| Contact Information |
|
|
|
Although the writer does not normally comment on “The Petition,” every response received will be personally read and considered by the author. This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it P. Young c/o The Layman's Petition P.O. Box 555, Collingwood, ON L9Y 4B2 Canada
The Layman's Petition
 98-page full edition (pdf format, 593KB)  51-page paper-saving edition (pdf format, 543KB)  abridged-retitled 'An Honest Discussion' (A portion of proceeds donated to The Canadian Cancer Society)  (A portion of proceeds donated to The Canadian Cancer Society) 95 pages; quality trade paperback; Trafford catalogue #07-0164; ISBN 978-1-4251-1701-6 Questions/Concerns:• Why not make the book a little more accommodating to the teaching profession?A key mechanism of the document was to expose academics and scholars to each other along the lines of those who found the material conceptually offensive and those who did not. To date it would appear that many scholars are finding the project difficult and so it remains to be seen whether the author has misjudged the professional capacity of educators and government administrators to digest the material with an academic or objective discipline as opposed to an emotional or hierarchical reaction. Society through its manifest educational institutions has asked the non-academic citizen to bear the profound and dangerous human isolation or rejection of an ‘abstract superficial academic evaluation’ without taking direct personal offence or injury. (Neither the individual nor society can ever ‘recover’ from the institutionalised developmental injury of an interaction based solely on an academic scale.) If significant percentages of readers are finding the document difficult, then the author proposes (with respect) that these individuals should ask themselves exactly what part of their psychological makeup it is that takes offence. • Why was the original ‘Layman’s Petition’ published anonymously? From personal reading and accepted booklore the author noted that controversial or watershed books are seldom read or recognised during the author’s lifetime. This led to the question: How could a writer ‘publish dead’ while still alive? To answer this it was necessary to think about what the qualities of death were that readers apparently found appealing in the work of deceased critical thinkers. The author surmised that a reading public was not able or inclined to tolerate the contemporary affirmation a writer might derive should his or her critique of society become accepted as legitimate or accurate during his or her actual lifetime. In order to accommodate this anticipated resistance to the document, the author proposed that if it were to be published anonymously and with no financial advantage to the author, then the key contemporary objections to the work might have been effectively negated. As it turned out, this strategy was not sufficient to overcome society’s early revulsion to the mere notion of a ‘culturally legitimate’ high school dropout perspective. Initial resistance to the published document manifested in a systemic shunning the likes of which could only be described as a ‘taboo superstitious horror’ similar to that which led to the burning of innocent citizens once accused of witchcraft. It was also determined that publishing anonymously might be being interpreted as an act of cowardice on the part of the author. Having exhausted inordinate amounts of time, energy and associated financial and income resources into the project, the author abandoned the problematic strategy of maintaining anonymity and determined that a fifty/fifty split of any potential proceeds with charitable works would be an acceptable statement of social goodwill. It was later determined that even this ‘fifty/fifty split of proceeds’ statement was counterproductive as it appeared to be inflaming the perception that the author was ‘profiting immorally’ from the rejection of ‘education’. An act viewed by many as approaching if not equalling a virtual crime. • Why is the author so resistant to enter into discussion or comment about the book? If readers examine the ‘Document History’ feature of the website they will see that the author has attempted to participate in meaningful discussions related to the subject for years. When it became obvious that the available contacts had no intention, ‘constitutionally, legally, morally, professionally or emotionally’ of engaging any perspective that had not yielded blindly to the self-fulfilling cultural superiority of a philosophically empty social/academic accreditation, the author accepted the obvious futility of the exercise and set about developing a more practical strategy. A life altering decision was made never to speak extemporarily about the matter again but to set the perspective down in writing and leave the discussion to those in a more productive and capable set of circumstances. • Does the author actually think anyone is going to get past the phrase “...The Layman’s Petition is the astonishing social statement destined to change the tone and direction of cultural/political thought well into the twenty-first century”? This opening statement was among the most carefully and cautiously thought out long-term strategies of the project. It is functioning as the author intends. • In today’s society there are all kinds of opportunities for individuals with learning disabilities to get help. Why doesn’t the author just get help and get over it. This statement presumes that there is such a thing as an ‘established learning ability’. Given the inherent condition of society and its consistent ability to produce new and unspeakable examples of chaos and suffering, the author suggests that the notion of an ‘established learning ability’ is not only ludicrous but morally irresponsible. The author supports the excellent work being done to assist particular individuals with practical neurological skills, but this should not be confused with the pressing imperative to articulate an intelligent multicultural adult human perspective on thought. The author will try to address further concerns through this website feature. Video/Web Links: |