-=> Quoting Ron McDermott to All <=-
 RM> Illich believes there is a distinction between learning and
 RM> education, or more accurately, that they are not inextricably
 RM> linked...  I don't think anyone here would disagree...
It's more than that.  Illich says that education is not necessary for
learning and that it hampers the learning process for most people, all 
the kids that don't fit in and are excluded.  That's why he advocates
the *Deschooling* of society with the alternative of a better method.
 RM> Michael and Illich believe that certification through the
 RM> educational system is a bad idea and that we could do without
 RM> it... I'm not sure that we could do without it, and I'm not
 RM> sure that society in general would ALLOW a system to function
 RM> which DIDN'T certify.
There are plenty which do and have done.  Certification is not a 
prerequisite for a functioning, technological society.
 RM> The same criticism applies; our society, which is 
 RM> technological, is not going to accept noncertification.
Only when the members of the society are not open to alternatives or
aren't given the choice.  But if people learn about the benefits of
noncertification, society can't help but accept it.
 RM> good many people WANT to be led;
being led is different than certification.   People in every society since
history have been LED.  Certification is a new phenomonenon, not a pre
requisite, and not necessary.
 RM> conclusions (they may say otherwise, but their actions imply
 RM> something different).  If a system of certification didn't
 RM> exist, someone would create one by acclaimation and make a
 RM> fortune with it...
I don't consider it noble to accept something mediocre or bad because
you believe it can't change.  "If you can't beat them, join them" is 
not an admirable philosophy.
 RM> Finally, Michael and Illich believe that one can have the
 RM> fruits of a technological society without certification of
 RM> knowledge or enforced education... I strongly disagree, as,
 RM> I suspect, do most people here.
Do they?
 RM> a vast number of nonfunctional people.  While this is the
 RM> case at present as well, it MUST change for the society to
 RM> move in a technological direction (which I consider to be
 RM> FORWARD).
We've already been moving in a technological direction for 200 years,
and it hasn't changed.  What do you think is the point at which it
will?  You fail to understand that, under the current system, the
ratios of people who understand and keep up with new technology to
the rest of the population stays the same as time passes.  THis is
partly due to the corporation's "right to secrecy" and other methods
which deliberately hide trade secrets, and knowledge and so forth,
from people, keeping things concentrated in the hands of the few.  
There's no way people will become more functional under this modus
operandi.  You should realize that Illich argues that people become
LESS FUNCTIONAL as time passes.  Perhaps deschooling society didn't
explain that as well or as much as the stuff of his I've read recently.
But I think it did.  That's what the chapter on Prometheus was about.
And it's what he's saying when he says that bringing a third world
country into modern education creates modern poverty and soon thereafter
people don't know how to build their own houses.  They are forced to
rely on other people's packaged products.  They lose the more and more
of the ability to do things for themselves, rely on themselves, take care
of themselves.
 RM> At bottom is the philosophy of the individual vs group...
 RM> Illich is firmly on the side of the individual, and this is
 RM> certainly understandable for a person trained as a cleric.
No, Illich is on the side of what's fair to most people, how to give 
the most people the most and best opportunities.  He has concluded
that the current system is opposed to this, it works against it.  
Only the deschooling of society, the dismantling of the medical 
establishment (read Illich's _Medical Nemesis_), the dismantling of
the thrust of transportation and energy policies which  must develop
faster cars and use more energy, only doing these things will produce
a society which is better than what we've got.  Otherwise it will
only get worse and worse for more people.
 RM> Their focus is not on the here-and-now in the FIRST place,
 RM> and is MUCH more concerned with the individual, soul, and
 RM> what comes after for the INDIVIDUAL (I'm speaking mainly of 
 RM> the Christian view here, as Illich is/was a priest).  On the 
 RM> contrary, society is concerned about the good of the whole, 
 RM> and what happens to the SOCIETY after...  This fundamental
 RM> difference in philosophy is largely irreconcilable, imo..
Actually, the society we live in is not concerned about the good of
anybody except maintaining big corporations.  We don't matter to it.
That's why we have a history of big employers getting away with slave
labor and still do.  Factories haven't changed.  The name of the game
is to pay people as little as possible, to intice them only enough to
make sure they keep working.  Drug dealing works the same way.  Think
twice before you knock it.  Those people are businessman through and
through.  They work in the same way that any corporation does.  Give
people barely enough to keep them coming back, and make a profit.
So you see, it becomes a little hard to see the world of business
through rosy glasses, if you're inclined to pass judgement on something
like drug dealing as opposed to legal business.
-michael
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR]
---------------