If anyone wants anything added, subtracted, divided, multiplied, squared off, rerouted, or otherwise modified (but not hyperbolised), tell me. I have more than a little influence in that group of categories.
1: what about Gifted People? I understand the focus on children, but the sTress factors, etc blahh, in Dabrowski indicate the field is wider than children.
2: The thought pops up that it is less a case of "gifted" than that people are qualitatively different, being uniquely diffewrent in many ways. It mentions individual intererests, cognitively and affectively, but seems to show no interest other than - my surmise - in making high achievers out of them. Neither IQ not EQ begins to categorise - IFF that's needed - the traits or features.
3: Genius without erudition cannot express themselves very well and they may be interested in other than eddikashun. I know one person with an autistic child with no interest whatever in changing this. Should I dare mention being psychic, for which that word "over-sensitivity" serves as a mask. I've met quite a few geniuses who are near illiterate, but there is nothing wrong with their understanding.
4: I am shade afeardish that educationists getting hold of the category will distort things into that perspective. I know a highly gifted who was given all the advantages and helps, and ended up an isolate because of all the glorious "projections" he wanted none of.. Already I detect the creeping in of *jargon*.
5: the Rocamora school has a llist to all of which I can say "yes" with a few qualifiers on some words, and philosophy pours out of his ears. He spent much time and effort on finding out what's "wrong" with authority and society, which boils down to three modes or styles of language, viz
a:: ordinary, common people waffle - not well studied
b: rhetorical - & Double Bind riddled -to manipulate others mainly, in both *good* and *bad senses, pardon the "ethics" imposed, mostly done over as the politics of language - not well studied either. The rhetoric ends up with better than Aristotle did to it at a neither good nor bad level. It makes a goodly means to understand and handle "authority",
c: Logical, academic style endemic to "knowledge", in which it is important to be"proper" and write pdf files these days. Afraid of being misinterpreted?
d: Of course not to ignore poetry and poesis, for which the best, oops obvious, example would be Shake-speare who is Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxenforde; Quote: I will be free, even to the uttermost, if only in words, Taming of the Shrew. What Hamlet does to Polonius, The Courtier, Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern and Ophelia, is sheer Zen, disarming their intentions. He rejects Ophelia because she's too good a daughter, no mind of her own, a tool of a system.
e: non-linguistics, artistic and non-artistic ?explorations? of one's being and environment.Had an interesting dreams about it of a community, living in a forest ype environ, where it occurred to me: what about building inspectors & DOC?
PS, I detest these little boxes, why not just-e-mail?
