View Single Post
Old 12-03-2006, 05:41 PM   #3
papertalker's Avatar
Posts: n/a
A Field Theory of Information for the Field of Education
Education = Play X communication square (E=Pc²)

I was recently asked this question about the above formula.

I've wanted to ask about the "formulal" or equation...I laughingly call myself a "math bimbo" as Speech and Language Pathologists are NOT known for their mathematical dexterity, so it an equation that really 'exists' (for want of a better word) in the mathematic/algebraic dimension or is it a 'play' on terminology. i suppose my question might be "Do linguistic equations exist in such format"? Am I phrasing this correctly? Please let me know. Difficult to put into words.

This is exactly the kind of question I was hoping I would elicit. And I am grateful for it because it signifies a mind that is really thinking about not only the points I make, but also the ground on which this formula for play and communication rests.

May I rephrase the question to see if I am reading you correctly? Are you asking if the formula figurative or literal--to the degree that such a scientific formula can be applied to the subjective reality of 'education'?

My answer is, 'It's both.' That's not a cop-out answer. It embraces both. In the figurative sense, it embraces a reality that cannot be observed.

E = mc² had to do the same. When first introduced, it embraced a reality that could not be measured. Instruments had to be created to eventually verify the formula. So the formula was first a statement of faith--a bold shot in the dark.

But it is also literal. The current formulas, put forth by Ph.D.s in cahoots with publishers and Testing Companies, promote dependence, fear, control in the name of excellence and academics. E--"Education" is determined and shaped by the formula we apply. So in the Test formula you get a learning culture of dependence, control, and fear. In the testing formula, communication is 'absent'. Of course, Communication is always present, but it is not 'real' or biological communication, so 'c'(communication) cannot be included in the Test equation. In fact the Test equation doesn't even deserve to have communication placed in the equation; that would be scientifically inaccurate, if not specious.

In my equation 'c' may be used because in terms of the communication used by vertebrates and even invertebrates, which takes on verbal and nonverbal qualities, communication has a scientific basis, and as we move closer to our own species, play enters the picture as an psychobiological driving force--a biological and synaptic energy-- in learning between adults and the young of the species. That's why 'pc' can be used and read with a certain degree of accuracy and truth in my formula.

As to the use of 'squared': the number denotes an exponential factor. What happens with pc in the hands of every individual child, teacher, classroom, and school has the potential to expand explosively--socially, mindfully, physically. With both p and c are the tools we use in context of both these evolutionary and scientific forms of behavior: Play Language --puppetools-- (literally paper media, hinge, symbol)--has the power to duplicate and morph ad infinitum--(for the hinge I believe the term is 'fractalization'--in a way that is open source and 'selective' as opposed to 'instructive.'.
  Reply With Quote