Generating a New Generation.

[wolven7]

MC Frontalot - [Goth Girls]--- More and more, recently, I've been reading things that seem to point in a similar direction. Perhaps that's because my attention is focused on a certain mode of investigation, or maybe it's because that's what's there to see; what more people are taking the time to show and portray, overall. Patterns. Systems of thought, and the isomorphism of patterns onto patters, systems onto systems. recognising that the importance isn't in what it says or does, of itself, but in what it does for us. The interrelationship of the compoenents of a given system, arranged in such a ways as we get, from it, science, literature, poetry, newspapers, or religion. Magic. Language is that suystem. But the non-verbal conceptual processes come from somewhere, themselves; we simply cannot continue them, until we communicate them. But that's a later tangent, perhaps with some outside help.

The point, here, is that we have at our disposal, an entirely new generation of people who are, more and more, coming to see an important use in these system configurations. (Messiah - [Temple of Dreams]). Autism is seen less and less as a disease to be cured, and increasingly as a different configuration of neurological operation. Conceptual clouds are used to relate people to one another, on networking sites. It becomes increasingly irrelevant... Well... Nothing does, actually. That's the exact opposite of what I want to say.

Oingo Boingo - [We Close Our Eyes]--- Everything becomes increasingly relevant. We are no longer looking at the internal mechanisms of single systems to explain the world. We are, instead, rcognising that all of those models will fail, that every one of them will be incomplete, somehow. Even the model that claims to encapsulate every other model, and say that it will fail. We've Talked About This Before. Again, still not the point of this post. The point of this post is as follows:

Tool - [Forty Six & 2]--- We are not going to be able to increase the pace of understanding, integration, and manipulation of the ideals and systems of thought, until the institutions which control them are under the operation of people who understand this new model.

Google, The You-Tubs, LJ, Blogger. I'm sure you can think of more. Places where people can watch the development of ideas (even if their expression is not always the greatest), and they can say "What does this mean for how the world looks, today? What does this say about my place in it, and what I'll have to do to get my goals accomplished?"

GIR - [Head So Big]--- We can apply this to religion, science, linguistics, psychology, aesthetics. (The Dresden Dolls - [Sex Changes]). It is, in fact, meta-systemics, and I think that it's going to be more and more important, in the coming days and months. We are going to need to put more people in more places.

Why do I care if you talk? Why do I want you to write, to express yourself, whoever "you" are, in whatever way makes the most sense to you, and to try explain that way to other people? Because there are still too many people in too many places who are biggotted and biased toward tradition over the change.

Now I want to take a moment to be clear: Tradition is good. Tradition allows us to test things, over time, and know what works, what gets results. (The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets - [Big Robot Dinosaur]). But we must also know that tradition for the sake of tradition will not help us. When the crops don't grow, it's time to stop, reconsider the Lottery, check the irrigation system, and figure out something different.

Context is all well and good, but the generated content, from those interactions is extremely important, as well.

Become a doctor, a teacher, a psychologist, an administrator, a scientist. Change the way the world approaches its problems, because I'd like to see a dynamic shift away from the static. I'd like to see s dynamism so dynamic that it looks like nothing's moving at all.

But I may have to wait a little while longer for that.

KMFDM - [Revenge]--- I shouldn't have to wait too long for the current to recognise itself and make itself the Current Majority. Make yourselves present, known, heard.

I should go shower, before I ramble, any further.

Good morning.

Comments

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

this comment is about Amanda Baggs.

Read through the post andt he comments and you pretty much get to gist of how a lot of people feel about AManda Baggs (http://hatingautism.blogspot.com/2007/02/proof-of-neurodiversity-fraud-amanda.html)

I agree her video is very interesting and from a philosophical point of view certainly posits ideas that are worthy of consideration. However... Amanda Baggs is a blight on the horizon of those who WORK with mentally/socially disabled people. She is HARMING and HAMPERING efforts to further research and care. She adamantly states that Autistics should not be taught how to function in society, instead society should bend to her will and belief. Her belief is that all autistics are just as intelligent, capable and communicative as herself. Her autism prevents her from accepting and understanding the concept that Other people are not like her She refuses to consider all the disabled people who struggle daily in order to live a "normal" life. She herself needs assistance in order to feed, clothe and shelter herself. She lives off of public assistance. She cannot do something as basic as pay a utility bill or check her washing machine or even cook an egg yet she wants to loudly proclaim that she should be considered "normal"? Excuse me? There is no shame in needing assistance when you are DISabled. And a LOT of autistic people are so disabled they can't function even at half her level. A lot of autistic people clearly have frustration with their lives. You don't believe me go visit some. Hell come over to my house and meet both my sons. Talk to them about school, watch them try to make food, observe how something as mundane as vacuuming a floor becomes a complicated endeavor. Try having a "normal" conversation with either of them. You might enjoy it, that is if you don't mind listening to them do all the talking about the same subjects over and over until your ears bleed. Don't sit there and buy into that romantic bullshit that people whose brains are inadequate to the task of basic human communication (body language, spoken language, empathy-based reactions) are "just communicating differently". What AManda Baggs does, only AManda Baggs understands. That may be a form of expression but it sure as hell isn't communication. Communication requires more than one person to "get it"

I'm surprised and sad that you fell into this. I understand how attractive her presentation is, but it's just a loud presentation by someone who has a LOT of bitterness and is making demands of society which are not just impossible but ridiculous. Sure, she can have her own "language" but her "language" is not only personal (making it inadequate for actually communicating to another person which is kind of the POINT o communication) but her "language" is random and capricious making it not a "language" at all - for without a general consensus of structure, any societal endeavor falls flat.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

a very simple and succinct comparison is an American going to another country and bitching that no one speaks English. Except in Amanda Baggs' case, bitching that no one speaks "amand-ese"

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I think, then, that one should have a language tutor, or an interpreter.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Her perception of the nature of care is not what I'm concerned about, personally. I think that it's kind of obvious that anyone with a neurological configuration that is other than normal is going to need assistance to function within a the majority-built society.

The point that I'm making, within all of this is more that there is a Difference in informational intake, processing, and, yes, expression, and that those expressions Can be parsed into something that the majority of people understand.

While Amanda Baggs may, herself, not believe that autistics need care and assistance, I, personally, can't think of anyone that doesn't need to be taught to care for themselves, or cared for, if they can't. I believe that the configuration of input/processing/output can be understood.

My use of her as an example neither necessitates nor indicates my complete agreement with her positions.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

you misunderstand her point: far from believing the disabled don't need assistance, she believes their need for assistance extends all the way to the basic functions of interaction. That is, rather than help the disabled by accomodating them and teachin them, we are instead supposed to take care of them in whatever capacity they are unable to and then allow them to be as they are - disabled. She has assistance communicating through a keyboard and the internet yet rather than understand that such media may not be the magic pill for all autistics, she posits that their inability to communicate should be left alone. She obviously desires to reach out and communicate with others yet even as she uses our primary mode (language) she decries the teaching of that mode to others!

I should think that you, of all people, who are interested in those ethereal qualities that bond us together as humans would appreciate the ludicrous position that Baggs holds. To say that speaking your own personal "language" is acceptable within the larger framework of society is utter nonsense. There is a reason why the story of the tower of babel is a "just so" story- it explains clearly why we even HAVE language and how important it is to us. Regardless of what that language may be, it has to be common within a society or there is no society.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

In that article, and in her question and answer piece, on CNN.com, she notes that her mode isn't the right fit for everyone; that it worked for her, but that it may not be the thing for everyone.

I have always believed that all language starts out personal, and that it develops into a shared and common understanding. I believe that a "personal language" is, in fact, a starting point, not an ending point, because we have to teach each other our languages. I think that, in each different language (6.65 billion and counting) we have something important to gain, something to learn.

I think that taking those differences and isomorphically mapping them, finding correlations across systems, is what we do constantly. I want us to do it consciously. Ms Baggs presentation of autism is, to me, a necessarily extreme example.

Precisely what I'm describing and striving for, here, is the recognition and appreciation of difference as a learning tool, to better communicate and come to a common understanding.

this is what I'm trying to tell you:

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

Baggs' presentation is not "of Autism" it's "of Amanda Baggs" end of story. She has done NO research and no polling and no learning whatsoever into the experience of other Autistics. IN fact, so far as she's come across other Autistic's her basic position is that if they disagree with her, then they are WRONG. She is inflexible in her position which is a hallmark of Autism. She is incapable of accepting that others do not share her experience of Autism which is another hallmark of Autism. She is resolved that All Autistics be treated in a manner that SHE feels is best and cannot see how her inflexibility hinders the progress of many who do not share her experience whatsoever. Amanda Baggs has done NOTHING helpful for the disabled community. She has done helpful things for Amanda Baggs.

Re: this is what I'm trying to tell you:

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I disagree, completely, on this last point. The people interviewing her are not agreeing that her way is the only way. In fact, all of the articles I've read, recently, focus specifically on the idea that every autistic person is not the same, that every Person is not the same, and that those differences should be better understood, in order to better help a wider range of people, and to give the neuropsychological community better tools to understand autistics, and to help autistics help other people understand them, and vice versa.

And if those articles aren't saying that, then I am, because I think that's the important lesson to be learned, here, and that's the lesson I'm trying to spread.

Re: this is what I'm trying to tell you:

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

look, you used her as an example of a point you wanted to make. That point was better exemplified by others, including at least one Autistic person. That point is NOT codified very well by Baggs. The fact that she gets attention is the very reason I am "fighting" with you. You picked up an idea you credited to someone whose conclusion is actually at odds with the point you are making. It is the extrapolation of others that you see, not hers. The fact is, Baggs gets notoriety because she gives credence to the notion that Autistics are complete and wonderfully intelligent people "underneath" their Autism. This may or may not be true for SOME Autistics but it is not true for all of them. To deny education to a disabled person because education somehow furthers the notion that they are "bad" is ridiculous. To insinuate (and in her case blatently state) that those who wish to educate the disabled are somehow "bad" is beyond ridiculous, its is hindering.

If Baggs wants to speak generally about the brain and thought processes using herself as an unusual example, that's fine, that's great, but she doesn't do that. She uses her uniqueness as a justification for her own embittered tirade against EDUCATION and THERAPY for the disabled. SHe uses her disability as an excuse to treat others any way she likes. She may have problems with the rules of polite society but she doesn't have the right to rewrite them just because they make no sense to her.

Re: this is what I'm trying to tell you:

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

to give you an example of my last statement, one of her posts was attacking Dr Grandin's book about social "rules". Baggs' contention? that Autistics shouldn't have to be concerned with learning or using any rules of polite society because.... it's hard for them and they understand why those rules exist.

Re: this is what I'm trying to tell you:

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

...they DON'T understand why those rules exist.

Re: this is what I'm trying to tell you:

[wolven.livejournal.com]

My purpose is to champion the benefits that Baggs' exposure can bring, in the long run. I don't want to STOP WITH HER, because I don't think that her ideas are complete and total.

My point is precisely that she is a jumping off point, not the best, but a place to say: "Ms. Baggs brings up some interesting points to consider, however, a couple of points where we may need to modify her example, if we are to change our model of thought and approach are..."

Re: this is what I'm trying to tell you:

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

the concept that the brain attempts to compensate for loss and/or deficiency does not belong to Baggs. That the brain might reroute, alternate areas or even regrow is something scientists have been studying for quite some time. The concept that a person can create their own form of expression does not belong to Baggs. Artists have been exploring that concept for thousands of years.

I don't like her being credited with ideas she did not originate and I don't like her adding to the romantic notions of the ignorant because she paints a pretty picture that makes people feel better about the mentally disabled.

Damien, if you understood how damaging false hopes and quackery ad incorrect theories have been to the quest to understand and help Autistics you'd better understand where I'm coming from.So much wonderful knowledge has come from the study of Autism, trying to figure it out and along comes Amanda Baggs who says "quit trying to CURE it and just live with it as it is!" - a very nice notion if you were talkig about people who are capable of living on their own but you're NOT. YOu're talking about people who may not be able to do something as simple as follow a grocery list or add two-column numbers together. THe days of institutions are over. The days of abuse and neglect are behind us, yet even in her video, Baggs says "People are dying... being killed.... because of ignorance of Autism" and she has NO proof of that claim whatsoever. Science and the government itself would love nothing more than to understand Autism. Yet her accusations make villians of the very people (Parents, teachers, therapists) who strive every day to give Autistic peopel the tools they need to survive and hopefully live on their own. Amanda thinks all Autistics want to live like her? Being assisted with even putting her clothes on? She dares to denigrate people for attempting to get better help for Autistics? Fuck her. She doesn't speak for anyone but her own embittered self.

Re: this is what I'm trying to tell you:

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that the ideas Belong to her. I'm saying that the exposure of her presentation of these ideas can and will lead more people to a better, different source of these ideas, and ultimately to a better understanding of the issues and new ways of thinking about them.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

and to your point: sure you can categorize any deficit or lack of understanding as a "difference in intake/outtake of information" but surely you, an academe can grok how pointless such a rephrasing is. Structures within the mind are crucial to forming understanding of any function or outward experience.

WHat you have to understand, so far as Amanda Baggs goes, is that the brain is amazing in its ability to reroute and alternate its structure when a deficit is in evidence, but a deficit IS a deficit and rerouting, alternate understanding or intake is interesting, and might even be a piece of diversity that could be helpful in some areas but it is still in evidence because of a deficit. Do not mistake acommodation for wholly new structures. The rerouting and alternate pathing the brain makes in attempt to compensate for deficit is something ANY brain could do and often does. Everyone's brain operates in a unique way. That's established. Amanda Baggs's contentions are not actually in that direction. Her sole reason for her tirades and posturing are to assert her bitterness at her abusive upbringing. She has every right to feel the way she does and she has every right to believe whatever she wants. I don't believe she has the right to speak for other people and castigate those whose only desire is to help simply because she does not have theory of mind enough to grasp how diverse the disabled community really is.
Your example is a poor one. If you want a good example, look into Dr Grandin (http://www.templegrandin.com/)

[wolven.livejournal.com]

To put what I'm concerned with in the form of several questions: What benefits might arise from that rerouting? What new structures of thought and understanding might be reached in the different configuration that might not otherwise be achieved? What can we learn?

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

And Dr Grandin (http://www.templegrandin.com/templegrandinart.html) has been exploring those questions as well. Baggs has not. As I said, Baggs is a very poor example of what you are talking about.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

Dr Sacks (http://www.oliversacks.com/writing.htm) as well, has been exploring those very same questions his whole life.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

And as I said, she was the most widely available Example to get a foot in the door. I would hope that the information and the study wouldn't be completely coloured by the thing started it. She presents an interesting view, and caused me to consider some very interesting questions that I think need to be asked.

Her reportage of her situation brought me to this point, asking these questions, which you have now helpfully informed me have better and more thorough investigations and explications, elsewhere. And thank you, by the way. I'll be looking into both of their works, soon.

But her interviews, her expressions, her being in the public eye has caused a lot of people to ask a lot of questions, both about her generalisations, and about the study of autism, as a whole. They are taking what she presents, and moving beyond it, or perhaps, making a deeper investigation of the claims, and I can't help but think that's a good thing.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

doesn't it strike you as ironic that the very thing she has "accomplished" was done through the use of the one thing she says she eschews? The very thing she insists should not be forced upon others "like her"?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I find it an unfortunate inability to introspect. But, again, not my consideration, here.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

ah but what YOU are doing is in fact exercising your ability to introspect and extrapolate that onto a larger framework.

As I hinted at before, you are romanticizing someone and I am being obstinate because I cannot countenance an intelligent person like yourself to be foolish enough to take the seed of an idea from someone who had NO intention of germinating it and giving credit to her. Especially when the originator of that seed is in fact AGAINST what you are extrapolating.

Hitler said a lot of important things too. NOtice how people don't exactly quote him.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I will always reference the material that sparks an idea, if possible.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

and yes, she has caused people to ask interesting questions that philosophically are important. She's not bringing those questions up ot be philosophical about ALL humanity though. She's bringing them up in a proprietary way - she OWNS this difference and she ain't sharing.

But from my perspective, the problems of Autism within larger society are not helped whatsoever by romanticizing the differences and deficits.

"they're different let's leave them to be different" Might work when discussin a seperate society, but Autistics do not have a seperate society that is autonomous. It didn't work for the Native Americans either because we had already decimated their society down to a non-functioning level.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying to "leave them to be different," i'm saying to understand and integrate the differences. Not erase them, but create a better framework to map them all, and create a better understanding, between them.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

and is your contention that this all be on the side of the "neuro-typical" but not the Autistic? Because that is exactly what Baggs' position is.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I think that if it's going to do any good, it has to start there, and flow back and forth, because it will be a new kind of communication.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

Amanda Baggs is a color-blind painter who makes black and white paintings and insists that people recognize her "understanding of color"