a virtue is not. The thing is that 'value' need not imply 'quantity' nor lead to quantitative evaluation. This makes things difficult.

Values Inversion

So there I am, thinking about 'values-driven' education. And the man who is seriously talking about it mentions resilience, tenacity, integrity. All I can think of, it that one blinding flash of insight, is that he must be talking about hardened chewing-gum.

You can measure all three of these qualities quantitatively in a piece of hardened gum. You can evaluate them; that's why they're called values. But hardened chewing-gum has no virtue to it. It is a pestilence, an irritation, despite having resilience, tenacity and integrity. It has no justice, no compassion; it has no prudence, temperance, fortitude, faith, hope or charity.

That's because such qualities cannot be easily evaluated (if at all), and they need a live brain. They can be argued over, they can be tested and tried, but their right execution is an ideal that all societies think about at least once in their existence, and all good societies seek to imbue these characteristics in their members.

The problem with a values-driven education is the definition of values. And frankly, most people aren't very good at this.

Science is not Omniscience

There are many things that science does not see, and cannot by its nature see. It cannot see beauty, or suffering, or anything which requires a human value judgement. It cannot afford human value judgements. And yet, it is used as a tool to affirm and support human value judgements. This is like getting a set of tools and then deciding on the fitness of human hands by seeing how well they fit the tools.

The problems really arise when men, having created tools like the scientific method, then turn their tools upon themselves. Materialism and naturalism, having spawned such tools, are then investigated by these tools. It leads to paradox; how does the observer avoid seeing what he already knows he will see?

Look at psychological studies. The majority of those used to propound or defend widely debated and circulated views in the last 20 years have been carried out on Americans. It is like saying the brain is purely biological, and the biological American is representative of the human race because we are all human. Yes, this is true, but with caveats: the brain is shaped by environment, and as Americans never tire of telling the rest of the world, America is exceptional and exceptionalist.

The response might be, "Why not look at something more 'hard science', like physics?" Yes, but the harder the science, the less it applies to the mystery of why we should think what we think. The more we break apart the biochemical (or, at a higher level of structure, neurological) basis of thought, the less we find about what the point of it ought to be. If it is all a legacy of survival, then we no longer need artistry and comfort. We no longer need to think about evil, since it is hard to imagine why we would carry any moral responsibility at all.

It boils down to aesthetics. Either there is an aesthetic sense or there isn't. The aesthetic sense would say, "Evil is ugly, it is wrong, it feels bad." Science might say, all these are the chemical stirrings of survival traits. Well, then evil is an artifact, and debating the ideal society and the life of man and the destiny of humanity is about as good as studying metallurgy.

Where is the survival value in this huge overcapacity to debate the 'unnecessary'? We seem to be coming up with value-judgement excuses about why this might be necessary. We have built a huge armillary sphere of science-based arguments about how values arise from evolved processes designed to cope with the environment, and this is projected into a future where computing power allows us to cope with larger-scale and even larger-scale environments. And this, we can calculate, leads to something even more complicated, which will be indistinguishable from God.

It is far easier to think like a child and believe in God. But I don't think adult pride accepts such things. Even when they are in line with the sharpest edge of Ockham's Razor. Science is the tool of our self-justification, when it should just be our most useful tool for the physical and material world. We don't use the screwdriver to justify the hand.

Word of the Day: Valentine

It's a word with many strong associations for me. I used to write St Valentine's Day letters to a very few young ladies (all of who are now not so young, but as wonderful as ever). If I could digress a bit, I would remember them here and now in this blog; sadly, I suspect most of them would be less than thrilled.

But the word 'valentine' literally means 'an adherent of valentia' — and valentia is the Latin word that means 'the constant capacity for showing strength and power in an appropriate fashion'. You can sense the aura of this word in hymns such as the one that begins: "He who would valiant be 'gainst all disaster / Let him in constancy follow his Master."

A valentine is therefore one who is valiant, who shows valour, who has the property known as 'valency'. Aha, now you know why an alchemist would be so interested in this word. We now use 'valency' to mean 'the maximal or typical combining power of a chemical entity'.

We could just as easily have used another form of the word. Yes, indeed — if not for the occasional banality of scientific terminology, we would be saying things like, "The carbon atom is quadruply valentine."

Educating for Globalism

Over the last few months, I've been reading a host of authors on how they see education reforms in this age of globalism. Almost unanimously, they say a few things:

1. Teach young people to be more aware of current affairs.
2. Let them participate in more discussions.
3. Give them opportunities to examine the key forces that drive the world.
4. Make them politically aware.
5. Allow them to be politically active.
6. Help them discover complex modes of thinking and doing.
7. Prepare them for a world with far fewer fixed jobs and far more independent opportunities.

The list goes on, and on, and on.

But what I see is that it really reduces to three very old points. What education is all about, as Howard Gardner used to point out before he got sucked into the jargon-making apparatus, is:

1. Teaching people how to figure out what is true.
2. Teaching people how to figure out what is right.
3. Giving them opportunities to decide for themselves what is fitting and beautiful (since you can't really teach that).

Truth, goodness, beauty. That's the main thing in terms of content. In the world of today, everything is a lot more accessible. There is an increasing information burden, and the effort required to turn this into knowledge is immense. But it is the same kind of effort as it always has been: the effort to decide what is true, what is the right thing to do given what is true, and how to make the best of what we have.

Young people today will be as politically engaged or disengaged as they want to be. They will know as much as they want. They will discuss things with you if they want. You can guide them as any other generation has been guided, but young people are young people and the kind of guidance required will not change much. Technology and the high information density of the converging world are about the only differences now.

One last word from even further back in time: how do we know what is good? A fellow named Micah once said, "He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" Whether you believe in God or not, the principles of justice, mercy and humility are certainly key signposts on the road of human existence—whether global or local, in the wide world or in the streets where we live.

Work Appraisal (Part 1)

It is the time of the annual inquisition. The hooded magistrates wait, seated at the great table of judgement. The bailiffs stand outside, heavily armed. Sir Wolff enters, beweaponed with nothing but the invisible sacramentals.

Sir Wolff, what were your duties this year?

To serve the public trust, protect the innocent, and uphold the law. To be courageous in the face of enmity, valorous in the face of jeopardy, honourable in the face of venality, determined in the face of obstinacy. To follow the faithful from beginning to end, to Jerusalem and to Antioch and to the uttermost boundaries of the face of this world. To be a shield to the defenceless, a shelter for the oppressed, a rock for the troubled, and the shadow of a mighty rock within a burning land.

Quite. And what were your duties this year as defined by the Magistratum?

To do as I am told. To serve the rule of the Order and the leadership of the Magistratum. To act in a manner consistent with professed standards of excellence as described by the rule and the leadership. To not bring opprobrium upon any member of the Magistratum, nor allow any information which might do so to be expressed in a public place.

That's better. Although the word is 'professional'. And have you fulfilled your duties?

Yes.

No, not your duties, but your duties!

Yes...

"Yes..."?

Yes.

Grand Inquisitor scribbles: "Is aware of the scope of his duties."

Sir Wolff, have you been a faithful servant to the Magistratum?

Insofar as the Magistratum exists to serve the rule and founding vision of the Order, I have borne true faith and allegiance to everything that this Order might require in the execution of duty and the preservation of its heritage.

Answer the question.

I have been both faithful and a servant to the Magistratum.

That will have to do. Are you happy?

It is my joy to maintain the faith of my ancestors and the honour of the Order.

Grand Inquisitor scribbles: "Is extremely happy in his work."

Are you satisfied with the support the Magistratum has given you this year?

Yes. I am satisfied that the support given to me by the Magistratum is the most support that the Magistratum might give.

Very good.

Grand Inquisitor scribbles: "Is greatly satisfied with Magistratum support."

Do you have any problems with the Order or your colleagues?

I am in the habit of solving my own problems and there are none I have not solved that I have tried to solve.

Grand Inquisitor scribbles: "Is a good problem solver and has no problems at all."

Do you have anything else to say?

Nothing but what I will say in the last days.

Grand Inquisitor scribbles: "The best is yet to be."

You may leave. Summon the next candidate.