Last week, I saw a portion of an interesting documentary about the evolution and divergence of several species of cats. Africa, for example, is home to two of the most unique species of felines in the world: cheetahs and lions.
Cheetahs have the distinction of being the fastest land animal in the world. Their superlative speed makes them adept hunters. However, like nearly all cats, they live and hunt alone. This leaves them vulnerable to harassment by other predators, and exposes their young to serious hazards. Though capable, they must rely only on their own abilities. They spend a lot of time running, hiding, and locating their offspring.
Lions are not nearly as stealthy and fast as the cheetah, but they have evolved an adaptation that makes them unique to all cats: they form a social structure, called a pride. Instead of taking care of all its needs alone, the lion relies on its pride to share several responsibilites. Some hunt, some are on watch, and some care for the young. This makes a pride of lions a formidable opponent, rivaled only by other groups of predators. Their young are seldom alone and exposed, their kills are not easily challenged, and they usually lounge comfortably out on the open savanna.
The stark contrast between these styles had a profound impact on my philosophy toward prepping. Most preppers, myself included, are like the cheetah. We focus on getting our preps together, honing our own skills, and hiding away from prying eyes. Our focus on self-reliance is as much a limitation as a virtue. Like the cheetah, we are easily singled out and separated from our vulnerable dependents. We spend way too much time running, hiding, lying low, and distrusting.
I have begun to realize the need for interdependence in the preparedness community, but how is this accomplished in a community that is, for the most part, pretty reclusive? As a group that is sometimes targeted as being extreme, or at least a high value target for looters, it is more important now than ever that we band together, for mutual protection.
That's why I opened a Facebook group for a local preparedness network. I will be interested to see what can become of it. I admit that I didn't really start it with a clear objective in mind. I hope the group might spontaneously assume an identity, as we get to know each other better, invite and acquire other members, and share ideas. I believe everyone should be a prepper. It is simply foolish to do otherwise in a world that is so obviously unstable. With so many hazards, we need to be ready.
And we need to be lions.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Tarantula Hawk
While in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona near the town of New River, I noticed a large black-blue wasp with an orange wing-set. It flew purposefully around, entering several tiny burrows in the ground, and then quickly exited to examine another hole. It reminded me of a wasp I had heard about in a nature documentary from years ago called the tarantula hawk.
A quick trip to Wikipedia confirmed that my specimen matched the description of the tarantula hawk, also called pepsis wasp, of the genera Pepsis. I took some cell-phone pictures which, once cropped, rendered an extremely blurry image of her.
She was very active in the 38 C heat, and while not aggressive was nonetheless disturbed by my presence. That's why I couldn't get a very good close-up.
These insects belong to a special family of solitary spider wasps called Pompilidae, all of which prey upon spiders. The tarantula hawk is so named because the female stings, paralyzes, and then relocates the arachnids to her nest where she thereupon lays her eggs and leaves. The young larvae feed on the still living spider as their first meal.
Further reading revealed that the tarantula hawk's sting is so painful that it is rivaled only by that of the bullet ant in Brazil.
Maybe keeping my distance wasn't a bad call.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
A Tale of Two Universities
My conflict with higher education is about as fickle as the war on international terrorism; without being able to define the problem, it is almost impossible to discover the solution.
That hasn't stopped me from experimenting with it, though. After all, my personal philosophy has been that it is better to do something, and get it wrong, than it is to do nothing.
Two colleges, three declared majors, five semesters, three dropped semesters, eighty-some odd credits, zero degrees, and seven years later; I feel like my academic and occupational goals are more chaotic than ever. At least I always performed well academically, but this is only small consolation. It is difficult to resist the stigma of being a habitual quitter--quitting my construction job to go back to college, then subsequently quitting college to work construction again. Rinse and repeat. Quitting is the only thing I appear to do well.
It is not for want of ambition, though. I believe it is instead for lack of conviction. If I could only believe that college opened the door to a brighter picture, believe me, I would still be there. I love learning, and being challenged by tests and writing assignments. I learned much from every class I ever took. The problem is, I am too critical, and also stingy. I simply did not believe that the education I received was worth the price I paid for it.
This changed the dynamics somewhat. If college was about getting a degree, rather than an education it would be another matter. The truth is, I already make decent money working construction, and becoming rich really isn't one of my big life goals. So it's all over but the crying, I guess. Apart from perhaps lamenting that I could have "been something" if I had gone to college, there is really little else to say. If education and knowledge is what I want, then I will have to be more disciplined to obtain it without being guided through a college. On the other hand, I should have more resources available.
So there's that.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Electricity and Step Potential
Today I participated in occupational training related to the work that I perform as a high voltage line worker. While the context, scope, and application of the training is beyond the discussion that I intend for this post, I do wish to give a summary of a few electrical phenomena about which, until today, my understanding was rather limited.
We will, for brevity, assume that the reader possesses an elementary understanding of basic electrical theory. That is to say, that electromotive force, or difference of potential is conventially expressed in volts, the rate of flow of electrons is expressed in amps, and the resistance to this flow is expressed in ohms. Finally, that the mathematical expression of this relationship called Ohm's Law, states that the electromotive force in volts equals the product of the rate of flow in amps, and the resistance as measured in ohms.
As high voltage electrical workers, we commonly encounter utility lines that transmit thousands of volts. These "distribution lines" would be like the power lines within a city, or even in a residential neighborhood. However, when bulk power must be transmitted in large quantities over very long distances, a "transmission line" is used instead. These are generally the very tall poles or steel towers that may be observed spanning across open country, though in large metropolitan or industrial areas, they may be located more locally. In any case, these transmit electricity along the order of hundreds of thousands of volts and thousands of amps. For simplicity in civil planning, these lines may run parallel to one another for dozens or even hundreds of miles.
Maintenance may be performed on these lines in two ways; either energized or de-energized. Energized work is highly specialized, and is used for only small repairs. Major overhauls, such as replacing electrical conductors must be performed while the line is de-energized. However, it is not as simple as opening a circuit breaker.
The problem arises from the nature of alternating current. Because voltage is "induced" into any conductor that is exposed to a moving magnetic field, a line that has been removed from a source of power (like a generator) may still possess current and voltage in substantial quantities. Therefore, in order for the worker to safely make contact with this conductor, its power must somehow be "dissipated". This is the function of a procedure called "grounding", so named for the universal electrical connection to Earth. A source of electrical energy connected to "ground" or earth. At this point, the voltage is considered to be effectively zero, because everything is attached to the earth by gravity. The line is then considered "dead". Any transient current is dissipated safely into the earth. It is then safe to work on the line.
Except for the times that it isn't.
The problem is, when a line is receiving electrical energy from a source like induction, the ground wires may be carrying several amps of current constantly. Ohm's law states that voltage is equal to the product of amps and resistance in ohms. While variable, it is common for substrates to have hundreds of ohms of resistance per foot. This means that with, for example, one amp being dissipated into the earth, it is possible to have a voltage present equal to the product of amps (1) and resistance, like 100 ohms: 100 volts. This voltage may be experienced in the distance of one foot to another.
This hazard is known as ground rise potential. It basically says that, at the point where current enters the ground, (especially in high amounts) everything is not equally grounded. Rather, it is not at the same electrical potential. Instead, the area near the point of current injection must, by ohms law, possess voltage relative to another point across which there is resistance. After all, if there is current flow, and there is resistance to flow, there must already (or also) be electromotive force, (voltage) equal to the product of these two.
In the real world, this only presents a hazard when large amounts of power are present. Something like a downed power line that remains energized can produce energy on this scale. Stepping out of a vehicle that is in contact with an energized conductor is a classic example. The difference in voltage from one step to another is called "step potential".
This is also why lightning can affect a person without actually striking him. Incidentally, that is why standing next to a tree in an electrical storm is ill-advised. While the person and the tree are both grounded, and at theoretically the same potential, they may be separated by hundreds of ohms of soil. At thousands of amps of current, the product is a very high voltage.
This was the most important benefit that I received from the training. It is essential to be cognizant of circulating current and the resistance of a grounding substance, because therein lies the key to avoiding the hazards present by voltage that may be present, even (and especially) near ground wires.
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Science vs. Religion: A False Dichotomy
At the forefront of the debate surrounding education and homeschool is the importance of religious education versus secular education. I would conjecture that the overwhelming majority of decisions to homeschool revolve around this singular issue. While there is definitely time to supplement a secular education with a religious one, there are a few topics on which these two elements inevitably clash.
When I was a Sophomore in High School, I took a Biology class from a very engaging and knowledgeable teacher who, on our first day of that class, gave us a unique assignment that was to be completed in class. He requested that we briefly write about whether we believe in Creationism or in Evolution, and to explain why. After collecting our responses, he read some of them out loud to the class, tossing away any that supported Creationism, while reading through the few that embraced the Theory of Evolution all the way through with a subtle nod of approval. Many of these were, in my opinion, not well written; but it didn't matter since they apparently demonstrated enough intellectual insight as to conform to the belief of the scientific community. On the other hand, appeals to a faith-based theory of the origin of life were eschewed as primitive, unenlightened, and wholly lacking critical thought.
At the time, I thought little of this exercise, which of course was the prelude to a class whose foundation was Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution. A decade later, however, I witnessed this conflict resurface in the academic community with renewed vehemence. Parents would oppose the teaching of the Theory of Evolution with futility, while any teacher who suggested that life could have been created by God, or even by means of the more neutral "intelligent design" were reprimanded for teaching something that was not science. To no one's surprise, many disillusioned families continue to withdraw their children from public school to either homeschool, or to send them to a private school that ensures a solid religious opinion on topics of science, history, and reading. This decision is often criticized for failing to adequately prepare students for higher education, where a solid understanding of Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a requirement especially in science degrees.
Eventually, every student must resolve this conflict within him or herself. On this philosophy alone, one is immediately classified as either an intellectual and a critical thinker or a theologian and a religious person. Just as it is in politics, where one is expected to be either a liberal or a conservative, a student must choose one of these two beliefs, as though it were not possible for both or even neither to be correct. In fact, Evolution and Creationism are what we may nominate a "false dichotomy". It is not an either/or proposition.
To round out this concept, we must retreat to a more basic discipline: philosophy. Philosophy is the essence of how one comes to learn truth, and how one defines truth. Truth may be defined as "things as they really are" and for the sake of simplicity, one may approach this in one of two ways: truth is relative, or truth is absolute. I believe truth is absolute. This philosophy stabilizes my world view, and my self-concept. Absolute truth does not change based on what people believe or say, but it is immutable and composes a sphere that is greater than I am. On the other hand, a belief in relative truth is unstable and weak, since it subjugates everything to an individual's beliefs, passions, vices, appetites, and whims. This can do nothing except destroy that man who embraces a belief in relative truth, as he can never elevate himself above his self-exalted post.
Accepting now that all truth is absolute, we must now ponder how truth is learned and understood. In short, how do we know that something is true? Also, from whence does truth originate? I believe that God is the author of all truth, and therefore, God knows all truth. This belief that God is over everything, and that He is our Heavenly Father is the foundation of my faith, and therefore my religion.
I believe that my existence on Earth is a key part of His eternal plan for me, and for everyone. I believe that the universe that He created is governed by eternal laws, (or eternal truths) which must deal justly with people like me who sin, and therefore are unfit to dwell in the presence of God, who is perfect and without sin. I believe that our Heavenly Father loves us so much that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to conquer death through His Resurrection, and to atone for the sins of the world, thus allowing the repentant sinner to be cleansed from sin and overcome death in order to return to our Heavenly Father. What I believe to be the "Gospel" or "good news" of Jesus Christ is the manner of living that He has ordained for us to live in order for His grace, or in other words, the power of his atonement to work in our lives to the perfectioning of our immortal souls. I know this, because Jesus Christ proclaimed of himself in the Holy Bible in the Book of John "I am the way, the truth, and the light". Jesus Christ, like His Father, is the way to all truth. This profound belief that I have is truth that I have learned through the medium which God has appointed that all truth may be learned by man: through the Holy Spirit. The Book of Mormon, a volume of ancient scripture that, like the Bible, contains the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, teaches in the Book of Moroni that "by the power of the Holy Ghost, ye may know the truth of all things". Thus, truth is understood by that sublime power.
Drawing this within the context of education, I believe that God's plan for us is to learn about things that are on this earth, as well as those things which pertain to a heavenly sphere. I believe that it is important for us to obtain as much education as possible, and to acquire knowledge of things that are true. What we call "science" is the means by which come to discover truth. Indeed, the history of the world is a chronicle of knowledge being compounded upon knowledge, and discovery being made upon discovery. It is a story of learning, and continual advancement. From spears to firearms, from horses to airplanes, from monarchy to republic, and from scrolls to cell phones, mankind continues to advance in knowledge and understanding because of discoveries that are made about how the universe really is. Just like the earth did not suddenly become round when man discovered that it was round, science is not always synonymous with truth. Our scientific understanding of how things are is the product of observation, hypothesis, testing, retesting, conclusion, theory, and then continuing to repeat the cycle. When something continues to demonstrate a similar result (something that we call "empirical evidence") we then assume that things are really as we see them. The very essence of science applauds continual skepticism, as it should, yet this does not seem to apply to elements of science that appear at times to serve little purpose except to attack tenets of Christian faith. That is, the scientific community is ready to go to arms over the suggestion that the universe may be the product of something greater than ourselves, that we do not as of yet fully comprehend. I understand that it is not proper for science to work in reverse, that is, it should not seek evidence simply because it has been written in scripture. However, is there not room in this ardently secular school of thought to admit that we may not and cannot have all of the answers by relying on our own abilities?
This is exactly why science should not oppose religion any more than religion should oppose science. Albert Einstein is credited with having said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". They are not mutually exclusive, nor are they acronyms. Instead, both are means by which mankind can come to understand truth, and have knowledge of things as they really are. As future homeschool teachers, we intend to convey this idea to our pupils. For my part, I love science, and I am ever fascinated and ever learning the elements of this wonderful and key discipline of education. In the spirit of a scientist, I question what I observe; and based upon what I believe to be true as revealed by the Holy Spirit (as every search for truth has its foundation), there are some tenets of conventional scientific wisdom that I simply cannot believe. It does not mean that I will not teach them, but I certainly cannot, with a clear conscience, teach them as though they were truth. This deviant approach to education will most likely serve a community of like-minded thinkers. If we are perfectly candid, it must be observed that most significant discoveries were made by those who did not share the view of their peers.
When I was a Sophomore in High School, I took a Biology class from a very engaging and knowledgeable teacher who, on our first day of that class, gave us a unique assignment that was to be completed in class. He requested that we briefly write about whether we believe in Creationism or in Evolution, and to explain why. After collecting our responses, he read some of them out loud to the class, tossing away any that supported Creationism, while reading through the few that embraced the Theory of Evolution all the way through with a subtle nod of approval. Many of these were, in my opinion, not well written; but it didn't matter since they apparently demonstrated enough intellectual insight as to conform to the belief of the scientific community. On the other hand, appeals to a faith-based theory of the origin of life were eschewed as primitive, unenlightened, and wholly lacking critical thought.
At the time, I thought little of this exercise, which of course was the prelude to a class whose foundation was Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution. A decade later, however, I witnessed this conflict resurface in the academic community with renewed vehemence. Parents would oppose the teaching of the Theory of Evolution with futility, while any teacher who suggested that life could have been created by God, or even by means of the more neutral "intelligent design" were reprimanded for teaching something that was not science. To no one's surprise, many disillusioned families continue to withdraw their children from public school to either homeschool, or to send them to a private school that ensures a solid religious opinion on topics of science, history, and reading. This decision is often criticized for failing to adequately prepare students for higher education, where a solid understanding of Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a requirement especially in science degrees.
Eventually, every student must resolve this conflict within him or herself. On this philosophy alone, one is immediately classified as either an intellectual and a critical thinker or a theologian and a religious person. Just as it is in politics, where one is expected to be either a liberal or a conservative, a student must choose one of these two beliefs, as though it were not possible for both or even neither to be correct. In fact, Evolution and Creationism are what we may nominate a "false dichotomy". It is not an either/or proposition.
To round out this concept, we must retreat to a more basic discipline: philosophy. Philosophy is the essence of how one comes to learn truth, and how one defines truth. Truth may be defined as "things as they really are" and for the sake of simplicity, one may approach this in one of two ways: truth is relative, or truth is absolute. I believe truth is absolute. This philosophy stabilizes my world view, and my self-concept. Absolute truth does not change based on what people believe or say, but it is immutable and composes a sphere that is greater than I am. On the other hand, a belief in relative truth is unstable and weak, since it subjugates everything to an individual's beliefs, passions, vices, appetites, and whims. This can do nothing except destroy that man who embraces a belief in relative truth, as he can never elevate himself above his self-exalted post.
Accepting now that all truth is absolute, we must now ponder how truth is learned and understood. In short, how do we know that something is true? Also, from whence does truth originate? I believe that God is the author of all truth, and therefore, God knows all truth. This belief that God is over everything, and that He is our Heavenly Father is the foundation of my faith, and therefore my religion.
I believe that my existence on Earth is a key part of His eternal plan for me, and for everyone. I believe that the universe that He created is governed by eternal laws, (or eternal truths) which must deal justly with people like me who sin, and therefore are unfit to dwell in the presence of God, who is perfect and without sin. I believe that our Heavenly Father loves us so much that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to conquer death through His Resurrection, and to atone for the sins of the world, thus allowing the repentant sinner to be cleansed from sin and overcome death in order to return to our Heavenly Father. What I believe to be the "Gospel" or "good news" of Jesus Christ is the manner of living that He has ordained for us to live in order for His grace, or in other words, the power of his atonement to work in our lives to the perfectioning of our immortal souls. I know this, because Jesus Christ proclaimed of himself in the Holy Bible in the Book of John "I am the way, the truth, and the light". Jesus Christ, like His Father, is the way to all truth. This profound belief that I have is truth that I have learned through the medium which God has appointed that all truth may be learned by man: through the Holy Spirit. The Book of Mormon, a volume of ancient scripture that, like the Bible, contains the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, teaches in the Book of Moroni that "by the power of the Holy Ghost, ye may know the truth of all things". Thus, truth is understood by that sublime power.
Drawing this within the context of education, I believe that God's plan for us is to learn about things that are on this earth, as well as those things which pertain to a heavenly sphere. I believe that it is important for us to obtain as much education as possible, and to acquire knowledge of things that are true. What we call "science" is the means by which come to discover truth. Indeed, the history of the world is a chronicle of knowledge being compounded upon knowledge, and discovery being made upon discovery. It is a story of learning, and continual advancement. From spears to firearms, from horses to airplanes, from monarchy to republic, and from scrolls to cell phones, mankind continues to advance in knowledge and understanding because of discoveries that are made about how the universe really is. Just like the earth did not suddenly become round when man discovered that it was round, science is not always synonymous with truth. Our scientific understanding of how things are is the product of observation, hypothesis, testing, retesting, conclusion, theory, and then continuing to repeat the cycle. When something continues to demonstrate a similar result (something that we call "empirical evidence") we then assume that things are really as we see them. The very essence of science applauds continual skepticism, as it should, yet this does not seem to apply to elements of science that appear at times to serve little purpose except to attack tenets of Christian faith. That is, the scientific community is ready to go to arms over the suggestion that the universe may be the product of something greater than ourselves, that we do not as of yet fully comprehend. I understand that it is not proper for science to work in reverse, that is, it should not seek evidence simply because it has been written in scripture. However, is there not room in this ardently secular school of thought to admit that we may not and cannot have all of the answers by relying on our own abilities?
This is exactly why science should not oppose religion any more than religion should oppose science. Albert Einstein is credited with having said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". They are not mutually exclusive, nor are they acronyms. Instead, both are means by which mankind can come to understand truth, and have knowledge of things as they really are. As future homeschool teachers, we intend to convey this idea to our pupils. For my part, I love science, and I am ever fascinated and ever learning the elements of this wonderful and key discipline of education. In the spirit of a scientist, I question what I observe; and based upon what I believe to be true as revealed by the Holy Spirit (as every search for truth has its foundation), there are some tenets of conventional scientific wisdom that I simply cannot believe. It does not mean that I will not teach them, but I certainly cannot, with a clear conscience, teach them as though they were truth. This deviant approach to education will most likely serve a community of like-minded thinkers. If we are perfectly candid, it must be observed that most significant discoveries were made by those who did not share the view of their peers.
Saturday, October 24, 2015
An Introduction
Welcome to Summit Crest Institute of Autodidacts and Scholars!
Summit Crest Institute is the name of the academic institution created by Melissa and I, and this blog serves as a forum for the foundation and organization of it. It is our public channel, where our readers may expect to find news, narratives, essays, opinion articles, and other engaging and informative writings.
For my part, I would like to provide a bit of background as to what led us to establish Summit Crest Institute, why it is so named, and our vision of its purpose and future.
I have always loved to learn, and frankly I have been very successful at it. I was fortunate to study under very diligent and proficient teachers up through my secondary education that provided a strong knowledge base whereupon I could expect to improve with more in-depth study. Unfortunately, I was also free-spirited, and a bit lazy, so my otherwise promising academic career was halted, and I instead pursued a myriad of other engagements. I served an LDS mission to Argentina, and returned home and immediately began to work in my father's vocation, as an electrical worker. I was driven by a passion for flight at that time, one that had always driven me to stay busy in the available and lucrative construction industry. I poured my money and time into aviation, but this, too, met a rapid end when I married Melissa, and my money no longer belonged to me.
At length, I began to weary of the intellectually oppressive construction industry, and I sought a college education as a means of escape. I enjoyed learning tremendously, but I was disillusioned by two troubling observations. The first was that college was ridiculously, and inexplicably expensive. The second was that, helpful that my professors were, I was able to learn nearly all of the coursework from a textbook, and the internet. In fact, I frequently surpassed my classmates who were learning that which was "going to be on the test" and I enriched my mind with additional and pertinent knowledge for the sake of learning it. I determined that the learning isn't a gift from a college. It is a gift of the soul. This philosophy pushed me finally from college, and I concluded that I shall learn these things on my own, and just as well as if I had gone to school.
One of the things that I love about my beautiful wife, Melissa, is her firm commitment to personally oversee the education of all of our children. As I, like any parent, desire the best for my children, I proposed a vehicle for this end: Summit Crest Institute of Autodidacts and Scholars. As an institution of learning (a school, if you will), it is not unlike a university in its goals and objectives. On the one hand, it is an institute of scholars (students) and on the other it is an institute of autodidacts, those who are self taught. We have seen that learning is present as much in the teaching as it is in the completion of classes, and this way we limit no one in the promotion of his or her own education. While Summit Crest Institute will be the school which our children attend, it will simultaneously be the school that we attend. The only difference is, that school is never over, and graduation is only from one level to another, without finale. Like cresting a mountain summit only to find another peak to conquer, Summit Crest encompasses the idea that education is a lifelong journey, rather than a one-time event. The goal is to persevere in learning and discovery.
This is Summit Crest Institute of Autodidacts and Scholars.
Summit Crest Institute is the name of the academic institution created by Melissa and I, and this blog serves as a forum for the foundation and organization of it. It is our public channel, where our readers may expect to find news, narratives, essays, opinion articles, and other engaging and informative writings.
For my part, I would like to provide a bit of background as to what led us to establish Summit Crest Institute, why it is so named, and our vision of its purpose and future.
I have always loved to learn, and frankly I have been very successful at it. I was fortunate to study under very diligent and proficient teachers up through my secondary education that provided a strong knowledge base whereupon I could expect to improve with more in-depth study. Unfortunately, I was also free-spirited, and a bit lazy, so my otherwise promising academic career was halted, and I instead pursued a myriad of other engagements. I served an LDS mission to Argentina, and returned home and immediately began to work in my father's vocation, as an electrical worker. I was driven by a passion for flight at that time, one that had always driven me to stay busy in the available and lucrative construction industry. I poured my money and time into aviation, but this, too, met a rapid end when I married Melissa, and my money no longer belonged to me.
At length, I began to weary of the intellectually oppressive construction industry, and I sought a college education as a means of escape. I enjoyed learning tremendously, but I was disillusioned by two troubling observations. The first was that college was ridiculously, and inexplicably expensive. The second was that, helpful that my professors were, I was able to learn nearly all of the coursework from a textbook, and the internet. In fact, I frequently surpassed my classmates who were learning that which was "going to be on the test" and I enriched my mind with additional and pertinent knowledge for the sake of learning it. I determined that the learning isn't a gift from a college. It is a gift of the soul. This philosophy pushed me finally from college, and I concluded that I shall learn these things on my own, and just as well as if I had gone to school.
One of the things that I love about my beautiful wife, Melissa, is her firm commitment to personally oversee the education of all of our children. As I, like any parent, desire the best for my children, I proposed a vehicle for this end: Summit Crest Institute of Autodidacts and Scholars. As an institution of learning (a school, if you will), it is not unlike a university in its goals and objectives. On the one hand, it is an institute of scholars (students) and on the other it is an institute of autodidacts, those who are self taught. We have seen that learning is present as much in the teaching as it is in the completion of classes, and this way we limit no one in the promotion of his or her own education. While Summit Crest Institute will be the school which our children attend, it will simultaneously be the school that we attend. The only difference is, that school is never over, and graduation is only from one level to another, without finale. Like cresting a mountain summit only to find another peak to conquer, Summit Crest encompasses the idea that education is a lifelong journey, rather than a one-time event. The goal is to persevere in learning and discovery.
This is Summit Crest Institute of Autodidacts and Scholars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)