Friday, September 7, 2007

PRESERVING THE OL' NATURALE

badger me if im wrong or what not, but isn't testing just another form of critiquing an individual on what they HAVE to KNOW (forced knowledge).... why should we be critique upon our individual perceptions of what is knowledge and what is not.... is it fair for us to go around and critiquing how people perceive their lives?...why not go around the corner and ask the local bum personal questions of why his task involves sitting by the curb, scavenging the leftovers of society....testing is exactly the same....I believe we should lose the very idea of "testing," rather let the individual perceives what he perceives.. is it wrong to believe in the things not in the textbooks publish by people you don't even know? Should knowledge not be a choice...why should we share and/or be judged upon our perceptions if all we get in the end is a bat striked at our faces and our ideas shoved in the mud.... knowledge should stay abstract and become something that should be personally perceive rather than something that is forced upon the individual to perceive...and by allowing the so called "testing," knowledge becomes more and more concrete losing its true purpose.......losing its aesthetic and abstract nature

1 comment:

Magister P said...

Why should we be critiqued on our individual perceptions of knowledge, you ask. This ties in to a previous post regarding personal and communal knowledge. I would suggest that the testing aspect ties into the communal nature of knowledge. We do not live our lives in a vacuum. Our knowledge, how we think we acquire knowledge, what we do with our knowledge...all these have profound impact on our lives with others, and if I am wrong, or at least at odds with others of my community, then this, too, has profound consequences.

You make another interesting distinction toward the end between concrete and abstract knowledge, suggesting that only the latter is true knowledge. Why is the abstract true and the concrete less so?