[email protected]

<< In what circumstances do you think school-at-home would be better for any
kid than unschooling? >>

When a parent has no imagination whatsoever and no willingness to take a
child anywhere interesting or get him any games, or when the parents says
"That is STUPID" about movies, books, magazines, games, music, art that the
child likes.

(The question wasn't directed at me, but I have seen families which couldn't
have unschooled, but the kid was bright enough he could have learned on his
own in some structured fashion for the purpose of then getting OUT of that
"home." And in such cases, I'd think school might be better than the
homeschooling, depending on the kid. If the kid had the social skills,
appearance and money to buy cool stuff--meaning if the kid could skim the
social ocean--school might be better. If the kid had major impediments or
bully-magnetism--physical, mental, emotional, social--then I think structure
would beat school.)

[quote from a different post; I know]

<<I really resent the implication that because I dont have this belief that I
am dishonest or pretending. . . that is total lack of respect for anothers
views.>>

As opposed to the assertion/suggestion here that those who think some things
ARE better than others are just not sufficiently evolved? (or didn't read
that one book?) So add to insufficiently evolved, showing a total lack of
respect for others. That is neither true nor fair. It is dramatic, though,
and if the goal is drama it worked.

I like to think the goal is logic, but maybe I'm wrong.

Sandra

"Everything counts."
http://expage.com/SandraDoddArticles
http://expage.com/SandraDodd

[email protected]

In a message dated 9/27/2001 10:26:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:


> As opposed to the assertion/suggestion here that those who think some things
> ARE better than others are just not sufficiently evolved? (or didn't read
> that one book?) So add to insufficiently evolved, showing a total lack of
> respect for others. That is neither true nor fair. It is dramatic,
> though,
> and if the goal is drama it worked.
>
>

No one (myself included) said that, no one(myself included) implied that to
my knowledge. I believe you are talking about me and the Conversations with
God book. . . I offered it up as a possibility. Not that anyone would be more
evolved by having that belief system or reading that book. . . just as a
possibility some may want to consider if so inclined, just as you talk about
books, ideas or whatever that inspire you.

The only place you are getting this idea about "not being as evolved" is
from your own mind because I never put that out there. What is this about?
You said it was not a personal conversation, yet you continue to pick apart
my words and make it appear as though I am saying something I am not.

I offered the information about what I believe to be true for me, what I
believe in, yet you continually pick it apart and put words in my mouth and
try to find errors in what I am saying. If this is not personal I don't know
what is. I love some of the things you have to say, I have told you so in
personal email. . . I have said so onlist when I felt so inclined. Yet,
anytime I disagree with you, you pounce on me. Please don't insult me by
saying you aren't having a conversation with me. . . you are by posting my
words and then saying they mean something other than what I actually said. I
really would love to be able to come to some kind of an understanding on
this. . . I have no wish to bicker back and forth, being accused of things
that aren't true. My intent has been to explain my viewpoint and have it
respected as that. I don't think that is too much to ask. . . however, when
someone says I am dishonest and pretending in having my beliefs, I sure am
going to speak out about it. That is not drama. . . that is truth.

lovemary


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 22:22:35 EDT SandraDodd@... writes:
>
> << In what circumstances do you think school-at-home would be better
> for any
> kid than unschooling? >>
>
> When a parent has no imagination whatsoever and no willingness to take
a
> child anywhere interesting or get him any games, or when the parents
> says "That is STUPID" about movies, books, magazines, games, music,
art
> that the child likes.

I'm not sure I'd define that as unschooling. I think part of the "job" of
an unschooling parent is to support the child's interests and give him
opportunities to learn about different things, and someone not doing that
is not unschooling, but neglecting.

Daron
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

Bridget

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., lite2yu@a... wrote:

> My intent has been to explain my viewpoint and have it
> respected as that. I don't think that is too much to ask. . .
however, when
> someone says I am dishonest and pretending in having my beliefs, I
sure am
> going to speak out about it. That is not drama. . . that is truth.
>
> lovemary
>

Do you perhaps have a new understanding and appreciation of what I
went through a few weeks ago?

Bridget

[email protected]

In a message dated 9/28/2001 7:20:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
fetteroll@... writes:


> Perhaps the questioning feels like an attack and as though people are trying
> to get you to change your mind. But people are really just trying to
> understand. This philosophy raises a lot of questions and basically you're
> the only one who can answer them.
>

It was not a questioning I was replying to. . . it was this statement
<<<I do think, though, that there are some things that are just better, and
pretending otherwise is dishonest. >>>

I'm not sure this statement reflects a desire to understand. . .I could be
wrong but to me it says I am dishonest if I don't believe in the betterness
theory.


> The philosophy seems to be saying in a way what the Indian greeting
> "Namaste" says: "I honor that place in you where the whole Universe resides.
> And when I am in that place in me and you are in that place in you, there is
> only one of us."
>
> I can see how getting people to a place where they can feel that everyone's
> soul is equal would be a peacefilled place. I can see respecting that people
> are where they are because their journey has been much different. I can see
> how someone feeling pride that their position is superior to other people's
> could make the prideful person stop growing and self-examining.
>
> I can see that judgementalism and pride can lead to some unhealthy places.
> But I'm not seeing how eliminating judgementalism and pride -- if that's
> what this philosophy is about -- doesn't have it's own pitfalls. (Which is
> all that people are asking in their own way.)


What do you see as the pitfalls of not being judgemental?

>
> How would your philosophy handle abusive, hurtful parenting and nurturing
> parenting? I can't see how one isn't better than the other. How can eating
> food not be better than eating sand? How can music not be better than
> fingernails on a chalkboard?


By perception. The way I handle abusive parenting is by reaching out to the
parent (still very difficult for me to do, although my husband is great at
it) and offering a helping hand. You may not be able to see how one isn't
better, because you are not in that situation. . . you are not on THAT
particular soul's journey. I don't know what those two souls may be working
on on a cosmic scale. . . some particular lesson or growth they may be trying
to accomplish. It doesn't mean I can't step in and offer assistance, as that
may be my role in observing them. . . but I cannot say that I personally am
better than that parent, because to me, I simply am not.

>
> Too often, I think, people judge things on a limited number of factors, eg,
> a more expensive bigger house is better than a less expensive smaller house.
> Yet there are hundreds of factors that could make the smaller house more
> suitable in a particular situation. How does the philosophy avoid
> acknowledging that more suitable isn't better? That pros outweighing cons
> isn't better?

I think I have answered that several times already. I'm going to post
something that explains it a bit further in another email. Thanks for the way
you posed your questions.

lovemary








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Elizabeth Hill

>
>
> <<I really resent the implication that because I dont have this belief that I
> am dishonest or pretending. . . that is total lack of respect for anothers
> views.>>
>
> As opposed to the assertion/suggestion here that those who think some things
> ARE better than others are just not sufficiently evolved? (or didn't read
> that one book?) So add to insufficiently evolved, showing a total lack of
> respect for others. That is neither true nor fair. It is dramatic, though,
> and if the goal is drama it worked.

I lost the thread of the argument a bit here.

But maybe, working backwards, this is the dialog that people are inferring from
longer more complex posts?

A: statement -- Here is my truth.
implication -- I'm right!

B: statement -- My truth is different.
implication -- Why are you calling me wrong?
secondary implication -- I feel like you have "wronged" me and I think
that's rude.

Betsy

P.S. ("A" and "B" are grossly oversimplified composites and do not signify any
specific poster or specific post. Thank you.)

Elizabeth Hill

Fetteroll wrote:

> How would your philosophy handle abusive, hurtful parenting and nurturing
> parenting? I can't see how one isn't better than the other. How can eating
> food not be better than eating sand? How can music not be better than
> fingernails on a chalkboard?
>

Fingernails on a chalkboard don't really bother me. <g>

What about parenting styles that are different from yours or mine or other
maximal unschoolers, but AREN'T abusive or hurtful? Must these people be
assumed to be in immediate need of advice?

Isn't that the complaint here? Aren't people saying "Hey, I have a great
relationship with my happy kids. Why are you telling me how I should do things?
Doesn't that imply that you think my parenting style is wrong, abusive and
hurtful?

Betsy

Fetteroll

> By perception. The way I handle abusive parenting is by reaching out to the
> parent (still very difficult for me to do, although my husband is great at
> it) and offering a helping hand. You may not be able to see how one isn't
> better, because you are not in that situation. . . you are not on THAT
> particular soul's journey. I don't know what those two souls may be working
> on on a cosmic scale. . . some particular lesson or growth they may be trying
> to accomplish. It doesn't mean I can't step in and offer assistance, as that
> may be my role in observing them. . . but I cannot say that I personally am
> better than that parent, because to me, I simply am not.

Would you offer the same assistance to everyone who is parenting differently
than you are? Why offer assistance to an abusive parent if you don't feel
there's some problem with the path they are on, eg, a *better* way for them
to be? Do you need to wait for them to ask?

Or is this all just a way of eliminating superior words of good/bad and
better/worse and using more descriptive terminology like nurturing/hurtful
and supportive/neglectful? I can see that. I never tell my daughter she's
good since that's too vague. I say things like helpful or thoughtful.

And yet how can anyone ever intervene in a hurtful situation without making
a judgement that being loving is better than being hurtful? Can we step in
to stop injustice without sending the message that justice is better than
injustice?

I think that's the pitfall of not judging, of stopping oneself from feeling
this is better than that. (I'm not even sure it's possible to be totally
nonjudgemental, but I'm open to someone trying to explain it. *And* explain
how this type of viewpoint won't allow injustice to continue.)

For example, if someone is being mean to someone because they are black or
Jewish, if being nice is equal to being mean, doesn't that eliminate a
reason to intervene?

I feel I'm perfectly capable of understanding that a bigot has reasons for
being a bigot without stopping myself from feeling being kind is better than
being mean. I'm also capable of feeling my religion is better than other
religions without feeling that I'm superior or needing to force my beliefs
on anyone of different beliefs.

I can understand if someone finds it difficult to separate feeling what they
have is better from feeling others are less worthy of the oxygen they
breathe that eliminating good/bad could be a useful place to view the world
from.

But, I guess, I don't see judging things as better/worse as the root cause
of a "superiority complex". I think the cause comes from assuming that
someone who is making different choices is lacking in knowledge or
compassion. I don't think the answer lies in eliminating good/bad,
black/white thinking, but in person with the "superiority complex" gaining
knowledge about how the other person can think the way they do and
compassion through that knowledge.

I think by eliminating the better/worse thinking, that leaves a vacuum that
people *could* fill with understanding and compassion. I don't know that
it's a given, though. I think it could also be filled with distancing from
one another. Live and let live.

I used to participate in the Point/Counterpoint folder of AOL's
homeschooling board. I debated with a *lot* of fundamentalist Christians. I
came to understand how they believe as they do. It took a lot of work to
gain that knowledge. And because I understood them, I could understand how
others also have good (to them) reasons for why they do things.

To me the elimination of better/worse feels like someone's idea of a short
cut past the knowledge to just accepting that everyone has good (to them)
reasons. But I'm not confident that the longer journey isn't necessary for
many or most people.

I'm trying to make as clear as possible what *I'm* talking about but I'm
still not certain that we're talking about the same thing. We may be
defining words differently so even though we're each using common words,
they may not be conveying the meaning we intend.

Joyce


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Fetteroll

on 9/28/01 2:35 PM, Elizabeth Hill at ecsamhill@... wrote:

> What about parenting styles that are different from yours or mine or other
> maximal unschoolers, but AREN'T abusive or hurtful? Must these people be
> assumed to be in immediate need of advice?

I don't think I've ever offered advice that wasn't asked for. I've offered
advice that people didn't necessarily want to hear ;-) but it's only to
people who've asked first. My basic feeling is that no one can learn unless
they're ready to ask the questions.

Others may have different opinions on the matter.

> Isn't that the complaint here? Aren't people saying "Hey, I have a great
> relationship with my happy kids. Why are you telling me how I should do
> things?
> Doesn't that imply that you think my parenting style is wrong, abusive and
> hurtful?

That's been said, but has it happened or only felt like it happened?

Is that what *this* conversation is about? I guess I'm having a different
converstation. Won't be the first time! ;-)

*If* someone offers a suggestion here on a list clearly marked as
unschooling which isn't unschooling, I'll speak up. *If* someone insists
that something they do in their own family is unschooling when I don't
believe it is, I'll speak up. *If* someone says something that contradicts
what they're saying (eg, this is not coercive when the example looks to me
like being coercive) I'll speak up. (And if someone offers a coercive
parenting suggestion, some will speak up and offer less coercive
suggestions, because to some people that is also part of unschooling and to
others it isn't.)

I believe those *if*s have happened when people did object to a suggestion
or relate something from their life. So if people are saying that, it's only
part of the picture. If some people aren't understanding that, then it's
probably contributing to the confusion and it's no wonder no one can
understand what the objection is.

Joyce