sla  09/22/2004 - 21:17  Array  

still needs final editing.

.... susanne lang (moderation): this is a round table discussion. we gathered all different people from all different perspektives, who deal with the topics of education and general intellect from all different fields. i will introdruce very shortly the background of this round table discussion, so it might be easier to understand what we are doing here. the network of people who were preparing this round table discussions consisting of people who are doing educational work as a political stradegy mainly in germany out of school education, but also media based projects and we have been asking ouselves a very simple question: what are we doing here and what is our basement in society? when you busy in this practice, then you kind of tent to loose the sight on to a rather broader or general perspective on what is your work you are doing is actually doing within it - in society or on a broader level. so the question is: when we conduct education, if we thin educating people is changing society, does this really make sense, if we are talking about so called informational society, if we talk about new copyright laws, imature labour? in all this context we asked ourselves: what are we doing here? we started to prepare two workshops, wich will happen tomorrow, which will try to bring together people who do all different practice educational work and one which is following the question of technolgy at education - the political work at activism and technology. this debates is suppose to be a sort of opener for this, sort of content opening up the debate to show, what the field is we are walking in, we stepping in. i quickly introduce who is sitting here: thorsten schilling, ted byfield, jaquelin ann stevens, antonio conti, dieter schlönvoigt and christoph spehr, who will help translating for dieter.

antonio conti will have some introductional words on the topic of general intellect and then we have differen projects and institutions sitting here instrocucing themselves and their persepektive on the topic.

antonio conti: i will make a host pole?? introduction about the making of the general intellect. what are we talking about when we say general intellect? mainly we refere to a process, where by marx prediction about sience and technology as the nameproduces force has come true. ... prediction may be that kind of experience that where enforces one system of tought, given that eather marx' one, but i think is any good use to sit back and relax on a comfortable seat of marx work, but to confront with the political and practical problems that arise from the living in the aerea of the general intellect. first of all one has to wonder why a society, that leads under the rule of the general intellect, that is under knowledge, it is circulation and collective learning as a productiv force. it is not the end of society, free from exploitation, free from social injustice. marx ...??? but not out of prophetical nidaty, but the ground that the main block of power in the ends of capital is fixed capital. the means of production, the elemental of the big factory and the evident duty of the organisation of work as a means of production tent to be more and more immaterial, the condition from free ..., from capitalist appropriation, become more and more real and with this condition of our society without press. but we have wonder, or these are times we are living in, is it true that in front of us there is a wonderful chance for transformation, but do we have the power to take that chance? i would be very happy to give a trible yes to these questions. but i want to be fair and i see that a doubble yes is enough. is it true that the sience of technology have made so much ground an the territory of capital as to become the main mean of production. even the way or the tendency that established knowledge un...??? productive force. it is also true, that this structural contradiction allows us a way to imagine a world of relation free from the contemporary structure of power that still contraince the general intellect as a particular level of development under the rule of capitalist commend. the problem is, that the real movement that abolishes the present state of things is not strong enough to take on the level of development defined as general intellect and take the power out of capital in visible hands. the point we are making right now, is that on a objective structural level, immaterial liberal labour space, which confronts with the situation, which in times of social change, which in times of appropiation of the means of production in times of setting the general intellect free, but yet on the subjective level we are still facing the general weakness of ...?? labor in time of ...?? of power. and the lack of the general intellect come to a part of a ...?? class, that we used to have in the good old days of industrial capitalism. ...?? on a solid ground on the general intellect as a field of immanence, where politication has to find its way. and...?? to be found in a process of self recooperation of the common, that missed ovbjects, that build an identity of multiple lience of the general intellect a a beautiful chance. political work presents itself as a process of building of a new subject, as our appropriation of our social and political ontology. as the end of politics as we used to know it. is a process of learning, learning about ourselves, as subjects of ...??labour in the economics of the general intellect.learning about the power of our social cooperation. there is a tention between that, which is put to work, which are general, common, public faculties, such as language, knowlegde, carring affection. in a very individual product way, in which these faculties are organised and ruled, this station is a faktor of disturbance of a process of selfrecognition against the free...??, that gerenal intellect makes possible. but this tention is also the turnament where we habe to struggle, where we decide to learn about ourselves, and we are our own taxis of creating deconstruction unfold. the state distention in the police, where social praxis and selfvalorisation, a reproration of the technology, technological tools of production start a process that can create a subject. ... ??that commmulates the time of our own liberation.

s.l.: so that was very theoretical in a sense. a.c.: yeah a little bit uncore. s.l.: so let me ask one question before we continue the round. because we are sitting here with a lot of practice, could you - i know this is the mean question you should never ask - but what would that mean, what you are saying on a practice level? a.c.: e.g. in italy now there is a struggle at the universities. preserchers are trying to take themselves out of their precarios state, their small wages and free work they have to do in order to remain in the university. by saying this, i mean ...?? we have to think about resaercher as a part of a world social cooperation that is distributed through the ...?? metropolis and we are part of a process of selflearning contributing the development of knowledge that demands dignity, demands recognition and demands money and still demands power.

s.l. for now looking back to what different approaches can be, like on the question of learning and selfappropriation of knowledge and the selfrecognition also i think it would be now a good point to introduce the projects that are sitting here. and then we can continue to come back to the first question.

dieter schlönvoigt: thanks for the invitation. the reason i need translation, is the more i do free speach the more is the danger back that i esealy slip in the wrong foreign language and that would be russian and to avoid this mixture it is better to speak in german at all and let it translate into english. i am from the rosa luxemburg stiftung in berlin. the foundation was found in 1990 and since '99 it is runed by this name. the main field where its activities take place, is political education. that means the foundation offers and runs workshops and clases,etc, within the framework of the foundation there is also a network for youtheducation (jugendbildungsnetzwerk). and i myself from profession faculty are mainly from the field didactic, politic management and youth. i would like too adress as a starting point the point that was made up in a quite theoretical way: that this society might be named as information society or knowledge based society. it is going through deep chages, tha both components - information and knowledge change heavily, and it is not politically managed and embeded. that has great concequences for us all. i would like to start with a quotation of niklas luhmann "on the reality of mass media", where he states, that whatever we know from society we know through media. this quotation means a heavy provocation against any institutionalised ways of education. and it raises the question what exactly is the relationship between beeing informed and knowledge - knowing something. i myself would still believe that these both aspects what's in the middle is learning. so i think it is about the relationship between these three elements: beeing informed or information, knowledge and learning. my second point would be, that the central question about at in information society is who owns the access to knowledge today. i think this question - of who owns the access to knowledge is leading people towards new forms of property and in the end the question is: who really owns the knowledge we have. and my third and last point would be, that this stands in relation to the idea of live long learning, the idea that everybody has to learn, has to learn around the clock, every day, all time. an idea that i do not like at all.

s.l.: thorsten schilling will now continue after these provoke statements.

thorsten schilling: thank you for the invitation. i try to be less theoretical and more empirial. i am working for the federal center for civil education which is a governement institution in germany. a very unique institution in the eu. i think no country in europa has this kind of institution. it was part of the reeducation programm 50 years ago after world war 2 when this new society or the rulers of this new society decided to teach the germans democracy and to teach the teachers democracy and to evalue some democracy. this whole teaching has gone through a very long and strange history. it was part of the cold war efforts to fight communism and it was born also in the old discussion about cicil movement in the 80ies. in one way we are always a... ??instutution. we are not ...?? the schools, we are not ... testers of new developments. but on the other hand, when you see what we are doing - we doing a lot of books and broschures,and also foundings. and thing is that the theaching, the educational complex in germany, teachers are very trustful of what we are doing. so we anounce teachers to be...?? to parties, to the political establishment. so we try in one way, which is one of the problems of political education today, to be neutral and to be populized in political science. and i am honest and maybe it would be honest from our speakers before to say that the rosa luxemburg foundation is a foundation that is well connected to the post communist party, so we are connected to the state ... which is one part of this whole complex. so when we discussing about education within this we are not changing society, i think watching and disussing political issues like europe, the new shape of europe or the conditions of the information society one thing which is following political proccess in this discussions is forme very crucial in my work ...?? is there is no knowledge, no sure knowledge. we are not in reactional science, we are in an open situation and we have a lot of conflicts, we have a lot of discussions and we have a lot of old routines of perseption of problems, old routines of discussion of the public founds. and i think the educational task within the next one two years is to find the right language, to find the right questions for this situations and therefor i think the task of this educational institutions is to rethink, to...??, its motivation and its encouragement. we have to make public this uncertainy of this situation, we have to make public - we talk about europe and one big promise of the furture of europe is the same as the future of the past of western europe after world war 2, but this is not garantied, this is not ..., and the question is: is this the right task, if it is a life promise? this discussions we have to find and we have to develop also, i think. we are confronted now with a big mistrust in the whole political system, the whole political institutions. in germany 10 percent of the people are really interested in political questions and forming the political process and discussions. 30 percent of the whole reoming question following them frequently and more then 50% do not care. we are part of it. so one thing in the educational proccess and educational system is the question why this mistrust is so big? and what could be traces out of this mistrust? i think the end of this is, that the big powers have to use this kind of mistrust ...?? be the enterprise, be the state, be the... . i think we are in a half ...?? situation, we have our old routines, which are still working, nobody knows for how long. i am also from the gdr and we realised in '89 how fast it can be, when these old routines break down and a lot of people who come from eastern europe have the same experience. on the other hand i think we can use these new technologies, to allow new type of discussions, to give us material for this kind of opening. that is what we doing...?? we try to go into the archives, work together with historians, bring this material on the front, make it accessable, not only for the expertators, but to broaden the access to this material. i think this is also one task for the development of the educational system to strengthen the so called digital commons, the digital...?? contentwise, technologywise. because in germany e.g. we have a big debate about our social system, our social wellfare system. but this discussion is lead by 1000 people who know what they are talking about and the rest, millions of them, listen to it - would be a mass media or other expert cultures, narratives...??, without knowing what is going on and what are the basic failures. and therefor i think agitation must be back to the routes, bring the material, the facts in the front, make it easily accessable and show their weakness also. because the facts are always for me in an aparetic situation, because you can look at them either this way or that way.this a political situation. a political situation and with these political situations together you have to decide something and you have to fight for one decission. we have to bring forward. thanks.

s.l.: jacqulin will respond to that and will introduce some projects. after having all the theory and institutional background she will bring some practice in this debate.

jaqueline ann stevens: i teach politcal theory so i don't know how true this is going to be. i want to talk about two projects and today i want to talk a little bit about nietsche and dna and then about my online project that i am devoloping in collaboration with ...?? who is a webartist based in l.a.. one of the questions that comes up in a lot of that kinds work that people here do is: what is the purpose of knowledge, what is knowledge do? and one of the reasons this question comes up, is because there is a conventional understanding at least in the social sciences and i think it is an intuition that is filtered through a lot of other places as well, that you have reality and material conditions on one hand and then you have the representation and knowledge about this conditions on the other hand. and the idea is, that this knowledge, the representation and symbols are simply reflecting something that is real and that is out there. the purpose of knowledge is to get reality right. and in one of the places where this comes up is, and i am using this example because is such a concrete one, is in genetic research. and in particular these days, i am sure it is powerful icon here as it is in the united states and elsewhere, is that idea, that is beeing resurfaced, that there is genetic bases to racial diferences and ethnic diferences and just as we get to the point at which there is supposivly this clear understanding that race is not based on genes, there is no reaserch that is beeing done, that focuses on variations amongs our dna supposively. if the research continues going to have the effect of reacerting certain kinds of taxonomies that reenforce our ideas of diferences and inaquality between us. so i got interested on this area and i am writing on this. (by the way all this i am talking about you can see an my website: www.jaquelineannstevens.org) i have some publications and one of the titles is "symbolic matter". the idea is to challenge this diconomy what is knowledge and what is material. one of the metaforce that i use in challenging this is rather like: so we have the symbols over here and we have the representation over there and we want to do it right. and we do this even among ourselves. e.g. the concept of civil society, the is society, that is called civil society. we havn't quite got our finger on it yet and we work hard enough on it to get it right. what i am interessted in showing what we are doing in our online projekt is showing the ways that knowledge is productive, that knowledge is not just effecting material but that knowledge is something, that is material. the metaphor thinking about this might be helpful as a mobious strip. it is a paradoxical single sighted surface and if you just take a strip and you would give it a half twist and you turn it like this. if you start at the outside and if you trace around it, you come back and you are on the inside. on a particular point you can have the experience beeing an inside and an outside, but the line is actually contigous, the plain is contiguous. this is a nice way of illustrating the ways of this supposed diconomy between what is symbolic and what is material is a mystification. and in fact if you think about it, there is a phrase from ...?? in it that heidegger quotes. he says: where the word ends no thing may be. and people debate that. the intuition behind that claim is, that if you - unless you have a concept for something, it doesn't excist. a concept depends on a word. while you can debate that, which is certainly true is, where the thing ends, no word may be. all ideas, all images, all representations, all symbols depend on a material medium. if it is the compession of air when i speak, if it is the print on my paper when i write, if it is the imitions from a computer screen. there has to be some material there, for ideas to be split, for ideas to excist. an extention of this idea, if you go back to that idea of dna and why it is so interessting, is - the reason why genetic resaerches are taking to seriously and critics of genetic resaerches are not, is because genetic resaerchers are talking about something, that is real - our dna. but if you think about it, our representation of dna are all linguistik. the dna excist in frightments, in proofreads, it edits itself,it is stored in libaries. these are all terms scientists using discribing and charatarising dna. why does that kind of representation does not lead people to say that is just language? because there is that idea that underline language is something real. so what i am tring to line out is that all language is something material. and to the extent that there is something material we can think of scientipic publications about dna as themselves programming the social organism in ways that are nologist?? to ways that genes are programmed human individuals or other organisms. the thinking behind this comes out of nitsche and his critism of the social biologists of his day. he was upset that the social dominist had suplented the christian theologins and coming up with a new world view. his critic wasn't simply that they were misrepresenting reality, but rather that to the extent that the publications of the social dominism were beeing read and beeing absurd, they were creating a certain kind of human beeing that he didn't like. these publications were teaching people that they were passive and ....?? they were simply beeing shaped by external forces through natural selection. he didn't wanna live in a society with people like that. so he wanted to tell people: you know the human beeing is been created a certain way, through these kinds of reprensentations. but we can create a different kind of human beeing. and the kind of human beeing nitsche was interessted in creating was the kind who saw herself as creative, as productive. as creating knowledge that having an effect on what that human beeing was. there is a quote on the website: www.agoraxchange.net. the quote is from the gay sciences, where nietsche says: only as creators can people chanllenge the doll, the passive representations of human beeing and not as critics. to that extent that social critics simply point out the arrows of certain representations we are not really changing anything, but reproducing certain kinds of images of how we are. and the only way to get beyond this images is not to show they are stupid or wrong, but to create something in this place. and now i come to agoraxchange. it is a online website that is watching, sponsored by the tate next week, and the purpose is solicitating global public contributions towards the end of designing a massive gobal online politics game. the game is based on 4 premises: the 1st is, that citizenship is choosen and not something and not something that is determinated by birth the 2nd is a death all wealth is redistributed to a global agency that provides for basic health and education and housing the 3rd is, that there is no state recognition of any particular marrige form, that people can have private contracts. but the state doesn't provide particular privliges rights to any one kind of marrige the 4th is, that there is no private ownership pf land. within that everybody is invited to design that online game. so whats the objects of the game, what are the conflicts, what is the game enviroment? the site has questions that prompt people for those responses. there is also associated forms, where people go to put up their own projects and have their own dissucsions on themes connected to this idea. all of these principles come out of this framework for trying to challenge the idea that is institutionalised in many of our laws. who we are is determent by birth. the thinking behind the site and other work i have done ( a book that is called: reproducing the state), is that rather the thing we have these evil impulses that the state has to repress, that we see the ways the state has constituted a certain way of beeing in the world. we use to think that ancienstry is important, because of geneology constructed to kindship laws and marrige. that leads us to think that wealth is something that is fearly distributed, if it is distributed through families, when in fact it is inharitance laws. that are the only laws that actually give people the rights to control what happens to anything once they die. once you die you don't have the right to determent who gets your job, who don't have the right to determent, even if you are lyable, your family can't sue for that. the only rights you have be on the graveyard or to control what happens to that. that is something that is there by law. the impulse behind the state, behind the site is to encourage people to think about the ways that law is productive and to help envision this, of underminded the kinds of laws, that are there now.

ted byfield: i wasn't really sure, how to intruduce myself, because i wasn't really sure what this talk was about. i think i have a better idea now. when people usally aks me what i do, my answer is sort of like different stuff. ...?? and that is someone who has been involved in number of educational projects of different kinds. so different that it is even hard to define them as educational nessesarly. and the two that are on cantrast or on the one hand having help to run the nettime list for several years now, which someone wants to discribe it as a university of the street in the sense of it wasn't really clear what the curricumlum was, it wasn't really clear what the ...?? was, what the project was, the approach or any of these things. and yet for a while and maybe until this day, i am not really sure that is sort of a sense of educational learning, that comes out from the exposore of new fields. but my role in that has been primarily a kind of administrator in the sense of a janitor instead of a administrator that simply helping to run it. but you approach, which starts from very theoretical questions, from a oporational perspektive, is one. another one that i have been faced with lately is - i have been ask to held develop a graduate programm in the designer apartment. ... ?? what is it, what designers need to know now? how would one go back finding a new field, that response to that experimental disoriented world we live in. and i am not really sure, that i have the answer to that, but i do think, that the heart of it wants the idea of sort of orientation. what it means to be able to find oneself within abstract and changing or contardictory frameworks. so this is how i am gonna approach my remarks and i am afraid that my remarks are probably shorter then my approach. but maybe that is not such a bad thing. in listening to this a number of things strucked me. number one: i have been hearing this phrase information society for quite some time and i honestly have no idea what this means. and not for having read or thought about this - i am sort of a very practmatic american and it seems to me very hard to arrive on a coherent and justyfiable historical defined perspective on ones activities on the bases of experiences that one never had oneself. you end up sort of building up a refractory prison through the hands of things yourself did not do. so it is very hard to know what they really meant or felt on a sort of daily level - lets talk about on a dailylike bases. the second had to do with the sort of sense of disjuncture btw historical unfolding of a sort of general intellect. in the sense of, if there is one it is not doing what it should be doing, or it is not ocuppying the place in our lives, in our society that it should be. i am very very sceptical about this idea of historical subject, that sort of fulfills itself through some expression in terms of justice. i don't think we have a lot of evidence to justify that claim. and the third that i thought was quite interesting was what dieter said and his sceptisism about that idea of life long learning. in fact he does not like this idea and maybe even thinks it is slitly dangerous. would that be fair? if there is a sort of disjuncture between the idea and the real and you might express this in terms of marxist framework or you might develop another framework or maybe another framework or apropriate another framework for sort of articulating this difference between the idea and the real. that one of the ways that it expresses itself in our lives is throught a sort of sense of lack. that we are somehow behind ourselves. we don't know what we know when we should know it and instead we sort of have to in the future go back to figure out what it is what we should have known. and this is a very problamtic enterprise, because to do always do these things in the present and you always find yourself lagging behind. and what you see and i don't know weather this is sort of forms dieters sceptisism about that idea of live ling learning, but i am very sceptical about it as well and it definitly informs mine. it seems to me, if anythings be away of sort of destablelizing any sort of coherent individuals subject and recasting you as propatualy inadequate like you always are less then what you should be. and this is a very sort of crepeling position to occupy. i mean you sort of feel what you don't know what you need to know as some sort of generic proposition and i think it is much more interesting. and maybe this speak to what jaquelin ann was saying, that notion that you can equaly look at yourself and say that you know exactly and only what you need to know. at any given point. now there is a dificulty of this notion of live long learning that expresses itself in another way. that is, if you don't know what you need to know, then you need to figure out what you need to know. whatt it is what you need to know. and this a kind of endlessly abstracting activity. i sort of like spinoza and there is a point i think in his undercorrection of the understanding, where he has a very nice line about how we could winly and ever to proof and he says that that is simply false. andi think the model he uses is in order to work metall one needs to have a metall hammer and therefore you can trace it back ...?? and proof that people can not work metall, if they never had a sort of hammer. and he says that is stupid. odviously we can, we just need to move on. now in terms of this notion of an information society this is sort of a strange problem, because i know on one hand we have this claim that there a sort of a larger political scientific, social scientific context, that we need in order to understand either are ...?? or places within a larger framework. a sort of places in our lives, in our activities we need a larger framework for understanding this. then on the other hand the claim, the need for this is largly driven by the development an implementation and emplyment of technology is also problematic, because that means as well that you need learn the technology. so now we find ourselves in a situation where we told or have this sort of a wake feeling that we don't know what we need to know, but we really had to go back to study more political science and go get a bunch of books...

hier faengt der teil zwei an: ... i would like to sort of point out, that in this enviroment that is becoming increasing ... concerned with your idea of a kind of production of knowledge. that the way that we compensate from that, because we really only have so much time on this earth, is also by a sort of destuction or substruction of knowledge. and that we will have a kind of a feel of stuff that we know within a sort of see of stuff that we don't know. and ... what we can do is move this little spot light around, but i am not really sure that we can learn so much more or if we do, then maybe the sort of a more excalerated learning process, the more apliend learning process.when we end up loosing is a kind of slower less rational form, a sort of ..., a sort of undetermenating what the meaning of the things that we know is. so i guess that this will make me ought to be a very very conservative person in some way. and i think that is probably it.

ted:

and would like to sort of point out that in this enviornment that is becoming increasingly concerned with the idea of the production of knowledge that the way that we compensate for that - because we really only have so much time on this earth - is also by a sort of distraction or subtraction of knowledge and that what we have is a kind of feel of stuff what we know within a sort of sea of stuff that we don't know and ???disdegrade??? the best that we can do is move this little spotlight around. but i m not really sure if we actually can learn so much more. or if we do the greater , the more excellerated the learning process, the more applied a learning process. what we end up loosing is a kind of slower, less rational form of sort of more meditative stands of determining of what the meaning of the things is. so I guess this would make me a very very conservative person in some way. and I think that's probably it. I'm sorry if this isn't a very coherent thesis. I tried to at least - i don t know - play a usefull role in this context. thank you.

suse:

is there any direct response? here? no? so if I try to - i was trying to follow the debate and to reduce each statements to one pharase what knowledge is. so if I summarize I would say you are saying knowledge needs to be recognized or selfrecognized; knowledge needs to be controlled, in order not to become dangerous, there is no knowledge at all knowledge is material or knowledge is knowing what you knew yesterday. am I summarizing it right?

so but the next question following that would be: if that is what the field and the phrase of knowledge is, what is then education? is education something that is completely useless? because knowledge is there anyhow and we don't need anybody anymore to tell what to do and where to do and how to do it? or is education just a matter of formation? just a matter of control- that's it? or is it in order ot access or protect a certain moral or standard or living or access to things or so?

thorsten:

I think - I didn't say that there is no knowledge I said that there is no fixed knowledge

ted: I wrote it down- you said there is no knowledge - I heard it.

thorsten:

there is no - policitial yes, in political situations, you have I mean it's a constant fight. It's a constant uncertainty of situations. and I really liked your talk because the whole fuss about biopolitics and genetics and so on it shows that the certain kind of perception of natural science is entering the political real, the fight for ressources, for money, for human ressources. and we are constantly reshaping the mainstream of the public and therefore if knowledge is there - I mean the concept of hegemony, you know it's in there, that's what I'm talking about and education means that you have to prepare yourself for this kind uncertainty and find your own way in it and your own certainty. and also be prepared to be irritated by this kind of developments. that is - i mean - lifelong learning - ok you know it's the concept of make yourself valuable in the whole realm of commerce of value. that s the thing it's the pressure on the individual to be valuable in certain economic contexts. on the other hand if you re looking at theorists or scientists or wahtever - a lot of ???hypothesis ??? are shaped by lifelong learning. but life long learning from outside. - which is my next job? which is the profession I have to fullfill now. and yes may be education would be very successfull if you are lucky enough to foolow your own paths and your own traits set by yourself within this kind of uncertain situations.

susanne:

or lets put it another way - if there would be no institution that would organise education. would there be education at all? because edcucation always means that somebody is conducting somebody is bringing, knowledge or something to somewhere. but if we wouldn't have institutions,

Thorsten:

I mean look at sokrates. one of the famous teachers in european history. and he said XXXX? - I know that I don' t know. and that's teaching. and that's education.

ted:

may be I m being just one of those lumb ??? people who is trying to sort of hang on on a job or something but I suggest that it might not so usefull for this conversation to consider the total destruction of all educational establishments. only because this doesn t seem to be very likely to me and I think I d rather stick to a more practical realm of possibility. does that seem fair?

publikum:

I wanted to know you're obedience ??? of a popular education? and how that fits into the model because it is ??? education because of that purpose which is usually try to explain to somebidy by hteir experience where ??? ...??? vis a vis a change so how does that play into .. you decide whether to teach those folks that would be a goal towards that justice model or I dont know what kind of model cause I think you are talking about another life - right? does that mean that you see the material as itself as a political decision? so I just ..??? what you guys think about that.

jaq:

you must be familiar with paul refrere .... person. one of the things that paul refere as a brasilian educator - and he started and he started this movement in helping people setting up these collectives where people tech each other and his approach was based on a critique of what he called the "... " theory of knowledge. that there is knowledge authority in the traditional model, the authority gives theknowledge to people who receive it and the authority is depositing the knowlledge and then ...???... the knowledge and its not supposed to be chaniging. and so in his model the idea is that people are participating in creating their own practical contexts, what they need to know and how they tech each other. what's interesting about paul refere among other things is that he eventually became the minister of education for brasil and I don t think it s a bad thing for those ideas to get institutional respect and have a certain kind of status and say it gets this certain kinds of rewards and benefits.I think it depends what the content is and the apporach and not as being something institutionalised as per se being a problem.

briam holmes Pblikum:

I agree with ... with the statement and I'd say the political question is how is it institutionalized. I am very interested in this notion of general intellect because it describes a situation where a way it drives your life just because you have to work whether you like it or not. we agree that sometimes it's not likeable at all but the fact that you have to work with knowledge through all of your life gives you half a chance to follow the development of technoscience. technoscience is what is changing the world, transforming the world and for me - and one of those world like for nietzsche- that I don't particulary like - I mean a world where life itself is understood as according to the categories of computer is not always the best world, especially with the categories of computer really subimmted to capitalistic imperatives to accumulate profit. so in this situation what can be interesting may be that we have the capacity to follow some of the arguments thhat and we use that arguments and reflect and change the society. but chances for changing the society has always been trying to change institutions. particulary the educational institutions. 10:00

gabriel publikum: