Read chapter three waiting on base, started chapter four. Took a break to read Lewis' Abolition of Man, now waiting to get Norms and Nobility back from the library or in the mail fiiiiiiinally! I hadn't realized Abolition of Man was so SHORT! I started reading it when our now two-year-old was about four months and stopped because small snatches while nursing wasn't doing it justice. Would've picked it back up long ago if I hadn't thought it was more intimidating than it was! (I blame e-readers ;] This time I printed it out!) Maria (Anyone still reading?)

I'll just post once for everything I missed and then quiet down about it :] The only reason I'm not skipping it is because the discussion seems pretty early along in the book, so maybe it'll still be relevant. If you don't find it so or would rather I not bring up old stuff, feel free to ignore, I won't keep at it! I agree! I understood, I think, what he was saying, but wasn't able to get to the level of understanding that would allow me to extrapolate and apply here at home. Interestingly (at least to me because I just listened to this talk), Dr Christopher Perrin (Classical Academic Press) starts a talk to classical educators by asking how many can actually define it in a sentence or two, and I think only a hand or two go up.. Also, if it's at all enlightening/helpful/clarifying, his definition is simply "teaching children how to think and what to do". He couples this with Andrew Kern's goals of virtue and wisdom, virtue being how to think and wisdom knowing what to do. Perhaps he's addressing the improper use of the scientific method/analysis/rationalism in education as opposed to the proper use of the scientific method in science? I personally don't think he's trying to say that scientists working should be applying normative techniques so much as that teachers trying to pass along norms to schoolchildren shouldn't be using analytic methods to do so. I was wondering the same, if there might not be the risk of getting caught up on little things if we don't have the whole picture of what he's trying to say in mind while reading the details. At least there would be good context if the whole book was read in advance. I agree, I liked Mystie's response as well, and agreed with most of it! Just figured I'd copy paste this one in here, as it's got both responses though.. buuut maybe they didn't paste in? Looks like the original pasted comments aren't in my pasted bit. Eh. RE: gists/mainstream now/best and brightest ancients, etc. -- I think that what was considered education in the ancient world was what Hicks is encouraging, that is the mainsteam ancient education. Even if you look at our recent past, the eighteenth century, where really only the elite got formal educations, the majority of people were still highly educated thanks to their whole approach, whereby everyone had been taught how to think and exposed to great ideals. If you take today's (at least in America) vast majority, this is obviously not the case. Most people don't know how to think.. and by that I mean not just function, but actually think. (I'm assuming that most on this board agree with that statement, so I won't explain why I think so further, but if someone by chance doesn't, I can give examples and such.) So it seems a fair point that he's making -- he's constrasting their intellectually advanced society with our intellectually wanting society. RE: irreverence, I agree with Mystie and then whoever else commented saying they'd like to move to your circles (forgot to add it to this comment, my bad!) Even amongst those I know who would claim reverence for themselves, myself included I should probably say, it doesn't always work out that this is strictly true. Far more often, I'd say, it's an ideal we're working towards, not something we regularly are "successful" at. RE: Hicks' inexact foundations -- just a thought, and certainly not one based in fact, just conjecture.. Maybe he was writing for an audience he assumed to be pretty much likeminded, so he didn't put as much time and effort into making his suppositions unattackable? Honestly, and maybe I'm just reading less critically than I should be due to allllll the fantastic reviews of this book by people whose opinions I respect and whose educational philosophies I agree with, I hadn't noticed most of these until reading others' comments about how they might be inaccurate! Anyway, that's not really here or there, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. ... Now I've gotta go read chapter three! Maybe I should try this in the morning, my mind seems to be partially off by the time 9/10 pm roll around.. Maria :]

Oh, oops, my bad, didn't realize there were three pages! I'll read through the rest now and stop commenting from forever ago til I'm done! [insert embarassed smiley here]

Sort of stepping in our your conversation here, I was reading this and had a question and a thought.. (I'm Maria, btw! And am also reading through the book and somehow landed here!) The first is, as someone who's just part of the general population, how else is schizophrenia defined? (I just briefly verified what I was thinking it was, which was essentially someone who holds two opposing views, be it reality and what they're currently perceiving/experiencing or just two contradictory ideas, and that seems to fit, but maybe that doesn't fit a clinicial definition?) Thought is this, regarding your second paragraph -- I read what Hicks wrote as the material universe that could be tested and used in experimentation and verified scientifically. If thoughts are in the material universe by virtue of their existence in the brain, then perhaps that's not what he's referring to. My husband seems to be much of the same mindset as yours religion-wise, but I'm certain that he would differ in that he wouldn't call a thought something material. For him, the fact that I believe in God and think about him and, sort of, "converse" with him in my thoughts doesn't make God material. I would guess that's the dividing line Hicks is trying to draw -- those things that exist for all people that can be seen or touched or handled or heard or whatever, ie that exist in a material sense, and those that don't. Or only do for some, seemingly. (I would argue, though, that God exists for all, just some don't realize that existence, but that's beside the point I think ;] ) From what I can recall from my conversations with friends and coworkers that are athiest or at the least agnostic, they generally draw that line in the same place, many claiming that they would believe if they could have proof. And by this, I think they all mean scientifically verifiable proof. (I of course would argue that it exists, but their doubting doesn't allow them to see it for what it is, but again, beside the point)

Okay, my bad with the excessive comments to accomplish ONE goal, but here's the link for the Circe Institute's vimeo page, where all four parts of the talk are, hadn't noticed that I'd linked to only one part.. vimeo.com/ circeinstitute (minus the space)

(I know your question was a bit ago, but I figured I'd stick the link [you were possibly looking for on the off chance it's the right one] in here anyway, I was trying to access the same talk via a different link from a blog post and it wasn't working, so I did a quick search and found it and your post, so I figured why not share! ;] Hope that helps, or, if not what you were looking for, gives you something interesting to watch anyway! Maria :]

Maybe this one?

I can send a bunch of sheets if you still want.. I realize this is an old thread, but thought I'd throw it out there! :]

! :] Thanks!

Hi! This was a WHILE ago, so maybe you're not interested, but if you want to try and have them Skype or something, I'd be down.. ours DO speak Russian (their father is from Russia and didn't speak English til somewhat recently and I worked for years as an interpreter Ru->En and En->Ru) although our oldest is a little hesitant, probably because his English comes so much more easily ;] Anyway, feel free to msg back, I'd be willing to try it! -Maria

Hello! The first thing he'll have to do is learn the alphabet for sure, as without it he won't get anywhere (unless of course you're planning on going for conversational Russian only, but I'm assuming that's not the case..) Next, they have books specifically for learning to read, if you want I can send links for them, but in Russian they're called "букварь" (though they're geared toward 4-5-6-year olds, so he might feel a little old for them, but they'll still be incremental like he might need..) Beyond that, there are a whole plethora of early reading books.. If you want to try it immersion-style (I would!), you could go for any number of good cartoons out there.. their content is good (NOT Nickelodeon, NOT Cartoon Network ridiculousness), their language is somewhat simple, they're amusing, and what you see on the screen helps you understand what's being said word-wise.. (examples are Лунтик, Смешарики, Маша и медведь and all can be found on youtube.. Russians aren't concerned with copyrights ;] -- the first is for the youngest crowd and very just good, nice and stuff; the second is for older kids, the humor appeals to adults even, and is also full of various lessons; the third is "Masha(Maria) and the bear" and just a series of stories/adventures/what have you about them) If you like, you might try contacting the Russian Immersion school we have here in Anchorage (Alaska), its name is Turnagain Elementary, and the woman in charge of the program is Elena Farkas. I personally wasn't successful trying to obtain materials from her, but she was skeptical of my Russian ability (we hadn't actually conversed, but that's a story for a different day, I won't bias you with my experiences! ;] ). The actual teachers (our son went their for most of first grade, up until we decided to switch to homeschooling in the spring) are quite helpful. They do have quite a few students who come from Russian-speaking families (there's a good number of them/us up here), but there are plenty from English-speaking families and those kids, whereas they don't get quite the assistance with the assigned homework at home, do end up speaking pretty good Russian, so apparently their system's a good one! If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to help, although our situation teaching our sons Russian has been different than yours would be.. either way, we have lots of books and materials and such, could give you good recommentations if you decide to go the authentic materials route. Maria :] (Incidentally, our oldest is nine as well!)