You got your formal results in the official protocol.
Here is my informal evaluation report, as I promised.
Just some of the most important items.
This course was unusual. In a way, it was a rather extreme pedagogic experiment. Sure, I could not predict the results of this experiment from the beginning. It is a kind of natural law: the higher levels of thought (world evolution) are less predictable than the lower ones. Working with higher neuron-levels of human activity a scholar should count with this factor of increasing unpredictability. This rule is especially important in the époques of "floods" - increasing entropy. We definitely live in such a period of information flood.
I repeat again and again, that in such an époque we need not to store information but thoroughly select it. For this purpose we need navigators - conscious individuals equipped with a set of filters of interpretation. We inherit these filters genetically and culturally and then form our personal additional filters of perception (sometimes even consciously) in the course of our life. The more filters you possess the more diverse and effective will be your search result (the law of density of poetic row by Yuri Tynyanov) – your personal world picture. Filter already gives a frame for innovation in thought - it shapes, or better, reshapes meaning. Of course, it is a kind of phantom but this phantom makes a living environment for everybody who accepts its conventions. This is about our everyday life and behaviour in the first row – our life as such being determined by our interpretation of it.
Semiotics gives a perfect set of such filters. You can learn the natural laws formulated in semiotic terms from the works of classics, first of all from Yuri Lotman's works. He accumulated maybe the most essential laws of the semiosphere - information picture of the Universe:
- productiveness of a dialog in asymmetric systems
- minus method principle
I tested the model of semiosphere in dynamics and built a model of a mechanism of meaning production - Double Hermeneutic Spiral DHS. We clearly see the parallels between the models of semiosphere, hypertext and holographic universe. Now we know that meaning shapes the world. An interpreter in an asymmetric dialog produces meaning. We got the basic matrix 'figures' for the two incompatible components of this process of dialog: 0 and V. This is the basic combination of any thought act: analogue (image) - digital (legend) combination - the basic emblem of the Universe.
Dear students, I gave you some most important materials for understanding this major achievement in our discipline. I gave you some guidelines in the most important laws discovered by cultural semiotics (tag: cold press semiotics) I also introduced you into the context around my discovery, the situation of a sharp conflict between me and the Faculty. Of course, it was a challenge. Everyone had a choice to react it freely.
Statistically, the result is amazingly poor.
Only 4 persons of 17 responded more or less naturally, i.e. stating questions and discussing scientific aspects of the course.
Still, I got a very interesting completely independent thought exchange between two students
I am quite satisfied with this discussion, I am absolutely sure that those guys will think further on by themselves. Their minds are active and open to any kind of discourse.
But it was a nice exception:)
That means, that the rest of the participants are missing elementary curiosity. They did not even try to consider arguments of the sides in the conflict. They simply lost interest to the controversial material. Challenge does not activate their minds. Here I want to stress, that lazy brains become a target for manipulators. I see the major task of an intellectual to keep hers mind alive; and this is possible only in a problem solving activity. Curiosity is an inevitable component of any research. Those who are not curious ever discover new things and ways. Curiosity is the first condition of creativity. Lacking of curiosity indicates lacking of imagination. To form a future one needs imagination. Those who are not interested in a discussion even within a tradition they are studying, can only automatically repeat what they are taught, they can only follow commands of those who are higher in a hierarchy. So, those who did not show any interest in questioning can be considered as invalid for the research career.
The second aspect of evaluation lies in purely humanitarian sphere. All the students were aware of the situation of a severe financial pressure that accompanied my scholarly conflict with the Faculty. I was placed on the edge of surviving. I could afford to come to Tartu only once during the semester.
What should be a normal (natural) reaction to such a situation?
I got only two letters of compassion (one private and one published) from the whole course. Nobody else expressed any personal sympathy with the weak side in the conflict they witnessed...
To be honest, this result I consider as a complete disaster of the whole system of education and enlightment in our country. Society that is lacking compassion and empathy among its members is not natural; it is perverse. It is inhuman.
I express my gratitude to Celer Tambre and Karl Joosep Pihel for the productive discussion and Herman Tamminen and Siu Lee Chan for the empathy.
Wish you a happy new 60-years cycle of Chinese calender:)
I'll analyse the results of this experiment further on.
Still, I feel very disappointed with the state of affiars in our Academy.
Proffessors imitate teaching truth and students pretend to take it for truth, meanwhile the only purpose of this process is to keep an empty corporative hierarchy. Sad picture of the decay of ethics and honor.
So, probably I'll leave Academy to die by itself. I want to start painting.