Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1997 :: January ::
Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0116.  Friday, 24 January 1997.

(1)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 13:09:21 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0101  Re: Ideology

(2)     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 22:22:08 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   British/English & the National Curriculum

(3)     From:   Harry Hill <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 17:55:39 +0000 (HELP)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0111 Re: Teaching British to the Englanders


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 13:09:21 -0500
Subject: 8.0101  Re: Ideology
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0101  Re: Ideology

I wrote:
>>I don't think anyone can have it both ways.  If entities and actions are not
>>innately meaningful, then they are not innately meaningful. Full stop.

And Roger Schmeeckle says:

>And, if it is postulated that there is no innate meaning, does that apply to
>the statement that there is no innate meaning, thereby rendering it
>meaningless, and leading to the conclusion that there is or might be innate
>meaning, that to deny it is self-contradictory, and therefore untenable?

I, of course, did not imply that my comment was meaningless.  I was commenting
on "innate" meaning.  My comments are meaningful in a certain human context.
We humans create (or construct, or fashion) the context in which statements are
meaningful.  Were all humans to disappear from the universe, my comments would
be meaningless, whereas "innately meaningful" comments would still be
meaningful because they need no context in order to mean.

I assume that, were innately meaningful sentences possible, they would not have
to be read and construed.  Innately meaningful sentences would simply
"be"--something like Plato's "ideas."  And, yes, I believe that some
responsible humans believe in innate meaning.  I happen not to.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 22:22:08 +0000 (GMT)
Subject:        British/English & the National Curriculum

Jonathan Hope writes

> John Lee is more correct when he writes of the
> 'English' education system than Gabriel Egan is when
> he writes of the 'British' one: there is one system
> in place in England and Wales, and another in
> Scotland.  The differences are quite
> marked, and can be found throughout both school
> and university education, administration, and course
> contents.

Not forgetting the Northern Ireland distinction where state sectarianism makes
it very difficult for Catholic children to attend state schools (which are all
Protestant).

However, despite it admittance of regional variation the National Curriculum
(which is what we were discussing) is intended to standardize the content of
syllabi.

John Lee writes

> my larger question is whether Gabriel Egan's
> willingness to use large and imprecise generalizations
> is in part the product and in part the sustaining
> practice of his chosen theory of ideology?

The National Curriculum exists. It is not one of my generalizations. Its aims,
as articulated by its authors, are a matter of record. The 'national' part of
its title is intended to indicate that it standardizes across the four
countries which make up the nation.

Gabriel Egan

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Harry Hill <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 17:55:39 +0000 (HELP)
Subject: 8.0111 Re: Teaching British to the Englanders
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0111 Re: Teaching British to the Englanders

A smaller point still: although in the fifties the Scottish Education Authority
and the English one were largely independent of each other, university Final
Honours papers --all five days' worth of them, testing the four years' worth of
information and opinion--were exchanged between the countries in some cases,
our own and Aberdeen, for instance, being read by Durham. Far from being being
evidence of a sinister colonialsm, this double checking guarded against the
personal whim and caprice that still characterized the puritan work ethic of
the American higher education of the time. The Scots and their Sassenach
cousins were often "graded" holistically and, most important of all, the
secrets of their intellectual selves of all that preceded those Finals ignored.
This is the first time I have made public that I failed Moral Philosophy and
had to re-sit it in the summertime, there being quite properly so such animal
as a prying transcript, which puritan list of early and insignificant triumphs
and errors has always struck me rather like points on a driver's license that
won't go away.

        Harry Hill
        Montreal
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.