I am developing a catalogue of online courses that I invite and encourage you to consider. Currently available is Survey of Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament). You do not need to know Hebrew :)
Three courses are in preparation.
Instructions for enrollment:
1) go to www.openuniversity.digitalchalk.com
2) click New Account button
3) complete the creation of your account by filling in the blanks
4) click Catalogue tab
5) add the course to your shopping cart
6) click Proceed to Checkout button
7) complete the transaction with credit card
8) click OK button on receipt page
9) click on title of course to begin
Each chapter has an outline you can print.
Each chapter has a video lecture.
Each chapter has a narrated powerpoint video.
Proceed at your own pace. Go forward and backward. There is a certificate of completion when you finish.
Call or email with questions: 828-776-2860 hallittleton@gmail.com
Thank you and please share!
Monday, October 29, 2012
Where to from here?
At Exit 46 I have a decision to make. One road will take me to Columbia and Charleston. Another will take me to Raleigh and Wilmington. A third road will take me to Johnson City, TN, and a fourth road will take me to Knoxville, Nashville, and beyond. Different destinations and that's fine, if that's where I want to go. The choice is mine, but I need to realize that when I choose a direction, there is a fixed conclusion (end point) to my choice.
In a way--bear with me--this is like having a discussion with someone. If I accept without questioning the direction they want me to go, I have to ultimately accept their conclusions. In other words, I MUST question the validity of the premises with which they begin, or I have to accept the conclusions to which they are moving. For example, there is a basic rule of logical thinking: verify the validity of the original premise or accept the conclusion argued.
All horses are purple.
Seabiscuit is a horse.
Therefore, Seabiscuit is purple.
We are challenged with significant and persuasive ethical and social premises today. One argument begins with the fundamental value of rugged individualism. It is all about me. I did it. I am self-made. I pulled myself up by my boot straps; everyone else should do the same. I got mine now you take care of yourself. The other argument says we are a community. We are in this together. We all have talents and should do what we can for ourselves and then help take care of the less fortunate, marginalized, and disenfranchised.
We are at the crossroads. The choice is ours.
In a way--bear with me--this is like having a discussion with someone. If I accept without questioning the direction they want me to go, I have to ultimately accept their conclusions. In other words, I MUST question the validity of the premises with which they begin, or I have to accept the conclusions to which they are moving. For example, there is a basic rule of logical thinking: verify the validity of the original premise or accept the conclusion argued.
All horses are purple.
Seabiscuit is a horse.
Therefore, Seabiscuit is purple.
We are challenged with significant and persuasive ethical and social premises today. One argument begins with the fundamental value of rugged individualism. It is all about me. I did it. I am self-made. I pulled myself up by my boot straps; everyone else should do the same. I got mine now you take care of yourself. The other argument says we are a community. We are in this together. We all have talents and should do what we can for ourselves and then help take care of the less fortunate, marginalized, and disenfranchised.
We are at the crossroads. The choice is ours.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Who am I?
From where, what, who, how am I defined? Who am I? These days we hear so much about individualism. We have hardly gotten over the me-ism of the Reagan years, and here we are being flooded with Ayn Rand and radical, individualistic, libertarian philosophy. Bear with me a moment. I choose to take a different approach to who we are and our responsibility to and in the world.
I accept the Jewish (ancient and contemporary) concept of corporate identity. I believe I am defined by the group/family/culture into which I am born. Everything--EVERYTHING--tells me my existence, my identity depends on others. I exist because my parents conceived me, my mother birthed me, my family nurtured and nourished me. Biologically I AM because of others. Sociologically I exist because my society protects and enables me to live and grow; its laws create a safe environment within which I grew and learned and conformed to the welfare of others.
Economically my society enabled me to prepare for meaningful work, provide a comfortable life for my family, contribute to the protection and welfare of those less fortunate. My government protects me militarily from terrorism to the best of our ability, provides a good transportaion system (paved roads etc.), attempts to guaranteed responsible and intellectually sound education, strives to guarantee safe food and safe drugs and clean water and clean air, and however inadequate, a tax system that I am glad and proud to contribute to that underwrites these benefits. We have a long way to go in all areas mentioned above and in providing health care, yes universal health care, for everyone and enabling those who have already made their contributions to live in dignity and without fear in their old age. Everyone and everything that has preceeded me prepared me for my place and responsibility to the world around me and the generation that will follow me. I give thanks for them and accept my responsibility to continue the traditions and values received.
Ayn Rand was wrong! Selfishness is Not a moral value!
John Donne said it best: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND, COMPLETE UNTO HIMSELF.
I accept the Jewish (ancient and contemporary) concept of corporate identity. I believe I am defined by the group/family/culture into which I am born. Everything--EVERYTHING--tells me my existence, my identity depends on others. I exist because my parents conceived me, my mother birthed me, my family nurtured and nourished me. Biologically I AM because of others. Sociologically I exist because my society protects and enables me to live and grow; its laws create a safe environment within which I grew and learned and conformed to the welfare of others.
Economically my society enabled me to prepare for meaningful work, provide a comfortable life for my family, contribute to the protection and welfare of those less fortunate. My government protects me militarily from terrorism to the best of our ability, provides a good transportaion system (paved roads etc.), attempts to guaranteed responsible and intellectually sound education, strives to guarantee safe food and safe drugs and clean water and clean air, and however inadequate, a tax system that I am glad and proud to contribute to that underwrites these benefits. We have a long way to go in all areas mentioned above and in providing health care, yes universal health care, for everyone and enabling those who have already made their contributions to live in dignity and without fear in their old age. Everyone and everything that has preceeded me prepared me for my place and responsibility to the world around me and the generation that will follow me. I give thanks for them and accept my responsibility to continue the traditions and values received.
Ayn Rand was wrong! Selfishness is Not a moral value!
John Donne said it best: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND, COMPLETE UNTO HIMSELF.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Reason for Hope
There is so much going on--10 year old child killed in Colorado, war, conspicuous consumption, rampant radical individualism, loss of community, etc, etc--that it is easy to get discouraged. But I choose to believe and hope that the glass is half full and that there is a future worth striving for.
The October 1, 2012 issue of Time features the Clinton Global Initiative in which President Clinton makes the eloquent case for five ways the world is getting BETTER. I will simply list them and leave you to read and feel better about the world opening before us. They are: (1) technology: the cell phone is democratizing the world, e.g. Haiti and Africa; (2) improving health care: conquering AIDS, improved care for women, and tackeling obesity with improved nutrition in schools; (3) increasing green energy: yes, green is profitable and ethical and renewable despite what the coal industry says and bad budget choices made; (4) 50% of the population-WOMEN-are getting recognition and leadership roles they deserve, e.g. Rwanda, Malawi, GAP, legislatures in the US; (5) the future is struggling to be born--yes, "those fighting for present gain almost always win out"--and a new mindset and vision is taking shape and hold. We must not, MUST NOT surrender to the dark side.
Continue to bloom where you are planted. Never give up. Silence is complicity. Hope!
The October 1, 2012 issue of Time features the Clinton Global Initiative in which President Clinton makes the eloquent case for five ways the world is getting BETTER. I will simply list them and leave you to read and feel better about the world opening before us. They are: (1) technology: the cell phone is democratizing the world, e.g. Haiti and Africa; (2) improving health care: conquering AIDS, improved care for women, and tackeling obesity with improved nutrition in schools; (3) increasing green energy: yes, green is profitable and ethical and renewable despite what the coal industry says and bad budget choices made; (4) 50% of the population-WOMEN-are getting recognition and leadership roles they deserve, e.g. Rwanda, Malawi, GAP, legislatures in the US; (5) the future is struggling to be born--yes, "those fighting for present gain almost always win out"--and a new mindset and vision is taking shape and hold. We must not, MUST NOT surrender to the dark side.
Continue to bloom where you are planted. Never give up. Silence is complicity. Hope!
Friday, October 12, 2012
Fall is in the air
Every season has its beauty, but I confess to being partial to autumn! Sure, it foreshadows cold and dormancy. However, living in the now, being content with where and when I am, savoring the smells of leaves and warming fires and pumpkins and chili and cider and fresh apple pie and steaming coffee and blankets taken from the closet----it brings comfort and serenity. Surrounded by red and brown, yellow and orange, blue and green, the strife of the world pales to insignificance and I am invited to breathe, breathe deeply, listen intently, and love wastefully. What a gift we have been given!
Friday, October 5, 2012
Form and Content
In graduate school research and paper writing, it was popular to distinguish between form (the outer, hollow, meaningless shell) and content (substance, meaning, significance, purposeful). The Presidential debate October 3 was an exercise in form and content. There was a lot of the former, and little to none of the latter. Rommey was aggressive and commanding. Obama was absent. Neither said anything that had not been said a thousand times before. Neither articulated a clear and compelling vision for the future. Unfortunately, my suspicion is that, given the dearth of critical thinking in this country, people will succomb to whichever "form" fits their preconceptions, tune out to what the other candidate says, and continue down the road of mindless submission to the ideology of choice. The American people deserve more than platitudes from candidates and uncritical analysis from talking heads on the networks.
There is a clear distinction (it has been clear for some time) between a philosophy of smaller government and one of appropriate, efficient larger government. Let's hear the cases substantiated. There is a clear distinction between selfish, individual, libertarian values and values that put others and their needs first and structures policies on that basis. Let's hear that debate. There is a different between anti-intellectual closed mindedness with failed economic policies and an openness to potential with a reception of proved data and an objective search for policies that will benefit everyone.
Candidates, whichever side of the aisle you represent, will you PLEASE tell the truth!
There is a clear distinction (it has been clear for some time) between a philosophy of smaller government and one of appropriate, efficient larger government. Let's hear the cases substantiated. There is a clear distinction between selfish, individual, libertarian values and values that put others and their needs first and structures policies on that basis. Let's hear that debate. There is a different between anti-intellectual closed mindedness with failed economic policies and an openness to potential with a reception of proved data and an objective search for policies that will benefit everyone.
Candidates, whichever side of the aisle you represent, will you PLEASE tell the truth!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)