fm wrote-
Quote:Ove on BBB's thread about a "wasted day at the museum", we can see the lies and misconceptions that the YECs had when leading a field trip to the Denver museum. It was really pitiful.
Maybe Ill go and snip it and bring the clip over here for RL and foxy's comments.
I have seen enough of the film to have got the picture so I will comment on it as Foxy has not done and rl seems to have deserted us.
There is a distinction, never appreciated by AIDs-ers, due to the overpowering influence of their egos, between experience as lived, which the film shows going by almost moment by moment, or at least that at which the camera is pointed, and experience as learned. A difference between immediate certainty given by intuition, illumination, inspiration and the power of sizing things up, what Goethe called the "exact percipient fancy, and the mental products of rational procedure and technical experiments. In kids the former is much the stronger and involves such things as analogy, pictures and symbols whereas the latter are determined by formula, laws and schemes.
The film shows a large series of "becomings" which each kid is experiencing in a different way and is felt, sensually, and generally inexpressible. One might look at the fossils, or plastic imitations of fossils, and become more aware of his own skeleton and those of the people around him and of death. Another might think what an awful pullover that man is wearing and I'm sure he dyes his hair. Yet another might be thinking of the cafe where the chocolate ice-creams are served and others about almost anything under the sun that some stimulus or other has triggered in them. The possibilities in that regard are very large but limited to cultural factors within their experience. "Will this be on TV?" one might be thinking, or "This looks an easy job", or "I'll draw a moustache on that monster when nobody's looking", or any one of a number of things which three years in a fm classroom will empty your head of so that room can be made for what fm thinks.
To suggest that they are all soaking up the spiel and are having their heads screwed up for the rest of their lives and that the country's science is going over a cliff as a result of this novel day out with a nice drive, lunch in a diner and other treats the idiotic parents can be persuaded to cough up in a social setting, is a strawman of gigantic size directly proportional to the size of the aforementioned egos. It constitutes laying one's own prejudices onto these kids. Projection. Indoctrinbloodyation.
It probably depends on how you see a movie. With a closed mind a completely different scene, a somewhat singular one, is viewed than with that of an open one and whenever a closed one shows itself you can bet your boots that it looks at everything else in an identical fashion.
It looks a good job though and the kids will only be there for a short while and when they've gone we can get back on Facebook and trawl the parade seeking the lady of our dreams. Or even finding her in the back office.
And c.i. talks about me believing in Superman. I was wondering if GBS inspired Superman with his play Man and Superman which played in New York and is a standard in the mental repetroire of any half-way decent writer who will know how to milk it seemingly without end. Maybe it inspired a race of Supermen. (Hey spendi! don't forget to credit Nietzsche-ed)
