Re: [cicdd] By strength of "truth" #03

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

At 11:05 -0800 1-01-2006, lpc1998 wrote:
> Hi Antonio,
>

> Since you are honest with the main cause of your unhappiness

> with me, I shall try my best to tell my side of the story.

>

(snip)

Eric, and all Democracy lovers,

The fact that I've been 'honest' -- I suppose you used this term

in a sense like 'sincere' -- with exposing my reasonings to you,

does not prove that I've been objective.  Rather, both sides of

"the story", as well as other discussions that have been posted

recently to the list, and the last five years over of "democratic"

debate mostly in cicdd and wddm, have only proved that this

heterogeneous group of Democracy sincere lovers -- including

myself in this very sample of  what Democracy could be -- is

suffering from severe troubles of communication.

Well, now that we know all the sides of the story, I shall try

my best to present you what could be a solution contribute.

I will articulate my presentation in three successive steps:

I.   Axiomatic Democracy

II.  Axioms and Dogmas

III. The Educational Approach.

===============================

I. - AXIOMATIC  DEMOCRACY

Recently, in cicdd list, I had to state an axiom on building

Democracy up. It was:

"1.  Since "Democracy" is a product of  the people's minds,

     it is inside the people's minds that it must be built first."

(where "mind" is meant to be the thinking function of a mature

human brain.)

From this axiom some logical deductions, or subordinated

axioms, follow. That are:

1. a - "A person in whose mind Democracy has not been
        built first, is unfit to produce Democracy"

Let me also remark that the same 1. Axiom is valid for ALL

the products that qualify the human mind.  Indeed, the word

"democracy can be replaced inside it with a lot of  similar

"products" of the human minds, such as Peace, Freedom,

Justice, Honesty  and so on.

Thence, we can have further correlated axioms, such as :

1. b - "Since Peace is a product of  the people's minds, it is
        inside the people's minds that Peace must be built first."

1. c - "Since Freedom is a product of  the people's minds, it is
        inside the people's minds that Freedom must be built first"

and so on.

Hence, in order to be expressed more correctly, Axiom 1.

becomes:

2.  To be able to output its products successfully, people's
    minds must have been first inseminated accordingly.

There is but another axiom of a greater overall order to be

considered as very relevant by each one of us Democracy

lovers who are discussing -- and possibly spreading -- what

Democracy stands for. It is:

3. "All of this belongs to Communication."

Hence our initial Axiom 1., to be expressed more correctly,

becomes:

3. a -  "Since Democracy, that is a part of *Communication*,

is a product of  the people's minds, it is inside the people's

minds that *it* must be built first.

And finally, summing up all the above axioms, we might

conclude as follows:

4. Since Communication -- encompassing Democracy, Peace,

Justice, Honesty and so on -- is  a product of  the people's minds,

it is inside the people's minds that it must be built first."

Having stated this, now that we Democracy builders have

come to the point that, wanting to build Democracy, better

we build Communication inside the people's minds first, let's

consider what kind of Communication we like.

Let's suppose, the communication we are looking for bases

itself on always-to-be-discussed Axioms, rather than on

never-to-be-discussed Dogmas.

This introduces to the II part of this Presentation.

==========================================

II -  AXIOMS AND DOGMAS

Recently, I've been discussing the functioning of the human

brain -- commonly named "mind" with Dave Taylor, who is

a studious of the "Logical Types" theory. Under the light of

this renown theory, I tried to expose the logical steps that

could explain the why of  the mind's dogmatic approach to

communication. I quote an excerpt from that dialogue:

QUOTE

----------------------------------------------------------------

... as I see the process as, any "selection" happens between two
at least chances.  A first chance is generated by the stimulus,
possibly in one of the two brain hemispheres.  We may call
it "thesis". A second chance is generated in parallel nervous
structures, likely in the other brain hemisphere as the place
of simulative (logical) thinking.  We may call it "antithesis".
This thesis-antithesis phase belongs to a precise logical level,
 let's call it "1. Logical Level" (1.LL).

If these two chances are well balanced in the 1.LL, no one of the
two brain hemispheres prevails, and no "synthesis" is generated.
That is, Synthesis is optional. Conversely, if  one of  the two

chances-hemispheres prevails, a response (synthesis) is put out

from the operating terminals, as a motion or a sentence.
This phase belongs to a different logical level, lets call it "2.LL"

Of course, if a sentence is put out, it enters a third logical

level, distinct from 2.LL.  It goes to be the logical level of

*communication*.

(...)

If we put the matter in terms of "tension increase/decrease",
at start we have a quiet brain, with no tensions inside.  When
a stimulus hits it, some tension increases and requires being
processed in what will be the "appropriate answer" to the
stimulus.
It can find its breaking-out through a nervous path, nice? and
let's call this path "thesis".  But it can also find a breaking-out
through a different nervous path, being provided by the logical
nerve circuits in the other brain hemisphere, don't you agree?
and let's call this second path "antithesis".

Well now, if these two paths have equal momentum, though
a divergent direction each, the tension can be solved to null

inside the brain, no need of a break-out (synthesis) outside.
If one of them prevails, the inner tension will find its break-out

to the outside

(...)

(Dave)

> So, what is dogma?  Surely axioms are [not] dogma, and we

> have just seen that they are not set in stone.  They are in the

> end just "working hypotheses", which until better ones are

> found are assumed true for the purpose of practical decision

> making, whether or not those decisions are to be scientifically

> tested. Sometimes scientific experiments justify the deduction,

> and to that extent justify the axioms; other times they don't,

> and people with intuitive minds may well be provoked into

> looking for better axioms.

(ant)
Wait a bit. Let's try to put out the (wild) chain of logical levels
that may form the whole process.

1.LL : a stimulus hits the brain sensory terminals and increases
the inner tension towards a thesis.
2.LL : also a possible antithesis comes into play.
3.LL : 1.LL thesis + 2.LL antithesis are processed into a

synthesis (optional). The option is still inside the brain (and

could never come outside)

4.LL: a synthesis- appropriate answer is put outside into
communication.
5.LL the communication partner receives the 4.LL outcome
and processes it.

Well now, the fact that a statement is taken either as a
working hypothesis or as a dogma, is not a function of
the (brained) person who produced and put it into 4.LL.
It is a function of the communication partner who receives
it at 5.LL, whether the latter owns a well-functioning brain,
able to process it (now become a 1.LL stimulus) through
the logical chain, towards producing the 4.LL appropriate
answer.

That is, at 4.LL the answer statement is an axiom, which
once put into communication can be processed as such at

5.LL by the communication receiver provided only the
latter owns a brain able to process it at its own 2.LL.

This 2.LL processing phase requires the full permeability
of the nervous connections between right and left brain
hemisphere, to wit, between thesis and antithesis.
If there is no such permeability, 2.LL is by-passed and
the 1.LL axiom enters overbearingly into 3.LL, thus

becoming dogma, because it has not been processed -
moderated by the logical nervous circuits at 2.LL

----------------------------------------------

ENDQUOTE

Therefore, we have now the working hypothesis that

the dogmatic approach to communication is caused by a

lack of permeability of the nervous connections between

the two brain hemispheres by which the human mind

develops itself and its products -- democracy included.

Well now, according with my professional experience as

a neuro-psychiatrist, there is a link between the earliest

learning of  language -- communication, once more --

and the self-fixing of the brain nervous network in what

will be the resulting living style of the interested mind,

either axiom- or dogma based for its believing-behaving

procedures.  This introduces to formative education, that

is, the III conclusive part of this Presentation.

===================================

III  - THE  EDUCATIONAL  APPROACH

Recently I succeeded to send a letter to the Italian

Minister of Education.  The aim was about calling all

parents' attention in the problem of family feed-back,

wanting to avoid the communication-made dogmatic

approach of children to their daily reality (democracy

included). The tool to do so could be a questionnaire,

spread by the Education Authority: to wit, the Minister.

Then I've also thought that the addressed problem is a

global one - wasn't it just the same problem of global

Democracy?  Therefore I have translated the letter

into English, got it edited by Doug Everingham, and I

am now suggesting my colleagues parents to send its

text to their own local Education Ministers.

I append the text of the letter below,  all what you

should do is changing the letter header by replacing

the name of the Italian minister with that of your

Education Minister.

Here is the letter:

------Letter to the Education Minister   by Antonio Rossin --------

X-Sender: rossin(at)tin.it@box.tin.it
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 21:34:50 +0200
To: letizia.moratti(at)istruzione.it
From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
Subject: Famiglia e Scuola: quale sinergia?
[Family and School: what synergy?]


Honorable [Letizia Moratti],
Italian Minister of Instruction, Universities and Scientific Research


I am a parent, physician approaching retirement ­ and also a self-taught researcher in the field of pedagogy.

I developed my research during almost four decades: I had a job as a neuro-psychiatrist in the epoch of Basaglia's "Law 180"  (1)
All of us were enthusiastic of that Law, yet I wondered wether the forced re-insertion of the "different person" to the same family where its expulsion had happened, would become like closing the valve of a pressure cooker - unless families were provided with the  necessary know-how to avoid the increase of inside tensions and conflicts that may cause emarginations and pathologies. It was - I said to myself - just the same tensions which, if not solved, could bring the young individual up to discomfort until the same emargination of drugs abuse. (2)

I have analyzed patterns of family communication, deeply embedded at ages zero to three, when basic learning takes place in language skills and other interpersonal communication. I found two basic criteria for establishing healthy relationships:

1. parents may

a) avoid showing the child the critical comparison of the eventually different opinions they may reach

        or

b) show the child that critical comparison is always possible and constructive, thereby training the child to develop her/his active and critical share in to family and social dialogue.

2. parents may

a) speak first to the child, thereby pre-empting and preventing systematically any initiative of the latter that might challenge or expose fundamental parental attitudes

        or
b) regulate their answers considering the child’s aware questioning
thereby fostering the latter’s curiosity and encouraging him/her to taking responsibility upon him/herself.

Clearly, the options a) and b) as distinguished  in 1. and 2. represent the extreme poles of a continuum with countless intermediate positions; but just as clearly, in this continuum each parent cannot but tend towards either the one or the other of them.

Today’s parents seem to tend mostly towards the polarities 1.a) and 2.a): they seem therefore to be repressing logical syllogism or dialectical comparison, and seem to be systematically diverting any confidently aware initiative of their children. These polar principles appear to be the only model of family communication we know. We parents have not been properly informed about all the educational chances at our disposal ­ especially including the above 1.b) and 2.b).  We parents are led to believe that any dialectical comparison [emergence of a synthesis from constructive competition of thesis and antithesis] between ourselves in front of the child must be carefully avoided as a source of conflict and destabilization  inside the family, instead of a moment of dialectical aware growth of the child.

As a predictable result, any aware and responsible initiative of the child is advanced in “seduction by love” when 1.a) and 2.a) trends prevail.  But really, instead of love, the 1.a) 2.b)  model turns into a systematic repression of any autonomous and spontaneous affirmation of child’s personality. Yet it is known that the repression of any children’s dialectical participation in development and _expression_ of their own personality is among the major causes of tension, discomfort and exclusion of children, as documented in Blueprint No. 84 on 20.10.’84 of the Italian Ministry of Health, titled: “Guidelines for intervention of prevention of drugs abuse”. (2)

I do not want to dwell any further upon the findings of my theoretic research, since these findings are largely exposed in my web site, and especially in my last paper “the Einstein Project”, free at:
 http://www.flexible-learning.org/eng/einstein.htm -
but the question I’m addressing to you is:

What child does the School want to be given by the Family?
Either a child enabled to share in autonomous, active and critical sharing-in? Because trained by the family to live inside a “dialectical” context, based on comparison and responsible autonomy?

Or a child incapable of critical autonomy and comparison, because conditioned by a fundamentalist context, based on conformity?

In any case, shouldn’t the School inform the Family about its specific aims and preferences in that direction, so that the characteristics of participation being expected of the pupil of today, and the citizen of tomorrow, may meet in their formation a synergic continuity of intentions between Family and School, rather than a confrontation and clash of tendencies? Starting from the earliest family education of children, when we parents are their only ­ unfortunately still disinformed ­ teachers?

As far as I am concerned, in my narrow field I managed to bring up my children Pietro e Raffaella according with the feed-back model here shown as 1.- b), 2.- b), which I categorized as “Dialectic Education” as an alternative to the rigid fundamentalist model.

I’ve also tried to apply my theory more broadly in the international field.  This has been a very difficult endeavour, because of my position as a family practitioner in a secluded village of the Po river marshes not only, but also because many education officials required from me experimental data in support of my theory ­ which looks like a quite absurd a requirement, since it is impossible to perform any such experimentation inside other people’s families. For this aim a simple questionnaire could be the case, to question Parents about their degree of acknowledgement of the above suggested parameters. This rather appears a task for academia, or for your Education Ministry,  not for an outback country physician as I am. Thus, for the time being, the positive implications of such parental awareness-promotion can be imagined only.

I obtained some encouraging results, on my personal level.
Among these, a recommendation to the WHO's Commission on Social Determinants of Health by Doug Everingham, Australian physician, 1972-75 minister of Health in his country and 1975 Vice-president of the same WHO for the western Pacific area. (3)

But the most gratifying results came to me from my children.  Pietro, Marine Biology PhD, is a researcher at the Marine Biology Lab of the Trieste University.  Raffaella, Chemistry PhD, is a researcher at the School of Medicine, the Washington University in St.Louis Missouri. Evidently, the Family Education model “Dialectic Education”, at least in the field of my family instruction, worked well.

I thank you very much for your kind attention in what I feel honored to present to you. I would like you to consider me at your disposal for any useful deepening and development of the proposed investigation.

Yours,  Antonio Rossin

Taglio di Po, Italy, 11 Sept. 2005  (4)

Antonio Rossin, MD
45010 Ca’ Vendramin ­ Taglio di Po Italy
Web site: www.flexible-learning.org
rossin(at)tin.it

Notes

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)     Franco Basaglia was the renowned promoter of Italian Law 180, that "opened" the lunatic asylums and gave back to psychiatric patients equal dignity as any sick person.

(2)   Probably every civilized country has become aware of the need fo similar guidelines for addressing primary prevention of disorders, including psychologically active substance abuse, in the young.

(3)   Hon D N Everingham: dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au . 

   The text of the "recommendation" can be forwarded on request addressed to Antonio Rossin, email: rossin(at)tin.it

(4)

  Until now, 28 Dec. 2005, the only answer to this letter I’ve got from the Italian Ministry of Education is the following, in its English translation:

From: "Letizia Moratti" <moratti.letizia(at)istruzione.it>
To: "Antonio Rossin" <rossin(at)tin.it>
Subject: Re: Famiglia e Scuola: quale sinergia?
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:28:41 +0200

On behalf of the Minister Letizia Moratti, I desire inform You that the question You sent via E-mail after “Uno Mattina” is at the moment in the relevant offices of this Ministry for the compilation of the necessary answering elements.
Sorry for the delay, because of the many questions arriving.  We will take care to let you get the requested answers as soon as possible.

Dr. Nicola Rossi

Particular Secretariat Head of the Italian Minister of Instruction, University and Research

----------------------------  end of the letter ------------------------

Well, dear Democracy lovers, that is all.

Probably, there are many further ways to solve the problem

of Democracy building, and spread it among the people all

over the world.  The one I've just now presented to you is

only one.

Have my best greetings -- and a warm wish for all of us

to enter the New Year 2006 with more successfulness

and satisfactions on the hard way of building Democracy.

Yours, as usual

antonio