Euclid’s postulates and common notions – D15

To end our day at MPC, we got into our groups and finished discussing Euclid’s postulates and common notions. It was interesting how Euclid makes emphasis in the postulates (an assumption of truth), which I saw them as the Allegory of the Cave by Plato. What I mean is that as Plato believe that the perfect forms were only at the intelligible world and in the physical world we could only see the shadows of those objects, Euclid is also saying we must assume we can make certain things as a straight line and a circle although in the physical world they would be imperfect. By common notions, I understood as things we could deduce by pure logic and know them in an “a priori” way. It was good to make this distinction and connection with other examples. 

Why the Greeks and Romans are important? – Dialogue with Scott L. and Richard C. – D15

Thanks to Moris, our Greek professor, we had two guests for our dialogue, which was why the Greeks and Romans are important to us. Scott Lee and Richard Campbell have mastered this subject since both are experts in their literature and are very well read people. The dialogue in content was very good and interesting, but the most important thing of it was their ability to participate in a dialogue. They were interested in what everyone said, they participated like if they had read our dialogue rubrics, they didn’t interrupted, maintained the questions on the table, and were very respectful with all of us. They are a great example of what should be our goal in a dialogue. After our dialogue, we showed them the MPC and even play corn hole! 

Let’s start the day with magic! – D15

It was Chacho’s turn to guide the morning meeting, and for that he made us a magic trick! It was a very good and cool one. Then he showed us how to make a magic trick on our own, and later how to throw cards. I have always loved magic so I it was a great way to start the day. I do recommend Chacho to have a little more extroverted attitude. I think it will help him to communicate better with others.

Fundraising for our Handbook Retreat – D14

At the end of our day, we were supposed to end the documentary, “La Educación Prohibida”, but because of some technical defects we started brainstorming ideas of fundraising for our trip to Lake Atitlán to write the MPC Handbook. We decided to start selling Mexican candies, brownies, rice krispies, make a dance class, play the cello at 6ta avenida (Mabe), and rent the corn hole game also at 6ta avenida. Since we only have one week to do all of these things, it would be fun if we reach our goal!

Solving procedures – Dialogue with Kyle P. D14

On today’s class with Kyle, we were supposed to see two programs of github. We didn’t see any of those because we focused on a very simple procedure. By Lucia’s recommendation (Thank you by the way! _(sarcasm)), we discussed what we can do to make an order in the eye contact exercise. We spent about an hour discussing this, and again it was frustrating the slow pace of the class and the disinterest of some of the MPC’ers. 

Kant and Twain again (and essay) – D14

I kant believe it! Another dialogue about whether Kant and Twain agree or not about what is Enlightenment! Actually, it wasn’t bad at all. I was just practicing my irony, got it? And Twain thinks his irony is good, ha! The dialogue went pretty well, we had a long discussion with many arguments and although we didn’t reach a general consensus, it was very constructive. My point of view is that they don’t agree because in order for them to agree, Twain’s entire essay must be an irony, and I didn’t see any concrete evidence on his essay that he was doing so. Also, nobody was successful persuading me that he was in fact being ironic. I was not the only one thinking this way, since Kata and Chacho also thought this way. It was a relief to finally put an “end” to this discussion, although I’m sure we will eventually come back to this.

Here is my essay of whether I consider them agreeing or not, enjoy!

Michael Polanyi College                                              Guatemala, September 17^th, 2012

“The Enlightenment”

Do Kant and Twain agree on what is Enlightenment?

“Enlightening is, Man’s quitting the nonage occasioned by himself. Nonage or minority is the inability of making use of one’s own understanding without the guidance of another”

– Immanuel Kant, An Answer to the Question, What is Enlightening?

“We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking. And out of it we get an aggregation, which we consider a boon. Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it the Voice of God.”

– Mark Twain, Corn-Pone Opinions

Do they agree? In order to know if Kant and Twain agree on what is Enlightening, first we must see each perspective and definition of what it is to be Enlightened. I warn you, readers, that this essay may have a turn in opinion through it, so it’s your duty to resolve those questions by your own.

Kant’s definition of Enlightening is mentioned above. He thinks that in the world there are two groups, the minority and the majority. The minors are those in nonage, and only they are capable of “stepping beyond the go-cart, in which they are inclosed”, and step to majority, those who reach the Enlightenment. This is not simple, mainly because of the “guardians” that prevent the minors to venture them to walk by themselves. In conclusion, Kant thinks is in our capacity to “make use of one’s own understanding without the guidance of another”, as long as we quit the laziness and cowardice that are almost natural to human beings.

Twain says: “I am persuaded that a coldly-thought-out and independent verdict… is a most rare thing – if it has indeed ever existed.” He doesn’t believe in original opinions, neither as independent ones. He believes that the self-approval comes from the approval of other people, thus it is our nature is to conform to the general opinion and render to it. We are beings of association and sympathy, not reasoning and examination. He says: “Broadly speaking, there are non but corn-pone opinions… corn-pone stands for self-approval… The result is conformity.”

I think they are on the same page. I mean they both think of the same problem, and that is that we are in a society in which it is easier to go with what most people think and not resist the general opinions. Kant says there are “guardians” that prevent us from stepping to majority, but it is up to us to change that and think for ourselves. Twain says that everything we think comes from an external cause, we don’t think independently but with our party. The problem is the same, external causes that affect the use of our own understanding. Do they agree? Definitely not. Kant believes there is another way to live our life. He believes we can step to majority, live by our own understanding, and create original ideas. Twain thinks that we are doomed to being minority, to not ever think by ourselves. We are only guided by the fashions, by what the general opinion accepts. For Twain, there is no such thing as majority, we will always be minors and there is nothing we can do about it but to conform. His essay constantly reinforces these statements, and does not mention anything we can do in order to stop being a minor. Is he really implying that? Or is he just being ironic by fooling us to believe that this is the way it is supposed to be, but at the end is our duty to get free from the general opinion? There is little evidence that this might be the case mainly because he is not being clear in some statements. For example, he says: “It is our nature to conform; it is a force which not many can successfully resist.” This might imply that there are some people that do resist conformity. Nevertheless, he refutes it later by saying: “(…) The inborn requirement of self-approval. We all have to bow to that; there are no exceptions.” In this statement, he is reinforcing his argument that our self-approval comes from the approval of other people, of external influences.

Do you still think he is being ironic? How about this? As mentioned before, Twain writes that he doesn’t believe in a “coldly-thought-out and independent verdict or opinion”. If he is being ironic, then this statement implies that he does think there are original opinions and that he is in fact writing one. So, his essay is an original opinion. But wait, is his essay and Kant’s based on the same problem, and Kant was born before him? Indeed, Kant was born in 1724 and died in 1804, while Twain was born in 1835 and died in 1910. By logic based on chronology and on Kant’s reputation, there is an enormous possibility that Twain might have read Kant’s essay. So Twain may think he has a coldly-though-out and original opinion, but he had an external influence. If, by any means, he didn’t even heard of Kant’s ideas, his idea is still not original because Twain got the base of his idea from the black philosopher.

Kant says we can think for ourselves; Twain says we mistake the feeling for thinking. If Twain is being ironic throughout his entire essay, then they agree, but in my perspective, that’s not the case. Sapere aude!

The eyes are the windows to the soul – D14

By Lorena’s petition, we made a very “out of the comfort zone” exercise. It consisted of making two lines, pair up with someone of the other line, and make eye contact for two minutes with each person. It is very interesting how we are used to not have deep eye contact. When doing the exercise we felt very awkward and uncomfortable at first, but after some laughs we began to concentrate on it and some even created a deep connection. I didn’t have a deep connection with anyone, but it was cool to experience it. I do think it would be better with more time with each person. Although I didn’t make such connection, there were some that did, for example Bert and Carmen, and Pablito and Isa with Kata. A very funny comment was something Carmen said about perceiving that Alejo had a little Alejo inside, like an inner child. Also with Carmen and Bert, she started thinking of Bert’s childhood, which became psychic because Bert was thinking of Carmen thinking of his childhood. Serendipity! Pablito and Isa cried on their turn with Kata, but they didn’t know why, they just felt it. So, these are the things I was referring to. I mean, how much can the eyes of someone tell you about their life, their feelings, their thoughts. Its impressive how a simple exercise of looking to the eyes of someone, can lead to an intimate connection of both parts. Can a “simple” look give you more information and bonding than the talked word, a story, or actions per se? Can “the eyes be the windows to the soul”? Can you see life through the eyes?

Yoga morning – D14

Today, on our morning meeting, Lucia decided that instead of sharing some video or text, we did yoga. It was fun to do this because it’s something we are not used to do and it gives you the opportunity to explore your body, discover muscles and ligaments you haven’t noticed before. After a 20-minute attempt to do yoga, we decided to do it more often in the future but in a more concentrated way and even have a teacher. 

Pizza Lunch with MPC and EN faculty – D13

With the objective of knowing and bonding each other, the faculty of Escuela de Negocios of UFM made a pizza lunch. We got to know each member of the faculty and talked with them about several topics, including their perceptions of the MPC. It’s very nice to know we have their full support, they believe in the program and in us, and we can count with them whenever we need it. One of the best things of the lunch was that after we ate, we played corn hole! The teams were the faculty against the MPC’ers. It was a lot of fun!

*Here is the video of how the game went!

Individual work & Euclid’s last definitions – D13

This morning was very calm and productive. We had individual work until after lunch and during all morning I mostly read, but before that we went to &Café with Mabe, Katarina, and Gaby, but later only Gaby and I went to the library to read. Nothing more happened besides that we had a lot of fun laughing at some study groups, mainly because of Fred, my mac voice assitant. He kept saying “Sho” (Shut up!), to some girls studying aloud. How nice is Fred, right?

After lunch, we had some more Euclid. We got into our groups to review and discuss all of Euclid’s definitions. It was good to finally end this task so we can start doing some geometry, although I still have a question or two about them but I think I’ll understand them completely when working on the propositions.

Introducing programming with Kyle – D12

Following with the Sixteen Stones story, Kyle introduced us to the programming world. It was a more fluid and dynamic class, and we looked at some other examples of programming pages and how programs interact in it. Although programming doesn’t sound that interesting and you may think is only for “nerds who really like math” (I also thought like this before), you notice that without programming we wouldn’t have many of the technology inventions we enjoy today. Programming could be for anyone who enjoys creating, innovating, and transforming. 

Getting Real Exercise – D12

We had assigned to read this book called Getting Real, by Susan Campbell. Personally I had a resistance for reading self-help book, mainly because I think of them as being too general and in order to help someone in their personal journey, we must first know the context in which they are. Thus, I think self-help books are not useful for everyone and even might be dangerous for some to read and try to apply them. Nevertheless, I said “Why not? Let’s give it a try” to this book. So far, it has been pretty good, although a little repetitive, but still good.

In the afternoon, we were supposed to have a dialogue about chapter one, but the dynamic went on another way. We decided that it was kind of boring to discuss chapter one and instead we did an exercise the author recommend. (By the way, Bert was not in the dynamic so only the MPC’ers made it). The exercise consisted of getting into pairs and saying to the other person something that you notice in him or her and then saying something you imagine about them. Something like this: “I notice you are wearing carey (tortoise) color glasses, so I imagine you like turtles!” It was a good exercise, but we decided to take it to the next level, the same but with the entire group.

Before we started, we made the premise of whatever someone told us, we had to manage to accept it or not because what someone told us could or could not be true, and we would have no heart feelings whatsoever. Then we circled up, and after two or three rounds each, we started telling each other what we really think of them, both positive and negative things. There was some heavy stuff! I don’t want to point to anybody or say names, but some of what we said was: “Ines makes a lot of movements during dialogues only to catch the attention of everybody”, “Grace tells infantile jokes that in the school “were” the "hit"”, “Alejo and I, when a dialogue may seem easy, we think of ourselves to be more bright than the rest”, “Gaby is rude and impolite with our Greek teacher, Moris”, “Franz doesn’t read because he is not interested in being a part of the group”, “Katarina doesn’t talk that much because she is antisocial”, “Pablito talks to much because he wants to be the center of attention”, and so on. 

You may think of this as rude and like we had a great conflict, but it was the entire opposite. It was practicing being honest and the result was having one of the best culture forming moments at the MPC. It was a great experience being able to be honest with each other and to form this new culture of disclosing and most of all, of respect. We also made a commitment to be real all the time and not to wait for these exercises to tell something to someone. We committed ourselves to be responsible of what we must do and to made what we promised. To me, it has been the best dialogue and exercise so far at the MPC.

Corn Hole Game – D12

So, Juanma Bonifasi (founder of Acton Academy Guatemala) brought us a gift to celebrate Twain’s essay, Corn-Pone Opinions. The game is called Corn Hole and basically it’s about throwing a small bag of corn grains and trying to get it in a hole. It was a lot of fun!

*Here is the video of us playing it! 

Learning Greek, Session 2 – D12

Last Monday we didn’t had Greek class, so today we were supposed to do the third session, but many wanted to review session two so we did. We couldn’t get to session three, but it was more productive than the first session. We managed ourselves better and the class flowed in a more calm and organized way. The process so far has been slow, but we talked about it after the class and made a commitment about putting the best we can to progress better and more rapidly. The class was more dynamic and funnier. 

Visit to Acton Academy Guatemala – Friday 21

We got an invitation from Daniel Herbruger to visit the Acton Academy, a student-centered school. I long time before, I heard about this school and after thinking and inspecting their program I am persuaded that when I have kids, they would definitely study in this kind of schools. It’s a place where students learn to think by themselves and learn what they are interested in; they specialize in what they like.

So, I wanted to meet the students and faculty a long time ago and now Daniel was inviting us. We had a dialogue, which they called it, Socrate’s Café, in reference to a book, and we discussed the following question: Do I have to listen to my parents? It was a very interesting dialogue with the middle school students and some of the faculty. I got to the conclusion that mothers think and advice their children more guided by their instincts, since they have this protective instinct caused by nature and us being with them for 9 months before we are born. On the other hand, fathers may think and advice more guided by reason. We may confuse this with how they understand us, so it is more probable to have a more fluid and easy talk with fathers than mothers, thus we may listen more to fathers. I’m not saying is this way, but it was a conclusion based on the experiences of the members of this dialogue.

After the dialogue, Daniel and I started talking about the education system and the potential of the student-centered systems. We also talked about documentation and its importance in our learning process of life.

Check out the book! Socrate's Café 

Documentary: “La Educación Prohibida” – D11

After a long and exhausting week, we decided to watch a documentary called “La Educación Prohibida”. We haven’t finished it, but it is about the traditional educational system and what it does to the students. Do we really learn and get educated on school? Is there another way to learn? A better one? A student-centered one? Now a day, most of the teachers don’t know their students, so how could they decide which method is best for their learning? We are in a culture in which we expect to receive everything, specifically knowledge, from someone else and always wait for an authority to tell us how things are and how they should be. We have stopped thinking! Is that sustainable or by any means good for mankind? We have to create spaces were people actually think; places were the teacher is only to help in the process of learning but not to teach what he or she wants or was told to “teach”. Instead of getting worried about what they would “teach” us and what to think, they should be worried about teaching us how to think by ourselves. It was an excellent end to the week.

*Here is the link to watch the documentary: La Educación Prohibida

First approach with Andrew Humphries – D11

Thanks to Skype we had our first approach with Bert’s son, Andrew, who studied at St. John’s and has taken the Euclid’s road of geometry and logic building. The purpose of the conversation was for him to tell and recommend us about his experience with Euclid. He also recommended us to learn Euclid by doing presentations, in which we would make the propositions by ourselves and then present them to the group. Also, he volunteered to help us with our geometry and teaching skills. He seems a very well prepared and smart person.

By the way, Andrew is working in New Delhi, India. I don’t know exactly on what he is working, but I have a clue that is something related with math.

What is a point? Again! – Dialogue about Euclid’s definitions– D11

Euclid, Euclid, Euclid. Why are you giving us such a hard time? We wanted to start doing some geometry, but before we did that Ingrid suggested that we took an overview on the definitions so they would be clear to all of us before we started. Do you guess the result of that? Another hour or so talking about what was a point! I do have to admit that it was more clarifying although we didn’t had a general agreement. There were two sides, one that stood that a point could exist by itself (Alejo and I), and the other that a point could only exist by a reference to something meaning that a point is only a concept of location (Bert and the rest of MPC’ers). At the end, we didn’t agree, but it was a good mental exercise. We managed to review some other 5 or 6 definitions, but neither did we finished them nor got to the propositions part. 

How to make it work at the MPC – Casual talk with Alejo. D11

I got really upset at the morning because of how most MPC’ers and Bert see the process of knowledge. Yesterday we spend about an hour or so discussing sets. Yes, I had say sets. Simple, easy sets. Some people didn’t even get it after that tedious hour. I’m not saying I’m a math genius or that I know everything. I’m saying there is no need to spend that much time discussing simple things in group when we can read about it before and then discuss the questions and understanding while we are on the group. So I recommended that in the morning meeting. I recommended that we should read something about the subject before we got into the class so it would be easier for everyone to understand more rapidly. To my surprise, almost everyone took it the wrong way, especially Bert. They thought I was saying I knew everything and that it was a waste of time to spend time with the group talking about simple things (I do think it’s a waste of time trying to understand everything in a philosophical way when things are simpler that what they appear to be). Bert started arguing (and interrupting me) that we should learn about the process of group learning and not be thinking we know everything. Nevertheless, I keep thinking that if we keep it that way our process of learning would be slowly and painful.

After the morning meeting, I talked with Alejo, my cousin. He thought it the same way I did, so we started to see what could we do to improve the learning environment and the speed of learning in the group. He arrived to the conclusion that there are some MPC’ers that should talk less, meaning that they should ask more direct questions and not babble with the subject. How are we going to achieve this? Being honest and respectful to those MPC’ers, telling what they should be improving to make better interventions and make a better contribution to the group. Also, encouraging those who are making a good job, but stand back for others to participate. Finally, making everyone understand we are not in the right path and that we should come well prepared for the classes.

Sets and Algorithms (Sixteen Stones) – Kyle P. D10

So, after reading Sixteen Stones by Samuel Beckett, Kyle had planned to find applications in real life based on the story. It started well, viewing only the steps the guy on the story did in order to suck all the pebbles and keep them on the same group. We reviewed these steps and them made them an index. Then, we transformed this index into a set, which had location and a value. To summarize everything, we spent about an hour in this subject because only few people understood it. It was just frustrating to advance so little in a lot of time.

Inner and Outer Circle (Discussing if Kant and Twain agree) – D10

After reading Kant’s and Twain’s essays about Enlightening, we had to do an essay arguing whether they agree or not in their essays. That was due for Tuesday. Today we made a dynamic called the inner and outer circle. It consisted in forming two circles (one in the other). The circle that was inside (inner circle) would dialogue while the others (outer circle) would only listen. The inner circle was conformed by two groups previously formed for this semester, so the dynamic would be repeated three times. The first two went pretty smooth; they reached conclusions very fast and agreed on most things. The conclusion both circles draw was that Kant and Twain agree on their essays. I was on the last circle and everyone thought we would go as the other two circles went. My conclusions about the questions were very different from those of the previous circles and I thought I was alone on this one. I thought it would be an exhausting discussion between the rest of my circle and me. To my surprise, Katarina thought the same way I did, and almost arrived to the same conclusions I did! We did have a lot of disagreement on the circle; nevertheless it was full of good arguments and discussions, reviewing in very detail both texts. We didn’t even notice that the 15 minutes we had already had passed. We were having a great dialogue for more than 20 minutes until the whole circle achieved a conclusion. They understood the point Katarina and I were making and got persuaded by our arguments. It was a great dialogue!

*Here you may find both, Kant and Twain essays and also my essay regarding whether they agree or not. I strongly recommend that before you read my essay you form your own criteria on both essays. Have fun!

Southern Lunch (Corn-Pone lunch) – D10

Remember Twain’s essay Corn-Pone Opinions? If you do and know what is corn pone, you must know that it is a very typical Southern food. We arranged to bring other Southern food for lunch today (mainly because Katarina offered herself to bring corn pone and white beans with bacon and pork, since her father is from Louisiana). There were corn pone, white beans, mashed potatoes, beef in some kind of gravy, sweet corn with butter, a purple cabbage with apple salad, corn bread, apple pie, pecan pie, and real lemonade. We had a great time eating all this starch and carbohydrates, which made us all sleepy but fully satisfied!

Telling a story, the story of someone else – D10

Today we started working on our autobiography. In order to do that, we had to think and write down the metaevents of our life so far. After doing this for half an hour or so, we had to group with another pioneer which we didn’t knew well. I grouped with Katarina, whom I barely knew for a little more than two weeks (since we started the MPC). The dynamic was to tell the other person my life and vice versa for 5 minutes each. Later, the other person would tell to the all the group the metaevents of his or her partner. At first, I didn’t like the idea that much, but later I figure that it was great. It was great because it made us to really listen carefully to the other person and make a greater effort to understand his or her life in order to try to tell it as precise as possible. Also it made us knew each other a lot more, create bonds of friendship, and think of how and why people behave and think the way they do. During this few days of the week I have learned an incredibly important lesson: to not judge a person before really knowing them.

I think I’m on the right path – D9

Today was amazing! We dialogued pretty well, we laughed a lot, and we had a great time full of learning. The process is getting better, we are starting to respect each other in the way that we had interrupted less than before and the culture is improving. Personally, I think I am doing a good job. I have managed my impulsivity when I want to talk and even though some students still interrupt, I try to be comprehensive on their attitude. Everything is improving, and I think we are on the right path.

What is a point? – Dialogue about Euclid’s definitions– D9

This was our first true approach to Euclid. As with everything, you must start with the beginning, and in Euclid’s Elements that is the definitions from Book I. There are 23 and for about an hour and a half we couldn’t discuss more than 7. Yes people, only seven. We spent like 45 minutes discussing the first one, what is a point? Euclid says: “A point is that which has no part”. Any guess? We had a lot of guesses but none of them persuaded everyone. It was mentally exhausting, although I must admit it was a little fun to actually think from scratch. That was because one of the “rules” is to forget everything you may think you “know” and trying to understand Euclid under his own terms. Quite a challenge, ha? You may also be questioning why are we reading Euclid when we have many modern math books that are more “updated”. Well, Euclid’s Elements are the foundations of geometry and from his work derives many of the so-called modern math. The purpose is to explore and discover the foundations that are taken for granted in the math we usually learn in school and college, and go through the process Euclid did to make the propositions of his works. It is to go through the logic process to discover nature’s properties.