Doors to the heart

The guardians of our thoughts are our lips.  Much has been said about guarding the words we say so as not to offend.  An ancient Hebrew Poem refers to the lips as a door.  It is a prayer to God to help in keeping watch over the door of the lips.

Of course, lawyers know that the guardians need to be at full employ during testimony either in deposition or in courtroom.  Otherwise, people's stories get altered.  People are advised to say only enough to answer the question, nothing more, nothing less.

But the guardians need to stay completely away when someone wants to communicate pure and honest sentiments.  My purest and most honest sentiments originate in my heart.  They are about love and affection, truth and transparency, hope and faith.  And they belong to someone wholeheartedly.  It is my wish that the lips never keep back the full sentiments from the one who understands their heart-felt meanings.

No longer contagion, Hamlet

'Tis now the very witching time of night
When churchyards yawn and hell itself breathes out
Contagion to this world:

Hamlet (Act III, Scene 2)

I really do love the time of day around midnight and a little afterward.  It's quiet.  My mind achieves clarity.  I can put the past day's activities into perspective.  I can think on the next day's events briefly.

Oh, I get my 7 1/2 hours of needed rest, just not before the witching time of night.  But, there are no witches for me.  In the days when DeVere wrote plays, like Hamlet, people believed in witches.  There was no electricity, so good people were in bed sleeping.  Only those who perpetuated mischief would be up at the witching hour.  Witches did  their planning, their "brewing" in the early morning hours.

Yeah, but modern bodies work differently now.  There is electricity.  People don't have to get rest beginning shortly after dark.  Most people don't have farm chores to perform early in the morning.  There is no fire to stoke.  Breakfast is ready-made for the microwave or a McDonalds is on the way to work.  Witches are not the only ones to share the "ungodly" hour of 12 AM or 1 AM.

Cemeteries today are not in churchyards, and hell does not haunt the place of the dead.  Honor, tribute, love for the departed are written on the epitaphs that dot the ground above the coffins.

It's a different place Hamlet. And I love this anticipated time of night.  And I love the thoughts of the one I love that so often come to me when I am considering all the attendant events, past, present, and future.  Because the one I love inhabits all the moments of my being.

The southern touch

When I look up the word bodacious, I find something that language purists love.  Before even giving the word's definition, I see the word "slang."  Continuing to read, I find that the word originated in the southern U.S. around 1837.  I also see that the word is the result of dialect (southern in the U.S. and Cornwall in the U.K.).  Finally, there is a definition.

My goodness.  Who would want to use such a slang word from southern dialect?  Heaven forbid that someone would knowingly degrade himself or herself by exposing such a word in his or her vocabulary!

Well, I for one like eating at one of my favorite barbeque joints, Bodacious.  I think it is pleasing to the ear to hear the southern drawl pronounce the word boo-daaa-ee-sh-us.  And as far as its origin goes (body + audacious), I absolutely see a ravishing and particular southern beauty's's figure behind the pronunciation.  Nothing "slang" ever comes to mind.

And here's a note to the purists - every word's from one dialect or another.  If it's not yours, then grieve, I guess, but don't impose.  I don't see the word "dialect" for the three pronunciations of clandestine, or the two pronunciations of obstacle and debacle, or the four pronunciations of pecan.  I don't see the word "slang" for the use of the word bag, which would never be used in the south, for purse.  Examples not only abound, they exist for every grammatical category and for every sound.  Ever hear a Canadian pronounce the word about (aboot)?  See, there's a northern dialect just as crazy sounding as the south.

Seriously, who writes these dictionaries.  Oh yeah, the ladies who wear ankle-length skirts with tennis shoes and the men who actually tie their bow ties that match their sweaters - people who have never experienced an audacious body, I guess.  If they'd make the trip south, they would have the word bodacious rolling off their tongues regularly.

Ah, but the spirit is warm

The air is really cold outside the four walls of my house.  It's one of the coldest days of the year. I can hear the sleet falling through my back window and the rain dripping from the patio roof onto the deck below.  The wind from time to time howls through the fireplace damper.  And it is these conditions that make me the most nostalgic.

So I look into the recesses of my mind and pull out the four warmest days I've had in my life, coming from one year.  It seems an eternity away... it seems like tonight.  The scenes are crystal clear, warm, cheerful, and life-giving.

They are such a welcome contrast to this very cold, precipitous night.  They warm my spirit and calm my soul.  What a welcome, comforting, treasured time tonight as the early morning hours creep in carrying their sacred scenes.

Environmentally speaking

Sometimes I evaluate what is in my environment that I like, really like, don't like, or can't stand.  I live with it all, of course, but in times of evaluation, I try to take specific actions for the things I can't stand.  Usually, there is no way to replicate or duplicate the things I really like.  And a lot of things are good, or they're not so bad that I can't tolerate them.

Eradicating something is usually harder to do than it might seem it should be.  There are always ramifications connected with eradication.  And  trying to make something really pleasant remain in place is also hard because everything has a shelf life and extending it usually negates what has been just put in place or cancels something that would be put in place.

Our environments really are a product of our efforts, most of which we create for ourselves.  But even if we have created much of it, we don't have complete control of things in our environments like we would wish.  Sometimes, we only moderate and temper about half of the events that happen.  At other times we loosen our moderate control or events seem uncontrolled, so extreme events, good and bad, occur.

I haven't liked the mix in my environment, my reality, for a while now.  I'm reevaluating.  What can I more moderately control?  What can I temper?  What do I keep in place as is?  What could be eradicated with ramifications I can live with?  What would I like to have stay forever?  What needs to be put in place that is absent now?

It's so delicately mixed. 

Big pictures and bigger pictures

Metadata is a young word in English, having come into the language in 1969.  But, it is different from most words in English.  Jack Meyers used it first for the name of his company, so it is a registered trademark (as of 1973).

Metadata is useful and really wasn't possible before the advent of the computer.  Now, data can be stored and sorted in millions of different ways.  That is a great help to people who study language.  Now, words can be tagged, tracked, quantified, and graphed.  That's beautiful, because now, language is not so much a craft or art as it is a science.  This will help everyone from those who teach languages to others to those who teach language as a means of written communication.

It would be important for example to know which words are truly the first thousand words in a language or the most utilitarian words in the workplace for various professions.  Students of a language would learn what they need much faster than in the guessing method of learning grammar with random words.

It would also be important in teaching students to write more practically rather than in some nebulous style that is supposedly appreciated more than other styles.  For instance, there is a method of writing analysis called the T-unit.  It measures the length of the sentence in particular.  As it turns out, there is not a particular style that is appreciated, but a particular length of sentence that is appreciated.  The T-unit measure of 14 - 18 is appreciated for clarity much more than T-unit measures outside that range.  So teachers should instruct students in writing a particularly clear length rather than in stringing words together according to a particular "style."

I hope that many studies will be conducted about all the facets of language, including literature (which also subsumes film and YouTube videos).  In this way we can escape the needless slavery of doing well in "language arts" and "foreign languages" in school and, as early in life as our genes allow, we can began using language (and a second language) in a way that will serve our individual interests and career choices.

It's just more elitism

When people from another country want to learn English, they sometimes buy one of the many books on teaching the English language from one of the thousands of bookstores' shelves.  So, they learn the so-called "standard" grammar.  Of course, the internet is also full of programs to teach the English language.  Its advantage is for people to hear the language spoken.  But, what language do these people learn?  The first time they go out and talk to the people on the street, they can't understand a whole lot of what is being spoken.

They see someone who says, "Hey, whatcha doin'?"

Of course, they learned the greeting, "Good morning, How are you?" So, they say nothing.

"OK, fella," says the person.  "Guess it's not so good a day for ya.  Hope it gets better.  Have a good one."

The person learning a language didn't understand but maybe 4 words, partly because it's said fast, but partly because the interchange wasn't at all what was expected.  And more subtly, the English used was not what the textbooks or internet programs teach.

The prescriptive approach of sharing language is the only approach used in the public schools in America.  Not that the approach has a good track record, it doesn't.  Dismal, actually.  But, businesses adopted the same method to begin with.  Then, companies began to notice that the above example happens more times than not, so they changed to a more conversational style of English and situational scripts to teach English.  Companies like Berlitz were famous for their script approach to situational English and accompanying reading manuals.  The internet capabilities are just now being used to explore more expansive and effective methods for teaching English.  Rosetta Stone is probably the software leader in teaching with pictures and videos with people speaking the language, but primarily with situations.  They also use single word vocabulary presentations to increase one's vocabulary.

The variationist approach to English teaching has been recognized for a great many years, but methods encapsulizing this approach are not used to any great extent. They should be - I am sure.  Those who interpret for a living wouldn't dream of transforming one language into another without the variants at play in the person they are representing or the person they are speaking to.  There are some language basics, to be sure.  But, variation, not prescription is a main characteristic of a living language.  There is no such thing as a native speaker who is "wrong" in speaking her/his language.  Standard English, proper grammar, slang, substandard English, correct way of speaking, profanity, and fuzzy grammar are merely terms that various groups of people want to use to feel elitist and perpetuate the differences of class in society. 

s 

Radiant warmth

The shadows are longer these days.  It's only 5 weeks till the shortest day of the year.  People's movements are more abbreviated because the temperature is in the range requiring jackets and coats.  Even people's conversations seem to be more terse than when it's warm.

But, warmth can be found.  Many sit in their homes by fireplaces.  Some drink hot drinks - hot teas, hot chocolates, and coffees - at various Starbucks and other casual drink shops around town.  Many just find a warm spot and hibernate for a time in that spot.

Me?  Oh, I just look into my heart for the warmest spot there.  I know exactly where it is.  It creates warmth every time I look into it.  The scenes creating the warmth radiate across time and across place.  This winter won't be so cold, the days won't seem so long, there is no need for a jacket on my heart, and conversations will be played once again for they are a part of the warmth.

Eyes of the beholder

Oh, the sun is shining, all right.  But it's the fall of the year, and it's cold outside, not warm.  The wind is blowing.  The trees are beginning to drop their leaves.  Planted flowers have given up the ghost.  Roses are the only thing blooming, and they're on their way out.  Mulberry berries are dry-looking.  They've just begun their latent stage, waiting to disperse their berries upon the arrival of spring.

If a person pays attention to the signs, then the ensuing weather of the next 4 months is no surprise.  The warning weather of mid-fall prepares us to see the beauty of the phase of the seasonal cycle.  I do love snow and its blinding whiteness when the sun glances off its ice crystals.  I love the activities of winter.  I look forward to its cuisine - the soups, the stews, the chilis, the teas, the hot chocolates and hot ciders - to its clothing - coats and gloves, the occasional toboggan hat, ear muffs, and sweaters for inside - and to its holidays embedded within those next four months.

Oh, it's a bleak season.  Life is dormant.  The dominant color is some version of brown.  The wind and precipitation that accompany the season is greatly uncomfortable.  Going from one place to another takes a little longer, and it seems that more work is involved in getting anyone else riding to be ready at the same time as the driver.

But beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.  Reality is a perceived matter so much of the time.  And I love the
snow and its blinding whiteness... the stews and hot chocolates... coats and gloves... and oh my goodness, such lovely holidays.

Variables in the equation

I have experienced myself and I have watched young people learn to both play music and learn a language other than their own.  The learning process is the same.  Children play or speak irregularly at first.  Notes are wrong, sounds are wrong; timing is off, word order or tone is off; notes like triplets have to be practiced over and over, idioms have to be repeated or encountered frequently.  Finally, the music or the language emerges with recognizable cadence, rhythm, and sense.  And, with time, a certain familiarity and beauty surrounds a person's ability.  Even beyond this stage, one can perfect a craft to absolute heights of professionalism, ease, manipulatibility, and style.

I have heard people compare these stages to life.  They say it is possible to get better at life, to perfect it, sometimes even manipulate it.  I would like to think that is a definition of wisdom.  But, I think I am wrong about that.  It seems that life brings so many variables to the equation that people who try to solve the equation are successful at times and write about it during that given time.  But, what about later?  What about the equation when the variables change (which in life they invariably do).  What then?  People don't really record, especially for public consumption, the change in the variables and what happens to the equation at that point.

Wisdom just might be the ability to adapt well to the changing variables in life.  I think that would account for all the contradictory or variability of the proverbs one finds in a culture.  The adages seem to be all over the map.  Proverbs are mostly seen as a culture's collective wisdom.  But, I think life is too complex for a collected wisdom that is applicable to everyone in every situation.  So, I'm holding to the idea of adaptation.
It's much better suited for changes that inevitably happen.

What's along the way?

 I am of the ilk to question matters if that matter is going to consume a considerable amount of my time.  So,  there were particular points in life where I had to know something before continuing down the path.

That's why I took Koine Greek in college.  I thought, If Christianity is so important, and I'm going to spend a lot of time in churches and around church people, then what does the New Testament really say?  Are the preachers telling the truth?  So, I learned Greek, studied the documents, and devoted a great deal of reading to the translation of the document.  In the end, there were a whole lot more questions than when I started.  It turns out that everything nearly is a matter of interpretation.  That's just how language is.

That's why I took Classical Hebrew later in life.  I thought, If I go farther back in time, will the language establish or not establish the idea that God was around in the beginning.  Is there a solid idea of God in the early stages of the Old Testament?  So, I learned Hebrew, studied a great deal about the Hebrews' way of thinking and their culture, and found that words had several uses in the ancient days.  When all was said and done, the words were a matter of interpretation.  The first words for God were plural like all the myths of all the major civilizations of the world.  They have just been interpreted as singular because of influences later on the timeline.  That's how language works.

That's why I pursued the science that deals with language.  I thought, If I understand the machinations of language in general, then understanding people will help me communicate well with them.  Is there a silver bullet for knowing the intentions behind people's words?  So I followed a rigorous course of knowing all about the many-splendored aspects of languages.  Finally, yes, I discovered the dimensions of language that reveal thought in printed word and in spoken expression, and found that many people are in the business of hiding themselves, interpreting their own words, and making their actions different from their words.  Oh, yes.  Tangled webs.  Can enough study help to untangle webs?  Can a person learn to interpret a person's original words, reinterpret reinterpreted original words, and interpret the punctuations of silences that are nested before, between, and after the interpretations and reinterpretations?  Because that IS the nature of language.

Has this long trail wanting to know original thought benefited me at all?  It has certainly made me a more contented person to have followed an original idea to its logical conclusion.  But, if you ask if the destination was worth the trip, then I don't fully know.  Life is very convoluted.  Many things are not as they seem.  Yes, there is satisfaction, but there are just as many dilemmas or answers not fully evaluated.  And although there are answers to the questions that rise along the way, and some spots on the path are splendidly majestic, the journey is often unsettling, and the people around you wonder about you because the journey changes the person that takes it.

True nature has many colors

Howard Gardner is one of the favorites of the education industry because of his theory put forth at the beginning of the 1990s addressing genius.  He used art in order in order to prove a point about how genius in children undergo a tapering off and many times disappearance after about age 13 or 14.  The genius in the same area of art recurs later in life in a heightened or perfected form in many of the same people that manifested the genius as a child.  This is known as the U curve.

It began as an observation, but then the idea took off.  Many other psychologists tried quantifying this U curve in art and other fields.  Particularly, psychometrists in education thought this would be worthy of exploration.  The U curve was found to be the result in many different areas, not only art.  So, a hypothesis was formulated for experimentation and observation in the field of intelligence.  Thus was born the theory of multiple intelligences.  Gardner also jumped in the pursuit of applying the U curve and its related findings to intelligence in general, not specifically for education.  His idea was outlined in the book  Frames of Mind.

The theory has had time to be tested over a couple of decades, so of course, it has attracted both praise and critique.  Educators were enamored with the idea and tried hard between 1995 and 2005 to integrate it into a larger learning theory.  But, it fell by the wayside after 2005.

Multiple Intelligence Theory (MI as it has come to be called) could help education tremendously.  Not because intelligence is the key word (since intelligence doesn't really exist), but because it would help teachers to see the true nature of knowledge.  Knowledge manifests itself everywhere and in different forms.  The discipline of learning from some of the core subjects helps in accumulating knowledge in an area a student really desires to know more about.

MI died a quick death in education, not because it couldn't be applied, but because it is antithetical to the notion of uniformity.  Schools are driven not by education but by testing.  Testing scales children's scores and causes standards to be written in cookie-cutter fashion so that curriculum for the schools can be designed for further testing.  Uniformity thrives in that environment, not MI.

MI and theories like it will endure, however, while testing for uniformity will have a shelf life.  People will not be bound by what shows on a test.  They will follow their ambitions, their paths driven by the intrinsic motivation of ideas not found in the four walls of schoolrooms, and their opportunities powered by the extrinsic incentive of prestige, money, and power.  There is so much more hope and contentment for the individual and for humanity as a whole when people are allowed to explore what is possible rather than be compelled to see only what is scorable.

An expletive moment

I contemplated the call a while before I made it.  I knew what I wanted to say.  I knew it would be a defining moment.  My life's path had come to a Y.  Both sides of the Y held change for me.  But I wanted a particular destiny for my future, a particular branch of the split in the Y. The person on the other end answered but it was an inconvenient time and commented wanting to continue our brief conversation later.  Done deal.

But I didn't get to help define the moment I had waited for.  The call didn't come, so I didn't get to continue the conversation.  The side of the split in the Y I had wanted to change became my straight line choice.  But for the number of hours I had wanted to continue my phone conversation, I was already anticipating moving down the side of the Y I had truly, earnestly desired.  It was certainly an expletive moment, but I had to move right on down the straight line choice available to me.  Done deal.

All of us have branching paths that show up in our lives.  We'd like to think that we could help to make the decision for the branch of the Y we most desire to travel down.  But things happen.  Something restrains a call from being made.  And what we thought was a Y becomes a straight line to travel, no decision necessary.

Whenever I think of that moment, I utter the same expletive.  How I wanted to discuss my main business for calling!  Things would be very different now... and expletiveless.

Maybe the side of the Y I so desired is even now available to happen.  What an expletive moment that would be.  The expletive in that moment would sure be different... as would my life.  And I would unhesitatingly, instantly make it a done deal!

Daily gift

The drive to work today was pretty routine.  But there is nothing routine about looking at the sides of the road and seeing the great beauty of rolling hills and meadows, and a little farther, the forests hiding most of the modern buildings.  At one point a ramp connecting two major highways is above the tree level and gives one the view of miles of forest dotted with restaurants and office complexes.

The ramp descends onto a highway that follows an adjacent park for at least two miles.  The park has frisbee golf, baseball diamonds carved inside of surrounding trees, walking paths, picnic tables, and a creek the length of the park.  This time of year, a person can add the absolute magnificence of the turning leaves, yellow, red and lime green in hue.  It's stunning and striking... everyday.  It's a great gift to experience this scene daily.  It certainly lifts a spirit at low ebb.

You've got to be kidding

It's like this.  If you tell people something is so for a long enough time, enough people will believe it is so, and a new "fact" is born.

People use only 10% of their brains.

Xmas is used by those who would take Christ out of Christmas.

Summers are hot because it is the season when the Earth is closest to the sun.

Bumblebees should not be able to fly.

Sugar causes children to become hyperactive.

All of the above "facts" are not true.  But, they have been around for quite some time.  And because they have existed for a long time, that is proof enough for many people that the information is true.  "We wouldn't still be thinking it if it weren't true," people say.

Add to this list the "fact" that the ability to read shows greater intelligence.  Two ideas have made this statement possible.  First, there is such a thing as intelligence (so that it can be measured).  Second, good readers have better language "skills" than those who are not good readers.  And, if a person can show that connecting these facts by saying one is an indicator of the other (reading is indicative of higher intelligence), then... voila!... a fact is born.  This particular idea has been in circulation for only 4 generations, but it seems like forever.

First, intelligence has never been proven to exist, and measuring intelligence is really suspect since results rely on responses to logic based on learned written representations for both math and language.  And second, reading consists of correlating sounds to letters or to particular patterns of letters (like the use of silent e to influence a "long" vowel sound), so one has to learn the correlation system in addition to the language they have learned.

The English sound/letter correlation system is a ridiculous system when it is analyzed and requires a skill that is unrelated to learning a language only through hearing.  For example, played and heard should be spelled the same way based on their sound: d to represent the past tense.  But, one has to learn the spelling of a regular verb using the suffix -ed and the spelling of an irregular verb not using the regular suffix of -ed even though the sound is exactly the same.  Ridiculous.  Scandalous really.  Imagine trying to explain to beginners that learning the same d sound for two words signifying tense draws on two categories (regular and irregular) based on a correlation system that is inconsistent at best (irrational according to some definitions of that word).

Well, so be it.  The same people who want to use only 10% of their brains, who don't know the Christian history for the Greek letter "X" (chi), and feel hotter during the summer because they are so close to the sun can just go on believing that the practice of forcing people to learn a flawed, inconsistent, erratic, and less than easily understood sound/letter correlation system leads to greater success in life.  If reading were essential to language development, communication would suffer without it.

Then again... those in education who espouse testing to show progress and intelligence do think that.

Those whose science is language, however, have another category for it.  It's the bumblebees weren't designed to fly category.

Shifting into a paradigm, shifting out

I have heard a great number of people promote the great and wonderful attributes of reading and writing.  There is no doubt that the two have advanced the cause of knowledge accumulation in the world no matter what the language.  In fact, the two had become a currency among those trained in the two disciplines during the BCE epoch and among educated people since the Middle Ages.

But something happened after World War I with reading and writing.  They began to be confused with language development.  With the rise of the use of psychology as a profession and its ideas about intelligence (tested through the military), the two processes suddenly were tell-tale signs of language development.  After World War II, the application of psychology to intelligence testing continued to grow and was linked to the manifestation of language through reading and writing.

Education after World War II also changed.  Mandatory attendance was enacted, and suddenly, for the first time ever, nearly all children in the U.S. were exposed to a higher level of education than they had received in the country's almost two hundred year history.  But the lines were confused; reading and writing were no longer merely a currency of educated people.  They had slowly but surely become the tool of psychology to represent language development, and thus, an indicator of intelligence.  Ridiculous and crazy ideas resulted, such as the correlation between extensive vocabulary and high intelligence.  For the record, there is a positive correlation (and a higher positive correlation) between music ability and high intelligence, but the schools won't mandate all students to learn reading music.

Reading became a focus at that point, and by the 1970s, an entire new field had sprung up.  Much research began to be done only on reading ability and how it could, would, and should be developed for every child.  The schools became the vehicle to carry out the research, and subsequently, the schools were the vehicle to institute the results of that research.

But, those who are the language scientists had been left out of the loop.  Those scientists knew that language development and reading and writing were separate creatures, not the same, and that reading development didn't really represent language development nor did writing development represent a person's ability to organize and express complex thinking.

What has resulted is a public that thinks the ability to read and write well is the same as language development.  So parents push their children to read at an early age, even before school if at all possible.  And parents of school children get worried when their children let their speech habits interfere with the so-called clearer thinking process of writing.

Fortunately, technology will show the truth that language development is not bound up in reading and writing in about 10 more years.  It will lead the public from their fallacious thinking by permitting several other avenues to be equal vehicles for expressing thought that is clear, organized, and complex.  That will allow language development to turn back to what the genes bring to a person in the first place.  Then, parents can follow their children's development using criteria truly related to language, not related to the overlay of reading or writing runes in books as thought throughout the 1900s and the first decade of the 2000s.

Begging the question

The genes pack a lot of information, and for sure they pack information about when a person will begin speaking.  But, the genes don't know what country you are born in, so they really can't give you language.  It is curious that children all over the world begin speaking at about the same age no matter what language they are born into.  Yes, curious and amazing.

Sound production starts early, and meaningful speech starts between 9 and 14 months for single words and about 24 months for the two word utterance stage.  From there the development is not uniform for either vocabulary development or syntactic awareness.  The learning is rather ragged.

So, if learning is ragged but the stages happen at nearly the same time across the world, then it would appear that there is a genetic latitude in how a person learns language.  From 2 years old until the age of 6, children learn all the basics of the language they have been born into.  They have learned the basic sentence structure such as any order of the words, any changes to words manifested in tones, expressions that seem to have stock phrase status, and a vocabulary that represents everything utilitarian in their worlds.

That does beg the question of what formal education brings to the equation.

Formalizing or codifying language through reading and writing might be an obvious answer .  But, if that process is a function of language acquisition, then one would expect the same raggedness to continue.  If the process is, however, treated as a function of knowledge accumulation, then I suppose the expectation for the results changes.  Input and outcomes of the two processes, such as determining a foundation to build on in a step-by-step manner, measuring the outcomes, and adding steps one year at a time in a predetermined learning environment implies a rather uniform result, not the raggedness of the natural or genetically controlled language process.

I would definitely not be an advocate of formalizing a language process that genetics controls.  For one, genetically controlled personality controls the other contribuitng factors to language growth: interest, rapport with peers and adults, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

It would be an endeavor equivalent to harnessing the weather.

I would still bring the question of what formal education could possibly bring to the equation.