Euclid? Big Discussion – D55

Everything appeared to be normal, just a regular Euclid class, until Ingrid mentioned a new standard calling for exact precision on our drawings, making them with previous propositions. She tried to make proposition 4, but didn’t succeed in doing so, showing that that exercise is not practical in the future propositions. We did agree that we would do them as precise as possible using our tools like the compass. The discussion evolved into finding a solution for a better learning process of Euclid. What we concluded is that we should divide the class into three groups, chosen by affinity, and to have standards for all of us for presenting and documenting the propositions, but each group will have its own rubrics and objectives, although the general objective for everyone is to finish up to proposition 30 for this semester. My group is Pablito, Alejo, Gabbi, Chacho, and Isa. This is our rubric:

We also talked about excuses and “getting real”, and how we have been interacting as a group and giving each other feedback. There were different views on the topic, some (Gabbi, Alejo, and some other I don’t remember) were saying we should have a third person, like a moderator or psychologist to mediate with each of us, and others (Carmen, Lucía, Kata, and some others) were saying we don’t need that and that it should be a personal approach with each other, that it has to be within us and not to wait for other person. I agreed with both sides by saying that the change and proactivity to solve problems comes within us, and that it could help having a workshop on how to work better as a group. I also tried to keep calm and mediate the opposite views, trying to reach an agreement on what should we do next as a group. I think I did a good job doing this and proposing solutions to these problems. At the end, we advanced in our organization and I take something positive of the discussion.

Passion for Books – D3

84 Charing Cross Road. A 1970 book, later adapted to film in 1987, about a writer who is passionate for old, rare, secondhand, British books. The story takes place in New York and London, and it develops from the correspondence of this writer, Helene Hanff, with Frank Doel, an antiquarian bookseller for Marks & Co. in England.

What I found interesting of this film is to see other people’s passion for something. Whether that passion is for books, films, dancing, sports, economics, or politics, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the use of that passion into our life, how do we make it a part of our life, and how does that make a difference. It’s rare to find a true passion, because one can have many interests, but a true passion is something hard to find. I wouldn’t dare to tell that books are my passion, although I love them, specially old books, books that tell you a story, with dedications or side notes and comments, and be able to imagine the story of with that. Can you imagine this new world of ideas and stories that every book can tell you?

Communication, Culture, Bohm, and Oakeshott – D2

“Human self-understanding is inseparable from participating in what is called a culture. It is useful to have a word that stands for the whole of what an associated set of human beings have created for themselves, beyond the evanescent satisfaction of their wants. But we must not be misled by it. A culture is not a doctrine or a set of consistent teachings or conclusions about a human life. It is not something we can set before ourselves as the subject of learning, any more than we can set self-understanding before ourselves as something to be learned. It is that which is learned in everything we may learn.”

– Michael Oakeshott, The Voice of Liberal Learning

“Communication… is necessary in all aspects of life. Thus, if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to “work together”) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.”

– David Bohm, On Dialogue

After this quotes, I have not much to say. I mean, if you could really understand Oakeshott and Bohm you’ll have a great understanding of communication and culture. (I’m still trying to understand them haha)

During our dialogue regarding this quotes, I understood that communication and culture are deeply linked. Culture is the institutions, meaning the set of rules both tacit and stated. It is what defines our behavior in a certain group, that why each group can create this set of rules in order to create a new culture with their own values. Communication comes is part of creating this set of rules also. In Bohm’s quote, if we are to cooperate or work together, we have to have a culture. A culture is not inherent in us nor it is something due to our history, but a spontaneous order that defines how we behave.

Rhetoric of the image – D2

“A picture is worth a thousand words”

– It was first used in 1911 in a newspaper article whose editor was Arthur Brisbane. (Wikipedia)

We all have heard this expression, but is it true? Could a single picture tell us the same or more than a doubly articulated communication? After reading very carefully Roland Barthes’ essay, Rhetoric of the Image, we found out that this was a great problem pending to be solved.

We also watched “Shooting the Past”, a television drama by Stephen Poliakoff, and it made me think about how much could an image or photograph can tell you. This film is about how photographs can tell you a story; it is about making connections, and find a relation for those things that seemed to be completely different and distant. Is that communication?