tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1817853304487578335.post5080847039392366282..comments2012-01-16T18:56:36.132ZAndrew Suttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00006943867339136665noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1817853304487578335.post-83432741129701669332012-01-16T18:56:36.132Z2012-01-16T18:56:36.132ZFret not about &#39;curmudgeonly&#39;. I don&#39;t need the help of others to be that way...<br /><br />As for those paediatricians all those years ago, one of the great contrasts of life is between how important things appear at the time (especially things that personally concern us and, above all, those that we are actively involved in) and how they appear in retrospect and/or from outside. What seems a big deal this week will soon be lost in the mists of time! On the other hand, things do change, and there may be human agency in this, even the working out of human purpose. The trick is to sort the wheat from the chaff – and to burn off as little energy as possible in chaff-chasing! What a trick to be able to pull off consistently, in CE as in anything!<br /><br />Sorry, &#39;hard evidence&#39; of what? You offer an effect demonstrated, justifying at least a replication. Maybe a bit of a hypothesis-raiser, perhaps a little heuristic, especially if demonstrated consistently. But as far as pedagogy/upbringing are concerned, so what? What possible effect might this have for the future or even present of psycho-social processes? I am not denying that there may conceivably be such an effect, just asking what it might possibly be in respect either of normal human functioning or in the preence of disease or damage.<br /><br />&#39;Neuroplasticity&#39; has been known of for yonks and I doubt has ever had any problem being &#39;accepted&#39;. So, for much, much longer have teaching and learning, upbringing and education. The Nobels will be handed out if/when anyone manages clearly to demonstrate practical links between the two. I doubt that you or I will live to see this and there is no a priori reason to expect that anyone ever will. Meanwhile, CE has enough on its hands if it sensibly joins the struggle for creation and acceptance of a proper pedagogical science.<br /><br />&#39;Scientific community&#39;? Who they?<br /><br />Celebrities... Rosemary Clooney and Vera Lynne have done a lot for their specific CE centres in the UK and maybe there are other, less documented examples. In other countries no doubt too. And yes, M. J. Fox did a lot for PD, and Superman (sorry, cannot recall actor&#39;s name) did a lot for high spinal-cord injury – both dead now, I think, and what they did has passed. I doubt that awareness of PD really owes that much to one foreign actor, rather than to all the other human experience and propagandising, and PR, that has been going on over the years.<br /><br />But CE is a cause, and idea, a philosophy. I cannot recall successful celebrity involvement in such. I may be wrong and would be pleased to hear of exceptions. And does the persisting existence of physio or OT to reflect the effects of celebrity sparkle, or what?<br /><br />Of course let CE (what that?) take on all avenues (remembering that celebrity endorsement may be a two-way process, with two-way benefits, not necessarily all flowing to the &#39;beneficiary&#39;). As you say, somebody has to live to experience CE, and it may as well be somebody public and adulated as all the rest of us. Dream Ticket? A Royal One. Or does such a thought fall under the category of what you consider as &#39;crude&#39;. I do not.<br /><br />A.andrewhttp://www.conductive-world.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1817853304487578335.post-29577626515386806632012-01-16T15:28:05.526Z2012-01-16T15:28:05.526ZLooking forward to the response...<br /><br />Andrew.<br /><br />Sorry, I couldn&#39;t resist the &quot;foreboding&quot; format!Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08638481320429019396noreply@blogger.com