Extremism

I cannot touch on Sameul Paty's obligation as a teacher without also touching on all of our obligation to love.

Why is it still so hard for some to understand that there are many and differing ways to live a good life? And I mean Good as in the Platonian sense of pure, true, enriching, beneficial. 

In this information era, we can experience vicariously so many different world views. Through film, books, music. By joining various forum, social media and online activities. By looking around our streets, even here in Japan diversity is increasing. Once monocultured countries everywhere are seeing more and more migration. Most people these days can say the know someone who lives in a different country.

It is so easy to meet alternate world views.

Why is it that we are still so afraid of them?

We have had generations, now, of education about the need to be accepting of difference. About understanding that we don't have to like everything about someone's life to still like some part of them. To still recognize that there is some part of them that is valid, good and valuable as a human being. 

Where are our soothsayers to calm boiling blood, to help us reflect on and understand the actions, agency and choices of others. To understand the outcome and consequences, desired and unintended, of our own actions. 

While the West values freedom above most things. I think that peace is far more valuable than freedom. And sometimes to create peace, we must restrict ourselves. But that is my perspective, having been indoctrinated by the Japanese philosophy of harmony.

Sameul Paty

Everything about this story is tragic.

My heart goes out to Mr Paty and his family. I am sorry for his tragic end and for the pain that is being felt collectively by the people of France.

And to the family of his murderer. While their son made a hugely misguided and tragic judgement, the loss of his life and thus his opportunity to repent and redeem himself further compounds this tragedy.

Finally, to all those who feel their identity, their culture, their history and their beliefs have been attacked...I feel your pain most deeply.

The young man was wrong to act as judge, jury and executioner in Mr Paty's case.

But what of Mr Paty's case.

I am appalled that he, a teacher, would behave as he has. Now, I don't have the full details about his classes over the years, but what I understand is that as a history and geography teacher he covers the topic of Freedom of Speech in his classes each year. Presumably (and this is a point I have yet to confirm) he discusses the French tragedy of the Charlie Hedbo case. And in discussing this moment in recent French history, he showed [images?] or [footage?] depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

According to this article from BBC News, he allowed students who didn't want to view the images to leave the room or look away while he was showing them. And that he has taught this same lesson plan in years passed as well. 

What I want to understand, is why it is necessary to show the images to students/children, presumably they are minors or only just 18 as he taught at a secondary level school, rather than simply discussing the images. Furthermore, why it was necessary to continue teaching this lesson in the same way year after year? Surely, there are many controversial images and examples of freedom of expression in French history that could be drawn on.

Is it/was it his opinion personally that the prophet is fair-game in satirical depictions? If that is the case, why does he need to bring his personal opinions into the classroom. He is a teacher. Is it the schools policy that the prophet is fair-game in satirical depictions? 

Is it/was it his opinion that the Charlie Hedbo case was the only valid example of freedom of expression that his students could relate to? Surely as a young and popular teacher, he could find many other examples. Perhaps ones that offend or attack the homosexual community, the Jewish community, women or single men...

He clearly and unarguably recognized that his actions were going to and did make some of his students uncomfortable. What I want to understand is what did he do to ameliorate those offenses? Simply say it is his freedom to express such opinions? Did he give those students the same freedom to express their opinion against showing offensive images?  Perhaps allowing all students in the class to debate and decide whether the images should be shown?

Murder is more than an extreme reaction to this case, but I don't think demanding he be removed from teaching this class would have been. I would have hoped his school, department head, colleagues would have advised him on better ways to address the topics of immigration, diversity and freedom of speech. 

In my opinion, a classroom is not the real world in many ways. It is a kind of simulation center. It allows for all kinds of examination and experimentation to take place. Teachers are facilitators and engineers who spin up different scenarios for their students to test and explore. This testing should help prepare young adults to navigate the complicated interpersonal relationships that are a necessary part of living in a society. Of course, teachers should spin up sometimes dangerous, risky or controversial things for their wards. But ultimately, the teachers of minors should have their health and well-being at the heart of the simulation...should they not?

That teachers, in their role as teachers, are not their individual selves but vessels to facilitate learning...

It's down to your base pairs...

Non-sense. There is this wonderful nonsense that surrounds and envelops us, that is put to us plainly everyday, so plainly that it is very tempting to accept. The nonsense goes something like this: something about your behaviour in life is CAUSED by the pairing of acids inside each of your cells. This unfortunate pairing pattern is why you behave in this abhorrent way. But don't worry because if we give you enough talk, lectures and education, we will override that unfortunate pairing...

Let us consider. point one...your behaviour is caused by some chemical bonding. Makes enough sense. Those pairs eventually spell out the production of certain hormones and enzymes in certain proportions...it is possible that this would somehow influence behaviour. Even though behaviour is usual a response to a momentary stimulus predicated by experience...somehow the levels of various chemical things must be involved, seeing as they are a necessary factor in any kind of movement, memory recall etc etc. So fair enough, in going through a kind of syllological reduction we could get A=B=C=D=E=F=G=H=I=J=K somehow and says behaviour=stimulus+experience, experience=time+stimulus+memory, memory= perception + chemicals...=genes... I'm sure we would get there somehow, if we really went through the reasoning and did the math. So let's allow it, behaviour=genes+other environmental factors.

But after making this big stink about the overpowering effect of genes, they go on to say that a kind of brainwashing talk will unravel the negative effects.

Let's look at a concrete example. Today in the news is a US study, or British...i forget now, about how genes, in families where the father is absent for whatever reason, play a key role in predicting early sexual activity. But that what we must do is target these fatherless children and educate them about sex and about why it is bad.

These days I am beginning to think sex education is a load of nonsense. Why not just give them other things to do. I really think there are two things that lead to our current hysteria about children engaging in sexual activities. 1. We recently created this category of being called "child" and thrust on it a Victorian sexual sensibility without recognizing that this was a new way of treating young adults. 2. Children have less interesting things to do. We can't ride horses in cities. We can't keep chickens, see swans, climb trees (without getting into trouble), build campfires...do dangerous things that are interesting, stimulating and exciting. Instead we do the only thing we can think of that stimulates that fun hormones that make us feel happy and exhilarated.

If we really want to keep this impractical view of "the child" then we need to nurture and create a world where "child" life can exists, where kids can be like Huck Finn and Mr Sawyer, where kids have ample space to explore, adventure, question and test with real risks, rewards and consequences. We don't need to educate them to "not have sex till you are ready"--we are ready for those exhilarating hormone rewards from a very young age, 1 and 2 year olds are already actively seeking them. What would be better is to be more fun ourselves and make opportunities for our kids to do other things.

but do you know what that means. That the solutions we are proposing exactly reject our causal theory. If genes are the cause, should genes not also be the solution? And if environmental stimulus (like education) are the solution....then is not environmental stimulus also the cause of the problem?

Is it true?

I recently have faced several proposals that to become truely creative people we must hold up freedom of speech as the pinicle goal of democratic society.

But, creativity demands restriction. Creativity flourishes under oppression. Creativity is the intelligent response to a problem. In a world without problems how can creativity possibly exist. What is creativity anyway? Ken Robinson defines it as the ability to have original ideas that have value. This is a very useful definition as we can look at how we create value in an idea and how we produce original ideas.

As I have suggested original ideas are predicated by problems. If there was no need to solve problems, if there was no need to find new ways to express ourselves within the limits of our time our context our location and our human and other relations, there would be little creative activity beyond the asthetic production of things. But the production of various forms of art as only one very narrow part of the whole of creativity. I argue quite the opposite that creativity flourish best under circumstances of restriction, of oppression, suppression of free speech and the threat of these things.

Let's look at some of the great creative moments. During the Rennaissance there was barely a paltry freedom of speech. And yet that time produced great minds like DiVinci and Michalangelo. It was following the return of the King when freedom of speech was greatly curtailed in England that Milton wrote Paradice Lost, a work that through and through demonstrates a creative outlet for Milton's perhaps controversial political views. Even Christ, if we look at him as just a man who in history had some good advice about how to live, brought forth his ideas against a strongly oppressive regime. We could look to Mohammed too and see that his time no more encourage free thought or action, and yet he produced (transmitted?) a greatly creative work that looked at the problems of his contemporary world and sought to offer new and original solutions that have proved to be very valuable. Further let's look at the Manhattan project, a spectacular demostration of human creativity driven by the fear of forced changes in freedom of thought. If we didn't find away to end aggressions we would be engulfed by war and the possibility of colonization/annexation by various members of the "evil empires".

As I look into my own experience and think about some of my most creative moments it is when I have been somehow restricted, by time, by resource, by motivation, by expectation that I have produced some of my most creative work. Not just of art and writing, but I think in methods of learning material, in means of facing the challenges of school.

Freedom of speech must be valued and allowed, but not because it causes creativity. I think quite the opposite that restrictions and problems in the world cause creativity, a bi-product of which is the valuing of free speech.