Karnal wrote on Jun 17^th, 2020 at 2:04pm:



liar liar , pants on fire.

heres just a few pages.
Jean wrote a whole series on it 





—How do you think the game of marbles began ?—
At first, children looked for round pebbles.— And the rules ?
—I expect they played from the coche. Later on, boys
wanted to play differently and they invented other rules.—
And how did the coche begin ?—I expect they had fun
hitting the pebbles. And then they invented the coche.—
Could one change the rules ? — Yes.— Could you ? — Yess
I could make up another game. We were playing^ at home
one evening and we found out a new one [he shows it to us].
—Are these new rules as fair as the others?—Yes.—
Which is the fairest, the game you showed me first or
the one you invented ?—Both the same.—If you show
this new game to the little ones what will they do ?—
Perhaps they will play at it.—And if they forget the
square game and only play this one, which will be the
true game, the new one that will be better known, or the
old one ?—The best known one will be the fairest.”
G ro s (13 yrs. at the fourth stage in the practice of the
rules) has shown us the rules as we saw above. " Did
your father play that way when he was little ?—No,
they had other rules. They didn’t play with a square.—
And did the other boys of your father's time play with
a square ?—There must have been one who knew, since
we know it now.—And how did that one know about
the square ?—They thought they would see if it was nicer
than the other game.— How old was the boy who invented
the square ?—I expect thirteen [his own age].—Did the
children of the Swiss who lived at the time of the battle
of Morat play at marbles ?— They may have played with
a hole, and then later on with a square.—And in the time
of David de Purry [a periwigged gentleman whose
statue on one of the public squares of Neuch&tel is known
to all] ?—I expect they had a bit of a lark too !—Have
rules changed since the square was invented ?—There
may have been little changes.—And do the rules still change ?
—No. You always play the same way.—Are you allowed
to change the rules at all ?—Oh, yes. Some want to, and
some don’t. ‘ I f the boys play that way (changing something) you have to play like they do.—Do you think you
could invent a new rule ?—Oh, yes . . . [he thinks];
you could play with your feet.—Would it be fair ?—I
don’t know. It’s just my idea.—And if you showed it to
the others would it work ?—It would work all right. Some
other boys would want to try. Some wouldn’t, by^Jove!
They would stick to the old rules. They’d think they d have
60 THE MORAL JUDGMENT OF THE CHILD
less of a chance with this new game.—And if everyone
played your way ?—Then it would be a rule like the others.—
Which is the fairest now, yours or the old one ?—The
old one.—Why ?—Because they cant cheat. (Note this
excellent justification of rules : the old rule is better
than the innovation, not yet sanctioned by usage, because
only the old rule has the force of a law and can thus
prevent cheating.) And if nearly everyone played with
their feet, then which would be fairest ?—I f nearly
everyone played with their feet, then that would be the
fairest.”—Finally we ask Gros, “ Suppose there are two
games, an easy one where you win often, and a difficult
one where you win seldom, which would you like best ?—
The most difficult. You end by winning that w ay’*

liar liar pants on fire   exhibit 2   




Equilibration as a central concept in piaget’S THEORY According to Piaget, models of equilibration are involved in all questions about cognitive development. Cognitive development, for him, is a succession of constructions with constant elaborations of novel structures. Moreover, for Piaget, this implies a process that improves existing structures and replaces temporally achieved equilibria through re-equilibrations. This process is designated by Piaget as equilibration, and coming to grips with it is the central issue for many of his works. Piaget’s account of equilibration is not only crucial for understanding his approach, it also sets his theory apart from most other theories concerning cognitive development. Moreover, Piaget, in his long career, has developed his own terminology that suits his own intentions better, but this terminology makes the challenge for new uninitiated readers even more daunting. It might be in order, therefore, to characterize the equilibration idea avoiding Piagetian jargon. So, I will first give a brief expository definition and elaborate upon it by expanding on all terms used in - and left out of - this brief definition. Subsequently, I will go deeper into matters now based on Piaget’s own formulations and review some of the central issues and perspectives involved. This review is roughly structured along these perspectives with a focus, first, on biological systems, next on the psychological subject, and third on the epistemological subject. Finally, conclusions and evaluation will follow.

Good, you're starting, dear. That's more like it

Now the trick is to put these words and ideaa into an argument. I don't think it'll help to suggest the Chinese are playing marbles, but you can try it out, see how it goes.

We're here for you.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 16^th, 2020 at 9:16pm:



No - you are just an uncomprehending silly duck, remember?  (Er... no, you don't). You understand nothing and sneer at everything.

If you were born here then you would know (should now) that you were born into a Britannic country. The Paki arse bandit wants to be both 'grew here' and be against Australia's Britannic heritage. His repeated pretensions to 'British' heritage seems to me to be the obfuscation of an Irish/Paki navy with the full anti-Anglo animus.
After all, our dear Aboriginal compatriots are animated by the Irish mindset of seething and resentment against anything English which they have been drinking in from the days of missions. Scratch an Aboriginal activist and you will soon find a Paddy.

The Paki arse botherer is aspiring to be a Paddy. He has the level of resentment and rancour.

Frank wrote on Jun 17^th, 2020 at 7:03pm:


Do you have a white MAGA sheet with the eyes cut out as well as access to a pharmacy ??

You may note the difference between royalist and racist. The first isn't an excuse for the second

The Britannic was a ship bigger than the Titanic. It sunk in 90 minutes.

aquascoot wrote on Jun 17^th, 2020 at 5:56pm:


One applies Paiget to a discourse of cognitive development. One applies quantum mechanics to a discourse on the nature of reality. One does not apply Piaget and Hawkings to a discourse on Cold War ideology and silly rants about leftists. That would be what psychologists prior to Piaget called moronic.

But I see the old boy's popped in, so it must pique the interest of the dead.

Karnal wrote on Jun 17^th, 2020 at 8:18pm:

you ARE an Irish-Paki!

Bloomsday was yesterday. Pile on the words, paki, your rancorius, resentful irish-paki heart comes through.

Karnal wrote on Jun 17^th, 2020 at 7:47pm:



Incorrect

The cold war and leftist ideology
Are entirely the matter of people's personal beliefs systems

You think that these are all tied to politics the economy and the rational mind

a people's beliefs systems and political ideologies
Are actually tied to their personal psychology
Their emotional state and their cognitive development

Understanding Piaget is way way more important then understanding marx or Keynes