Tuesday, 24 April 2012 by Marcus Aquinas.

Note: This post was started almost two years ago. For some reason that I do not recall at the moment, I did not finish it. It has since languished in the “Drafts” folder of my editing program (along with several other entries that have either been trashed, finished or otherwise consigned to their proper place). The topic is still current, so I see no reason to not finish it.

I watched Robert Paul Wolff’s defense of a Liberal Education three times. In the end, I agree with him on the importance of a liberal education (meaning a reasonable foundation in the Liberal Arts and classics), but I think his method of reaching that conclusion is somewhat lacking. Not least because you need a good Liberal Arts education in order to understand why you need a good Liberal Arts education. I will certainly give him points for creativity in constructing his argument and highly recommend it as a slightly different take on the issue. Robert has retired, but regularly blogs at “The Philosopher’s Stone”, also recommended for your perusal.

This set me to thinking on why a good Liberal Arts education is so important. While I can never approach Robert’s creativity and eloquence, he did touch on something that struck a chord with me in his lecture. It all boils down to communication, I think. Humans communicate via words for the most part. There is certainly a visual component involved, but most of the information flowing between people comes in the form of words. 

Words are tricky little buggers. What is in my head when I say something and what appears in your head after you hear/read it are often different things. What happens when the idea behind the words is not received in the intended form? Assuming that you receive any meaning at all from it, you did not receive the meaning that I intended and could very well have received a completely false idea. Does the fault lay with me as the communicator, even though I might have carefully chosen my words to describe the idea as accurately as possible? Or is it simply that we lack a common language set sufficient to convey that particular idea?

Robert M. Hutchins, in his Preface to “The Great Conversation” (link opens a .pdf) begins by asserting, “Until lately the West has regarded it as self-evident that the road to education lay through great books. No man was educated unless he was acquainted with the masterpieces of his tradition.” While I believe there is some degree of merit to the idea of a Great Conversation (each succeeding mind building on what has gone before), I agree with Dr. Wolff that this has very limited appeal except to those interested in the development of our intellectual tradition. In more current terms, it might have great appeal to the nerdier set, but little practical application. For example, does Plato’s theory of Forms have any use in 2012 as anything other than a step in the development of various theories of reality and perception?

I would contend that it does; just not in the way that either Hutchins or Wolff mean. The crux is the words, “theory of Forms”. Those three words are not uncommon and likely appear in most people’s daily conversations. Taken individually, anyone with a primary education knows what they mean. But when they are combined, a person with a good Liberal Arts education should be able to call forth a colossal amount of meaning and related information each time they appear together, while someone without such an education would likely be scratching their head with a puzzled look on their face. To such a person, the words convey absolutely no meaning beyond their ordinary dictionary definitions. For those who are scratching their heads with a puzzled look on their faces at the moment, the idea is explained in the allegory of the cave near the beginning of Book VII of Plato’s Republic.

I am a regular reader of “The Economist” newspaper (it’s a magazine, but we’ll go with it), a London-based news weekly. In contrast to the major US weeklies, the Economist has a global outlook, does not cater to celebrity news, explores interesting issues and trends and provides fairly insightful analysis of them. It also has a unique writing style. While an decent reader with a decent vocabulary could read and understand the articles and columns, the writing is peppered with literary references that a person without a good foundation in the classics would completely miss. While some might pass this off as pedantry on the part of the editors, I see it as an extremely efficient use of language; the ability to convey a wealth of information in a few words.

But to receive that wealth of information, both the speaker/writer and the listener/reader must share a common language, and that language cannot be just a common set of words and their assorted meanings. It must also contain a shared understanding of how those words, when combined in certain ways, contain ideas and meanings greater than the words themselves. To a certain extent, this might be broadly termed “cultural literacy,” but I’m not terribly fond of the term as it implies that anyone unable to share in that common frame of reference must be illiterate. I doubt very much that they are illiterate; the particular combination of words in question simply do not bring to mind the same information for them.

For example, I found a new book on teaching reading in our teachers’ library at school the other day. I thumbed through it briefly, but paused at a few paragraphs dealing with misconceptions about reading. In the middle of these few paragraphs was a short passage from Jean Paul Sartre. I forget the source, but it was not from anything of Sartre’s that I have read. If encountered by someone having absolutely no background in existentialist philosophy, the passage would have been borderline incomprehensible. The reader could probably have stumbled through, used a variety of word attack strategies, read it a few times and eventually come to the understanding that Sartre was addressing a question about objective reality, but would not have really caught his point.

Someone with a background in existentialist philosophy might have had to pause at the beginning to adjust to the different use of language and perhaps noted that it was a quote from Sartre before proceeding merrily on their way. It was not the words themselves that were the problem for the first reader; it was the way in which the words were combined that created the barrier to understanding. Sartre’s choice of vocabulary and syntax in this particular passage was very different from what we might normally encounter because he was making a point that normal language usage couldn’t contain. But having at least been exposed to Sartre’s writing made all of the difference.

It is this ability to access shared understanding and meaning that is the true worth of a Liberal Arts education. The next time you (or your children) feel like complaining because a teacher or professor has instructed you to read something that you think has absolutely no relevance, keep in mind that you’re probably right. The thing the writer is trying to say is likely irrelevant to you. But its relevance as a part of that shared meaning and understanding cannot be overvalued.

Tuition, books and fees: $10,000 per semester. Transportation and living expenses for four years in college: $30,000. Having a good foundation in the Liberal Arts, regardless of your career path: priceless.

Posted in Musings and Thoughts, Education | No Comments »

Wednesday, 11 April 2012 by Marcus Aquinas.

It dawned on me after my last post about the new spate of spammers that I had not really posted anything since late fall. True, but also not true. I’ve been posting fairly frequently, but over on my gaming blog rather than here. The hoopla continues in various arenas, but I’ve been having more fun with my games, so that’s what I’ve been writing about. The link is over in the Blogroll (Adventurer’s Journal) if anyone is interested.

Posted in Whatever | No Comments »

Wednesday, 11 April 2012 by Marcus Aquinas.

The spammers are back out in force again, so I have turned off user registration (again). Anyone wishing to post comments will need to email me so that I can create an account. Let me know the desired username and I’ll take care of the account creation and get back with you via email. Comment moderation is still turned on, though. Does anyone actually buy the stuff these folks are peddling or is this just a way to inflate marketing numbers?

Posted in Whatever | No Comments »

Sunday, 6 November 2011 by Marcus Aquinas.

Since this is an odd-numbered year, the November election date usually passes unremarked in Texas as most local offices are elected in May and state-wide offices are elected in even-numbered years. This year, however, we have 10 proposed amendments to the state constitution which require voter ratification. Texas is either #1 or #2 as far as number of times its state constitution has been amended (when you’re second-best, you try harder, I guess).

Generally speaking, amendments fall into one of three categories. First, because many county offices are mandated by the constitution, counties that want to eliminate, consolidate or otherwise reorganize must seek constitutional approval to do so. Second, thanks to Reconstruction, our state legislature is extremely limited in what it can and cannot do. Providing authority to do some things requires a constitutional amendment. Third, there are some people out there who think that a constitutional amendment is better than a law, so they propose amendments when lobbying their state officials might accomplish the same end.

With those prefacing remarks, here’s my take on the latest batch.

Proposition 1: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran.”

Sounds nice on paper. We all want to honor our vets, especially those who have been disabled in service to our country, but this isn’t for the vets. They already have the exemption and the state wants to transfer that exemption to their surviving spouse. I find no compelling reason to believe that a surviving spouse cannot get a job and pay those taxes. If it’s an issue of the spouse being hit with taxes owed due to the loss of the exemption, then I’m all for a method of working that out. But the amendment isn’t trying to do that. It’s just passing on the exemption from a disabled person to a non-disabled person. “Nay.”

Proposition 2: “The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $6 billion at any time outstanding.”

General obligation bonds are typically issued for capital improvements, not for general operational expenses. All this does is raise the debt ceiling and I don’t see a problem with it. It will mean higher taxes, but that’s kind of how it is with capital improvements and Texas’ population isn’t getting any smaller. Water availability is critical. Short answer? “Yea”.

Proposition 3: “The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the State of Texas to finance educational loans to students.”

Here’s the short version: Texas wants to borrow money in order to loan money. Not only “no”, but “hell no.” If the state wants to loan money to students in order to finance higher education, lets do it through the general state revenues rather than putting it on the credit card. A resounding “Nay!”

Proposition 4: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped or, or blighted area and to pledge for repayment of the bonds or notes increases in ad valorem taxes imposed by the county on property in the area. The amendment does not provide authority for increasing ad valorem tax rates.”

This is apparently another of those things the legislature cannot presently do. This is not obligating the state to borrow or repay. It is strictly for the counties. Since the county commissioners are answerable to their constituencies, I don’t see a problem with letting them do that, but I’d rather see them do it directly through taxes rather than “borrow now, worry about repayment after I’m out of office”. On the whole, I think “Yea,” but grudgingly so and only because county governments are ultimately answerable to their constituencies.

Proposition 5: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to allow cities or counties to enter into interlocal contracts with other cities or counties without the imposition of a tax or the provision of a sinking fund.”

Hmmm. We’re going to let you make agreements which might cost money, but we’re not going to require that you provide any method of repayment if it does. Can we all make like horses? “Neigh!”

Proposition 6: “The constitutional amendment clarifying references to the Permanent School Fund, allowing the General Land Office to distribute revenue from Permanent School Fund land or other properties to the available school fun to provide additional funding for public education, and providing for an increase in the market value of the Permanent School Fund for the purpose of allowing increased distributions from the available school fund.”

A really wordy way of saying it. Because Texas was never a territory of the United States, the public lands in Texas belong to Texas. The Republic of Texas, under Mirabeau Lamar, set aside public lands to help finance public education back around 1840. With some (OK, “many”) modifications, the system survives today. Some revenues from public lands go toward public education and the amendment seems to want to authorize the General Land Office to be able to increase its contributions to the Available School Fund, especially those that come from land use revenues (oil and gas revenues, grazing fees, and that sort of thing). While I do see a downside to it down the road, the current state of Texas finances would make it prudent in the short-term and it does not appear to encumber the principal of the Permanent School Fund. I give it a grudging “yea”.

Proposition 7: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities.”

Since I live in El Paso County and vote, and as long as the country commissioners are willing to feel my boot if they abuse the notion, I don’t have a problem with it. Increasing property taxes is a good way to get that boot moving in their direction, but since I won’t be suffering alone in that regard, I’m good with it. Note that it does not authorize a parks system, but merely permits the creation of one if the voters in El Paso County choose to do so. That’s a topic for us and all we’re doing is asking permission to discuss it and implement it if that’s the general consensus in this neck of the woods. To steal a line from 1776, "I’ve never seen, heard, nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about.” An unqualified “Yea.”

Proposition 8: “The constitutional amendment providing for the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of open-space land devoted to water-stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity.”

Cacti, roadrunners, rattlesnakes and coyotes don’t pay much in the way of taxes. Consequently, this type of land generates next to nothing in the way of revenue unless its value lies in something other than simple real estate. The constitution already allows some lands to be taxed on their productive capacity rather than their real estate value. The proposition adds water resources to those few other uses. I don’t necessarily have to like it (give the government the power to tax something and they will do so), but I can see that it’s a practical solution to a perennial problem and there aren’t any others being proposed aside from “let’s keep doing things the way we have been”. How’s that workin’ for ya? “Yea.”

Proposition 9: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the governor to grant a pardon to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community service.”

Considering that the governor’s options on the matter of pardons are pretty much limited to what the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles tells him he can do, I don’t see an issue. The problem is that those who are operating under deferred adjudication haven’t been convicted of anything and, thus, are ineligible for pardons. While deferred adjudication doesn’t appear on the criminal record as a conviction, it does appear as an arrest and as probation, so I can see where the granting of a pardon and the chance to expunge the record could be a good thing. And, again, the governor is very limited in this regard. I give it a “Yea.”

Proposition 10: “The constitutional amendment to change the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation of certain elected county or district officeholders if they become candidates for another office.”

Some county officials must resign their offices if they announce their candidacy for another office more than a year before their term expires (almost all terms expire on December 31). New filing deadlines have moved the candidacy filing date to December 2, so a County Clerk who wants to run for Sheriff, for example, would be forced to resign under the existing rule. This would necessitate a special election to fill the vacancy rather than letting them serve out their term and also deprive the county of a somewhat- or well-experienced County Clerk. The proposition would allow a prospective candidate to meet the current filing deadline and still serve their term. While I’m not fond of the idea of running for office while neglecting your current duties, it would nevertheless reduce the number (and expense) of special elections. A grudging “yea” for being the lesser of two evils.

Posted in Politics, Musings and Thoughts, Education | No Comments »

Sunday, 2 October 2011 by Marcus Aquinas.

After a weekly trip to pick up the groceries, I sat on the patio with some fresh bread, a nice bit of cheese, and a little Chardonnay to enjoy the pleasant weather of an early autumn afternoon. For some odd reason, a piece of one of the better-known quatrains of FitzGerald’s Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam was running through my head:

A Book of Verses underneath the Bough
A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread – and Thou

Not being content to dwell on that, I remembered a cartoon in Playboy, many years back. I forget the exact wording, but the gist was “the wine and bread are on the house, Omar, but ‘Thou’ is going to cost you.” You can probably fill in the picture without my having to describe it.

At any rate, keeping in mind that this cartoon appeared something like 30 or 40 years ago (time flies when you’re having fun), I wondered how many of our current college graduates would catch the joke? Granted, I was pretty well-read for a teenager, but it still makes me wonder.

Culture is about as malleable as anything else related to humans. Although I’m loth to adopt Newton’s “shoulders of giants” analogy, it’s nevertheless true that nothing develops in a vaccuum. Everything we have and do is either the result or a divergent offshoot of something prior. Do we, as the older generation, inflict our cultural norms and ideals upon the current generation because they are valuable in and of themselves or because it is supposed to help them understand the mindset from which we come? Perhaps both? Perhaps neither?

Cultural literacy, as I understand the term, is a sufficient foundation in the literature, philosophy, and the rest, of earlier generations such that one can understand without getting bogged down in idiom. But how much is “sufficient”? Yet another of those “makes me wonder” things. Perhaps more Chardonnay is in order.

Posted in Musings and Thoughts, Whatever | No Comments »