Apotheosis - Prose

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BEAU DISCOURS - by Albert Frank

The way we work : Food for thought. - Albert Frank

RÉFLEXIONS SUR NOTRE ( ??? ) SOCIETE - Albert Frank

Research Project (Requesting comments from all readers)

Problem-Based Learning vs. Post-Industrial Behaviorism - Thomas Hadley

Thoughts on Power:

BEAU DISCOURS - by Albert Frank

Oui, c'est dit!
Mes amis, avec l'enthousiasme qui vous caractérise, vous avez réussi! Cette réalisation, la plus belle de toutes, nous mènera au sommet... que dis-je - le sommet est à nous, pour toujours.
Mesdames, messieurs, c'est dans la joie la plus totale, c'est dans le joie la plus sincère, avec émotion, que je vous dis : "Merci, merci, encore merci!"
Notre destin uni dans cette grande réussite s'envolera vers des cimes sans précédent. Et c'est unis dans un but commun, à jamais inoubliable, que notre triomphale réussite nous portera vers les hauteurs - oui, j'ai bien dit vers les hauteurs, vers une gloire jusqu'alors inégalée. Pendant des années... que dis-je? Pendant des siècles, notre lutte juste et grande tentait vainement de nous amener à notre juste place ... maintenant, grâce à vous, mes amis, nous avons réussi. Qu'en ce jour mémorable, unis
dans la même joie incommensurable, dans une communion d'esprit à jamais parfaite, nous comprenions notre plénitude. Quelle joie, quel grand moment . Comme le disaient déjà mes prédécesseurs et comme le diront, nul n'en doute, les successeurs et à leur tour les successeurs de ceux-ci, avec une volonté incessante de renouveau : continuez, mes amis, continuez toujours...Le monde vous admire et ne peut cacher la profonde émotion qu'il ressent au vu de vos
sublimes réalisations.
Imaginez-vous, mesdames, messieurs qu'après des millénaires - que dis-je: des dizaines - des centaines de milliers d'années d'obscurantisme, enfin la lumière a jailli, et ce grâce à vous, oui grâce à vous - il faut le dire - dont l'incessant dévouement persistera à jamais. N'oublions pas l'adversité, ces ignobles détracteurs qui, non contents de nier l'évidence, vont jusqu'à vouloir prétendre l'impossible. Comment peut-on même imaginer qu'il puisse être possible de ressentir ce sentiment inavouable? Je vous le demande. Cette démentielle adversité, non seulement
dans un but obscur mais encore au travers de sinistres brumes, renforcera encore notre désir : le mieux, toujours le mieux. C'est notre union absolue qui nous a porté en avant et qui toujours continuera ainsi. Avez-vous, mes chers amis, des questions?

- " Quelle heure est-il ?"

Back to Table of Contents

The way we work : Food for thought. - Albert Frank

COMPETENCY

Let us first recall Peter’s principle: “In any organised group of human beings, one keeps on being promoted until one’s level of incompetence has been reached.”
Sad last step of a process which we’ve become accustomed to witness.
What is worse is that on a daily basis, the meaning of the word “competent” has evolved from “the one that can do” to “the one that deals with”! Ideally, it would be perfect: the one who, thanks to his knowledge, is able to solve a problem, is asked to deal with it. Practically, it is assumed to be so! The one who deals with a problem is presumed to be able to solve it. No distinction is made anymore between ability and title. This has led us to the abominable use of the term “Competent Authority”…Take, among so many examples, the pedagogical competencies of those “Competent Authorities” who rule Educational Boards!

HIERARCHY

In his remarkable book “Submission to Authority” (a part of which was taken up in the movie “I, as Icare”), Stanley MILGRAM shows how far blind submission to authority may lead. Observations made by Stanley Milgram’s team outnumbered most pessimistic forecasts. Phrases like “The boss said so”, “The State Secretary said so”, justify almost anything, often absolutely everything (ask Hitler or better ask his lieutenants!).
And where has this led us to? When working in a firm or in an office for example, in order to take most of the steps that have to be taken, any planned action or decision has first to be submitted to the one immediately above, who in his turn will refer it to the one immediately above … until, finally, it reaches the “Competent Authority” !

POWER

Whatever we think about their power, European State Ministers do have a lot of it. (What about elsewhere’s?).When they meet, State Ministers take decisions that affect our daily life. Simply because they are almost at the top of the ladder.
An improvement might be reached if to be entitled to become a State Minister, people had to have at least, let’s say, a 120 IQ, as well as a certain amount of “knowledge” in the field they are to minister. It may make no difference in the worst case, but why not try? [Ideally these people should also take a test in honesty, but such a test does not seem to be feasible.]
This proposal does not imply that everyone should walk around with a sign on his head stating his IQ. One would simply know that those who are State Ministers have a relatively high IQ and some knowledge in the field they are dealing with.

HABITS

Point out any stupidity, whichever. What will you be answered? “-That’s the way we’ve always done!” And anything will find itself justified! Even better, you will be told: “-That’s the way we’ve always done, ask the boss”
How to get out of it ??? And this is a mirthless remark.

MAY-BE

What about imposing a duty to think ? A duty not to obey stupidly, because “the order comes from the boss”, because “that’s the way it’s always been done”, because “I don’t want to take any responsibility”, because “if I don’t, someone else will do it anyway”… but the step to take is so big, the way to go is so long …

RÉFLEXIONS SUR NOTRE ( ??? ) SOCIETE - Albert Frank

LA COMPETENCE

Rappelons d'abord le "Principe de Peter" : " Dans beaucoup d'organisations, chacun est promu jusqu'à atteindre son niveau d'incompétence". C'est bien connu, et pas tellement spécial. Mais il y a pire : le mot compétent, qui signifie littéralement "qui est capable de, qui a la capacité de traiter un problème..." est utilisé dans le langage courant actuel pour désigner "celui qui s'occupe de" !!
Idéalement, ce serait parfait : celui qui, éventuellement par ses connaissances, est capable de traiter un problème, s'en occupe.
En pratique, on admet qu'il en est ainsi ! Celui qui s'occupe d'un problème est présumé être capable de s'en occuper. Plus aucune distinction n'est faite entre les capacités et le titre. D'où par exemple l'abominable utilisation du terme " autorité compétente ". Pensons par exemple ( il y en a tellement ) aux compétences pédagogiques des autorités "compétentes" en matière d'enseignement ! ...

LA VOIE HIERARCHIQUE

Dans son remarquable ouvrage " Soumission à l'autorité" ( dont une petite partie a été reprise dans le film " I comme Icare «, Stanley MILGRAM montre jusqu'où la soumission aveugle à l'autorité peut mener. Les constatations faites par l'équipe de Stanley Milgram dépassèrent les prévisions les plus pessimistes. "Le chef a dit"... " Le ministre a dit" justifient n'importe quoi, souvent absolument n'importe quoi ( demandez à Hitler et surtout aux sous-fifres ! ).
Et où en sommes-nous? Pour la majorité de nos actions ( par exemple dans le fonctionnement d'une entreprise ou administration ), toute action ou décision doit être soumise au supérieur hiérarchique, qui lui-même demandera à son supérieur hiérarchique... pour finalement aboutir à... l'autorité compétente !

LE POUVOIR

Quoiqu'on puisse en penser, les ministres ont, dans les gouvernements européens (et autres?) beaucoup de pouvoir. Un conseil des ministres peut prendre des décisions affectant la vie de tous les jours. Et ceci simplement parce que ces ministres sont presque en haut de la chaîne des "supérieurs hiérarchiques". Je pense qu'une amélioration peut être obtenue en imposant à quelqu'un, pour être "ministrable", d'avoir au moins un Q.I. - disons de 120. Et également d'avoir des "connaissances" dans le domaine concerné. Au pire, cela ne changerait rien, mais pourquoi ne pas essayer? Idéalement, ces gens devraient aussi passer un examen d'honnêteté, mais cela ne semble pas réalisable. Cette proposition n'implique nullement que chacun doive se promener avec son Q.I. affiché sur sa tête. On saurait simplement que ceux qui sont ministres ont un Q.I. relativement élevé et des capacités dans le domaine dont ils s'occupent.

L'HABITUDE

Désignez une ineptie que vous constatez, peu importe laquelle. Quelle réponse vous fera-t-on très souvent? « On a toujours fait comme cela " - Et tout se trouve ainsi justifié. Encore mieux, on vous répondra " on a toujours fait comme cela, demandez au chef... "
Que faire pour en sortir??? Je ne sais pas, et c'est sans gaieté que j'écris ces quelques lignes...

PEUT - ETRE

Une "obligation de penser", de ne pas obéir stupidement " parce que c'est le chef, parce qu'il sait, parce que l'on a toujours fait comme cela, parce que je
ne veux pas prendre de responsabilité, parce que si je ne le fais pas un autre le fera «... mais le chemin à faire est tellement grand, tellement long...

Back to Table of Contents

THOUGHTS ON POWER

Editor's Note: The following is a collection of individual members views of the possible looming war. To read replies and counters please visit

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apotheosis/messages

Barry Howard

I enjoy the poetic exchanges very much regarding this war. I've been
following things closely, and, of course, have opinions which are forged
within the framework of my worldview. Still, I believe my perspective are
tempered, and have some merit.

In America, we have what is popularly called the Monroe Doctrine. It was
expressed during President Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress,
December 2, 1823. Here is an excerpt:

"...Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of
the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless
remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any
of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate
government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve
those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances
the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in
regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously
different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their
political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our
peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if
left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally
impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form
with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of
Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must
be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of
the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other
powers will pursue the same course. . . . "

The Monroe Doctrine has a great deal of value in some respects. In other
respects, it falls short. I work with many nationalities, including a
number of Europeans. My experience is that the European worldview on global
affairs is not quite the same as the American view...extending its
differences even from the British and Canadian view, which saddle the
European and American views.

In regard to the case at hand, there is little question in my mind as to
whether war is the right course. I believe it is, and the reasons for that
are (1) a real and immediate threat from Sadam and (2) an intrinsic
responsibility to battle evil.

The first reason is easily contended with by decent men of all nations, as
it might be contested that there is not enough evidence made public to
declare war in an attempt to thwart a strike from Sadam. Maybe. Maybe not.
My guess is that more information will be forthcoming, but this point is
not one that I would try to argue with a dissenter, as burden of proof is an
expectation relative to the tastes and opinions of an individual. For me,
Sadam has proven his mettle in this regard and I am satisfied to go and shut
down him down. Another might disagree, and I can appreciate that. You
could argue the point all day.

The second reason is what I think should bind civilized men together more
tightly in this endeavor. With power comes a certain amount of intrinsic
responsibility. For instance, if I were to walk out of my front door and
see a ten year old child repeatedly beating the head of a four year old
child against the sidewalk, what responsibility do I have to intervene? I,
a 31 year old man, have no business in the affair to speak of. I don't know
the causes of the conflict. I am big and strong and can come in and control
things, giving me a truly unfair advantage. Why should I intervene?

Of course, this personal, local example is easy to embrace and, any decent
human being would concur that I have a basic responsibility as a reasonable
adult to intervene and prevent harm to the helpless four year old. It's not
fair. Evil is afoot. I would be wrong to walk the other way.

To me, it is only an extension of the principle in this example that
requires action on the part of America in world conflicts. Other countries
may not like it; may not have the stomach or courage or the good nature to
follow suit; may wish they were consulted longer about it; may wish that the
parties were left alone. But that's the responsibility that comes with
power. You're either the silent Policeman who does nothing and carries the
blood of unheeded victims on his Policeman hands, or you're the Policeman
who does something and stands up for what is right. Either way you're the
Policeman, because power carries responsibility.

It might be an exercise to pick this apart by citing that nations aren't
little children, but rather groups of adults...but the principle is the
same. Whether it's Kuwait and Saddam, or the Kurds and Saddam, or the
innocent people of Iraq itself and Saddam...the principle is the same. The
burden of proof is on the opposer to tell me how America does not have a
basic responsibility, apart even from any danger to itself at this point
(because I realize that severity has to be a determining factor and you
can't put out every brushfire in the world), to take care of the evil which
has so clearly evidenced its ways and means. You might dissent with me, but
only by nitpicking an example, not by violating the principle.

By the way, if anyone is not familiar with the empirical data regarding the
life and times of Saddam, please educate yourself. There's little argument
there to be had. 'Tis what it 'tis.

All this is, obviously, couched in my worldview...but I sleep well at night.
And when this guy gets removed...and he will get removed before too long
friends....I'll sleep well then too.

Best Regards,

Barry

Back to Table of Contents

Paul Nachbar

I was very moved by both excellent poems of different 'points of view' regarding the possible war in Iraq. Well 'moved' is not exactly the right word but I'm not going to do a Flaubert number today and spend hours searching for the perfect word. You know what I mean? I also started writing poems in my head about the situation in the Middle East, which is of course a global situation, but the poems were so bitter that I decided to forget them. Anyway, war poems, both for and against, have long been a tradition in many cultures and I respect those who write them. After all, no matter how much or how little fame a particular poem or poet gets or what the point of view, the poet is not really harming anybody much at worst and at best is presenting, in unforgettable language, a vision of a higher humanity, justice, morality, etc. I mean I don't care about political labels here if you know what I mean?
Yes, I keep using that American cliche of popular speech
"you know what I mean?" but there is a point to it. People sometimes tend to use cliches not when they're stupid but when they're scared and the subjects at hand are almost too hot to touch... I've read, but not as carefully as I should have, analysis of these events written from many different points of view. And I'm always tempted to side with one or the other or am always swayed from one to the other which is sort of unpleasant-- yes I would like to write the perfect prose analysis or even manifesto because poetry I think doesn't quite work here-- but is in a way a luxury.
Why is this? Because although, in the worst case scenarios (I mean for me, not for whomever might regard me as part of the American or American Zionist whatever enemy)I might get injured or die because of things which happen HERE in America, I am not going to be fighting in any battles overseas. Why? Because I have a very long psychiatric record and the American army in it's wisdom, like other armies, has decided that this "craziness" of mine disqualifies me from the "sanity" of serving my country, so to speak, in war. Haha. Or regular
work for that matter, but that's another kettle of fish.
Of course it's an unsafe world and an unpredictible one and an imperfect one etc etc. But damn it, it's also a very scary world from what I am reading now. Now I can sort of see the points of view in both war poems, though I am from America, the Great or the Horrible Empire, depending on your point of view (and I've shared both)but I don't have a point of view..I'm scared if you know what I mean. Not really of my own personal death or injury, though I am not fond of pain as my dentist knows for sure, but because we're dealing with some serious shit here. Now it could be, in the best of all possible cases, that somehow one or all of the parties in this awful peace/ war dance manage to "solve" the whole problem without hurting too many people, whether by negotiation or invasion or some new creative idea or whatever.. But when we're talking about the weapons of mass destruction like rockets and chemical and biological and nuclear weapons eg., megadeath., and throwing around on other cultural levels weapons of minor destruction like laws and ideologies cultural artifacts like books and movies and ideas and religions and occasionally a poem, I just get scared. Why? Because of something called Murphy's Law, if you know what I mean, which states quite simply "anything that can go wrong will go wrong." Oh well, it's been a nice planet while it lasted..
Well, I'm not exactly trembling with fear or boiling with rage for that matter. Actually I'm at work now, at my part-time poet job, where for some reason the movers - we just got a new office - stacked several large boxes filled with unsold copies of my poetry anthologies in back of my semi-cubicle. These books kind of haunt me but, as they say, nobody buys poetry anyway these days so just write a novel, damn it, if you want to sell. But I don't make anything off of sales anyway so what does it really matter to my self-interest", which is supposed to be everybody's primary motivation.
Hey I'm not complaining, though occasionally I'm a bit jealous of the two siblings of a friend of mine who are pretty well known journalists and politicos who do stories regarding all this Middle Eastern horror and crapola. Hey, they live well, don't they? They write for the New York Times and appear on Public Television and earn Big Bucks. Yeah,I'm jealous...well, no I ain't. Not really. You know what I mean?

Paul

Back to Table of Contents

Jonathan Marin

A police raid and a war may look alike, but the differences are real enough:

MORAL
The means toward two different ends may look the same, but the ends do matter. Means that are justifiable toward one set of ends may not be justifiable toward a different set. It's unseemly for nations that unashamedly possess certain weapons to affect high moral dudgeon when another nation wants to possess them too. It's noble to arrest and punish war criminals.

PSYCHOLOGICAL
Many Iraqis who would fight to the death "for their country" might feel different about dying to save the necks of a few top-brass criminals. Exhortations that would induce heroism in the one context risk cynical sarcasm in the other.

POLITICAL
Inspections mask an invincible built-in rationale for inaction:
(1) As long as inspectors don't find anything, the case for action can't advance.
(2) When they do, it proves that inspections are working -- Return to (1).

DIPLOMATIC
When is enough enough? Why is *this* material breach a trigger for war, but not the last one, or the next one? Is the apt analogy the straw that breaks the camel's back? I think the weight that finally snaps the cable is more on point. Because when the cable is infinitely elastic, it never snaps.

Jon

Back to Table of Contents

Melinda Frye

I wish that I could call myself a true pacifist, but I feel that I'm more inclined to agree with the Just War Theory (an oxymoron, I know). I was wondering what others think of that theory.I believe that JWT was first defined by St. Augustine. In my opinion, the Just War Theory is far from perfect, but it provides a guideline to limit the destruction and make war more "fair" (at least on paper). Kind of like how Hammurabi's Code "An eye for an eye," was a limitation on -not an obligation toward- revenge.

I'm just remembering the awful civil war in Rwanda in the mid 1990's...the United States had no economic interest in the country, so help was too little, too late.

Sincerely, Melinda

Back to Table of Contents

Michael Zerger

Let me introduce myself as a Mennonite by heritage. That should give you my general view on war. That said, there has always been a percentage of us who understand that not to resist evil is to be an accomplice to it. And as a student of war, my observation is that limited war leads to more war. My conclusion: there is a time for war and it must be swift, vicious and overwhelming. Good thing I have a fractured personality. Makes more room for the conflict of my inner demons!

Michael

Back to Table of Contents

Quinn Tyler Jackson

Barry said: "The other thing is, you should probably realize that the US would do a lot more stepping in to apply the principle if the cries of France, China and Russia didn't go up to the heavens every time we attempt to turn our heads internationally (or whoever else it might be that day)."

I think it's important to learn from the mistakes of the past. Remember WW II?

When Hitler was appeased by "Peace in Our Time", the USA stood back.

When Hitler walked all over Europe, bombed London, Canada and others stood to defend what was not necessarily their land, but was their best interest. The USA stood back.

Would 20 million Russians and 5 million Jews and other minorities have died if the USA had taken a more active interest in international security?

Surely they would not have died in those numbers if the USA had joined Canada in supporting the UK against Hitler and others.

Yes -- it would have meant sticking their nose where it didn't rightly belong, in terms of its own interests.

There are those who blame the USA for not getting involved in WW I and WW II sooner. Millions of lives would have been saved.

And now -- the USA, unlike in times past, wishes to LEAD the fight against insanity such as we see today, and they are accused, by the very people they more or less rescued from tyrannical conquest (British, Australians, Canadians, French, Germans), of wishing to get involved simply to protect their interests in Middle Eastern Oil.

I'm not naive enough to think that they would have gotten so hot about it if they hadn't been attacked on their own soil first in this scenario -- but the fact remains that they WERE attacked. The WTC towers *did* fall. American soil was bloodied very early on in the "game" -- and this has meant that the USA has abandoned its historical position as held in WW I and WW II.

I like to think that had Canadian, British, Australian, German, or French landmarks (and people) been attacked by these people, the USA would have written us all a blank check, saying, "We will offer up our resources so that you may protect yourselves from this attack -- even if it means hunting down the bastards and preventing such an attack in the future by weeding them out from their own turf."

When the WTC went down, the world, on the surface at least, sang the blues for those who died, outraged in principal, but lacking the cajones to stand behind their singing to actually do anything but whine when the pedal hit the metal. Now, we turn to the "United Nations" and say "If the UN decides...."

The United States of America has a real obligation to itself to police the world if the world lacks the testicular fortitude to police itself. Yes -- this sounds incredibly dangerous -- but they are in the unique position of possessing both the power and will to do so while others cower and hide behind their diplomatic umbrellas.

Imagine being the President of the United States of America and having to say, "Sorry, folks, but even though we have the ability, the will, and the determination to get to the root of this, now -- people think we only want their oil, so we're going to have to pass on this."

I'd rather be just about anyone else on Earth than the President of the United States of America right now. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. If he *does* and he gets damned for that -- the people doing the damning will be those who whined when the USA
*refused* to join their little World War II until the USA was personally attacked. The same people the USA poured billions of dollars into to help recover from the destruction caused by a little territorial squabble that had nothing to do with the USA until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The worm has turned. Those who were once all for American Involvement in such things now turn to the voice of UN reason, when once they begged the USA to send its boys to die alongside theirs.

Anyway, I'm too young for all this thinking.

Quinn Tyler Jackson

Back to Table of Contents

Santanu Sengupta

I did not know about the Monroe doctrine earlier. From what I understand, it believes roughly in the policy 'Live and let live' . You say the American and European views are not the same. I would like to extend it to include Asia as well. U.S. is not exactly thought of as the friendly Santa in our parts. Now why is that? Is it just the helpless envy lesser and poorer people have for the stronger and more powerful? Or is it some more deep-rooted reason behind this? Probably the Arab states (Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Palestine and others) have a grudge against U.S. because of its continuous support for Israel? I would not comment on which side is correct regarding this. There is no absolute right or wrong in the matter.

I hail from India and I dare say we feel that there is a distinct double-standard in Bush's "War on Terror". I see hundreds of people being killed every day by millitants. It doesn't need a lot of imagination to fathom from where these millitants come. But the U.S. is noticeably silent and passive about this because Bush needs Pakistan as a pawn in the Taliban war game. So, we cannot believe in Bush's integrity when he pledges to remove the roots of terrorism from the world, and his claim that attacking Iraq is a step in that direction.

Saddam is a dictator and a definite threat. He needs to be disarmed. But in doing so, you cannot discount the fact that the world needs concrete proof to believe that this merits an all-out attack on Iraq and the resulting loss of thousands of innocent lives. If U.S. does not give any evidence and attacks Iraq, it would set a very bad precedent. If one day, the power dynamics were to change, this might encourage the then-most-powerful nation to feel that being the strongest and believing a certain nation needs to be attacked is reason enough. The other nations are too insignificant and weak to bother about.

Back to Table of Contents

Sean MacNiven

On Barry's essay on Monroe Doctrine
The principle is correct and I won't even attempt to dispute it. I just don't see much of that principle applying in this case. If the USA really works on this principle alone, and not on the potential gain a victory and new puppet governnment could bring, I might view the whole situation otherwise. The fact is, Afghanistan suffered crimes against humanity and a barbaric regime for years, in addition to experiencing war and poverty for almost a good 20 years. Why didn't the USA go in there earlier? Did your people need the WTC to look out and see what's happening in other countries, or was it simply not economically attractive beforehand? America and the entire "civilised" world does indeed have a responsibility and there are and have been plenty of countries that would have been glad of a bit of help that never received it (and probably never will) because of their unfortunate situation as far as natural resources are concerned. Were you honouring that principle in Vietnam? In Korea? In Iran? In Chile? In Nicaragua? In Kuwait? Will you really be honouring that principle in Iraq (part 2)? I'll believe it when it becomes possible to nationalize one's oil without receiving a "Dear Sir, Madam...I hope you know , this means War" on the end of a scud missile. I'll believe it when the USA (and the rest of the "civilised world") starts involving itself positively in countries where there is no perceivable short-term financial gain. I'll believe it when multinationals start building schools and hospitals, and contributing to the improvement of the infrastructure of the countries that they had "hitherto" exploited. Barry, you are indeed an idealist. I would very much like to see the "principles" you speak of being honestly employed. All I see though, to further your example, is a professional bystander checking for victim's assets and credit details before offering to stay the assailant's hand...

All the Best,

Sean

Back to Table of Contents