There is every reason (and emotion) for resisting and disrupting what is
taking place in Minnesota (and a 1001 other places). And we generally and
specifically know what and how to politically resist. And distrupt. If we
don't know, there are more than enough examples in terms of texts and
actions. To be sure, there is a great deal more that I (and others) could
say in favor of specific reasons and strategies and tactics. However, what
Eric is attempting to say or what's nibbling at the rind of his
consciousness concerning becoming-'entrepreneurs' is of the utmost
importance.
One of the associational problems with the word 'entrepreneur', to be
sure, is that it strongly smells of Caca-pit-alist-isms. Entre-manure. And
consequently, the use of the term can invite someone from the
social-epistemic kourt in our field to jump in and critique 'our' use of
it and, if sucksessful, totally deflect our thinking of conditions for
other possible ways of becoming-entrepreneurs ... Ways (waves) that would
be for our and others' general good, and specifically in relation to
education.
All that Eric has been given in return for his posts are ... deflections!
It's very interesting that this near-millenI/AM group would deflect! A
bunch of you sound like ... mummies, not 'mommites, but stinking mummies.
(Forgive me for my nasty comment .)>= )
And yet, I (for one) could only hope that someone from the kourt would jump
in and give it a try .)>= and that we hear more from the pro-insurance
loggy on the list.
More importantly, what I hear Eric saying is ... Hell's Bells ... folks ...
this is all about change! And is not education itself about change? And is
not speaking and rhetoric and writing and thinking about change? ... as
painful as change might be? ... And is not the very technology that we are
using and advocating about change? And (Oops) is not the very technology
that we are celebrating right now possibly sinking our good ship
uni-versity? The timesss they rrrrrrr a changin'. (Oh, I'm ... that 60s
allusion will not work with this group, right?)
(I suspect, but can't know, that the very technology that we are using
right now to communicate will bring in the long run more--more good and bad
change, depending on your interests--than the jerk in Minnesota will bring
if he can get his way. But my suspicion is one that gives me much
excitement, not dread or angst, but excitement ... not knowing really where
all this stuff will have taken us. I can only affirm the venture and the
risk.)
Articulating these imaginary questions, however, is not to say that any one
of us should turn our backs on what is happening in Minnesota! The issue at
hand, as I read it, is not disjunctive: Whether someone or a group should
become entrepreneurs OR whether a group should get on a bus and go to
Minneapolis, as when bunches made the trip to Selma or to Chicago or to the
gods' know where. And deliver petitions, make speeches, call for sit-ins
and actually sit-in, perform street theatre, get arrested, or just join the
AAUP!, etc. (Ooops, more 60s stuff!)
Do both; in other words, let's go with our different ways of achieving
y/our near-common interests. And purgatory's bells, let's have phun in
doing it! (There's no insurance for having insurance.) Or let's do nothing
but flow with the status quo. Or even better, Do all three.
No matter what economic system, no matter what techne, no matter what What,
entrepreneurs (as in groups ... such as this one) bring about change. And
yet, not always as they would have it! (Marx, 18th Broom) Entrepreneurs (of
the right, the center, the left) start their own schools. Within schools.
Even *secret schools* .)>= Therefore, assume the risk of the venture! Why
not a three ring circus:
university,
multiversity,
perversity?
Oh, well, VVe are all fools ... It's just a matter of what kind of fool you
want to be!
Victor