Obama: Pro-Slavery. ::cough:: I Mean "Compulsory Volunteerism" ?? WTF ??

lgt

angelica wrote:

The above, as I've stated in this thread and in others in the past. Some people like to think this can only be done through formal and coerced means.


I'm not interested in a debate of Truths.

But can you progress, advance knowledge if you refrain from debate?

I'm not referring to what is accepted by academia. I am referring to Truths standing as they are as principles academia hopes to understand and convey.

Remember, I talk about what has withstood the test of time and is classic, not that which falls by the wayside. Also, details and symbols used to conceptualize Truths are not the Truths themselves.


Knowledge to me is knowing. When someone is taught something externally, and personally has no experience in it, that is information in my mind. It's not knowing. Therefore logical concepts that fall away because they were invalid are not also truths that were known by individuals. They were distortions in understanding.

I have no issue with an exchange. My entire views depend on holism, which entails "as within, so without". My self education always included external education. That is not to say formal education.

Anyone can......

Sure and it will be his/her own "Truth" but not solid education nor knowledge. I can say that the earth doesn't move but that doesn't make it scientifically valid or an educated statement. Basically, I can say anything and the contrary of anything and still claim it as my "truth" but externally, in the outside world and with others it won't hold. There must be external validation for a statement to be accepted as knowledge.

You are contradicting yourself here, though. You claim you have no issue with exchange of ideas but you are not interested in a debate about the Truths, when I claimed I was open to learn about it.

Academia was also the name of the school that Plato founded to teach his ideas. That term has stuck, of course. That's what I was referring to.

But yes, I agree with you that concepts and ideas might be disproven but the methods can still be proven valid and used throughout the years. Indeed, in science the intellectual method applied is the same not to mention Aristotle's inductive and deductive reasoning.

I disagree though when you claim that if you have no personal experience of something you have no knowledge of it but only information. I have no personal knowledge of Ancient Greece but I know its political institutions, its literature, culture, etc. It's not merely information. Knowledge is combination of different concepts, proven to be correct and valid, true. Anyway, it's digressing into epistemology.

What do you mean by "as within, so without"? Holism I always thought it was a synthesis of different approaches.

angelica

slightofjeff wrote:

You thought we were busting on your guy Obama, so you had to blindly rush to his defense, eh?

my2hands wrote:

i havent seen anything 13 pages long on the MT worth reading in months

Based on your self-professed methods detailed here...: blind asseessment followed by blind judgment, followed by blind defense of blind assessment and blind judgment, it's not a wonder!!

Kel Varnsen

slightofjeff wrote:

But let's say the parent is a complete and total fuck-up. And there are plenty of them out there. They don't care what the kid does, as long as the kid doesn't interrupt your soap operas.

If education is non-compulsory, these kids are not going to go to school. And their parents sure as hell aren't going to teach them at home. These kids grow up to be less than equal members of society, really through no fault of their own. They aren't old enough to realize the consequences of not getting a proper education.

That's sort of what I was thinking. I am willing to bet there are a ton of parents who wouldn't bother making the effort of getting their kids off to school (or at least educated at home) if the law didn't require it (which I agree is a type of child abuse). On top of that if the parent themselves never went to school they might have no idea how valuable it is so their kids get stuck into the same trap they are.

angelica

lgt wrote:

Sure and it will be his/her own "Truth"...

Which is as valid as any other measure of truth.

..but not solid education nor knowledge. I can say that the earth doesn't move but that doesn't make it scientifically valid or an educated statement. Basically, I can say anything and the contrary of anything and still claim it as my "truth" but externally, in the outside world and with others it won't hold. There must be external validation for a statement to be accepted as knowledge.

When I refer to Truth, that is independent of going consensual understandings of reality, including accepted academic 'truths'. The Truth is what it is, always, despite different approaches or levels of understandings towards it.

You are contradicting yourself here, though. You claim you have no issue with exchange of ideas but you are not interested in a debate about the Truths, when I claimed I was open to learn about it.

What I'm doing isn't a contradiction. The way you are tying it together may "reveal" a contradiction. By that same token, if your intent is to understand me, you might be looking to connect the dots in a different way.

I disagree though when you claim that if you have no personal experience of something you have no knowledge of it but only information. I have no personal knowledge of Ancient Greece but I know its political institutions, its literature, culture, etc. It's not merely information. Knowledge is combination of different concepts, proven to be correct and valid, true. Anyway, it's digressing into epistemology.

Disagreement noted.

What do you mean by "as within, so without"? Holism I always thought it was a synthesis of different approaches.

if one covers the 'within' and the 'without' at one time, that is not a synthesis of different approaches?

I can use 10 different maps to direct you to the same destination. The problem occurs when people think the map is the territory. Or that my chosen words are the energy they describe. They are rather approximations of the energy I describe. Also the words/symbols and teachings of, say, science are also approximations of the energy described as well. Just like the words/symbols etc. used to impart subjective knowing is an approximation. We have an imbalanced bias in our society that places these varying perspectives on an illusory 'objective' scale for worthiness. That is a human bias and endeavor, and not objective Truth.

To answer your question...if I experience and know something from within, and have highly credible validation from without, that presents a pretty whole picture of the issue at hand for me.

farfromglorified

lgt wrote:

Exactly my point before - return to the Middle Ages.

This is silly. A return to the Middle Ages in the context of education implies a return to the economic modalities of the Middle Ages. The removal of compulsory education would not undo centuries of economic progress.

Why would that be good for the kids to be only considered as potential child labour? Aren't they free agents as well while in the care of their parents? They have rights too.

Children have rights but you have the right to force them into schools?

I certainly believe children are free agents and that they have rights.

Would you envisage an incentive to send kids to schools given that you eliminate compulsion?

Human beings have innate incentives to learn. If I have to aggressively incentivize schools, it means my schools probably have little to do with learning.

Otherwise, why would poor families send their kids to learn? It would be against their own self-interest right? Like it's been for centuries before.

Poor families, centuries before, relied on children for income via agriculture or similar activities. The assumption that poor families would do this today, however, is a pretty poor assumption.

The spread of education threatens and challenges dominant ideology and dogma, whatever that would be. That's in the nature of education and intellectual pursuits.

Absolutely!!!! But be careful equating education and intellectual pursuits to the insitutions you are forcing children into. In most cases, those institutions reflect the opposite of education and intellectual pursuits, which is in large part why you have to force people to participate in them.

Actually, Luther also translated the Bible from Latin to German so that it could be understood by the many, since Latin became the preserve of the few educated of the Middle Ages.

Do you agree with Luther's aims then -- to expose the masses via compulsion to Biblical teachings?

Luther was originally part of the Catholic Church but with this act he brought on the Reformation and caused huge problems for the Church. He himself helped break the dogma of the day by spreading education.

He replaced the dogma of the day with a slightly modified dogma, yes.

Can you not see the benefits of universal education?

Definitely! Can you not see the harm of centrally dictated systems of dogma that everyone, by law, is forced to participate in?

What do you mean by education taxes? Specific to corporations and for education? I thought education is funded by the taxes of all citizens. Is it something peculiar to the American system?

Education is funded, for the most part, by landowners in America. Most of our schools are payed for via property taxes. Corporations represent a large shareholder in that enterprise.

So what line of thought is imposed in American public schools? Is it individual capitalism or socialism or.... what is the dogmatic thought now imposed by the state/government?

American public schools, like most public schools, stress dogmas of nationalism, economic modalities preferred by the government, history lessons biased towards the state. Certainly American public instruction is largely innocuous in its content, but it's methods and biases are painful strains on American minds.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

This is silly. A return to the Middle Ages in the context of education implies a return to the economic modalities of the Middle Ages. The removal of compulsory education would not undo centuries of economic progress.



Children have rights but you have the right to force them into schools?

I certainly believe children are free agents and that they have rights.



Human beings have innate incentives to learn. If I have to aggressively incentivize schools, it means my schools probably have little to do with learning.



Poor families, centuries before, relied on children for income via agriculture or similar activities. The assumption that poor families would do this today, however, is a pretty poor assumption.



Absolutely!!!! But be careful equating education and intellectual pursuits to the insitutions you are forcing children into. In most cases, those institutions reflect the opposite of education and intellectual pursuits, which is in large part why you have to force people to participate in them.



Do you agree with Luther's aims then -- to expose the masses via compulsion to Biblical teachings?



He replaced the dogma of the day with a slightly modified dogma, yes.



Definitely! Can you not see the harm of centrally dictated systems of dogma that everyone, by law, is forced to participate in?



Education is funded, for the most part, by landowners in America. Most of our schools are payed for via property taxes. Corporations represent a large shareholder in that enterprise.



American public schools, like most public schools, stress dogmas of nationalism, economic modalities preferred by the government, history lessons biased towards the state. Certainly American public instruction is largely innocuous in its content, but it's methods and biases are painful strains on American minds.

These points are all awesome, farfromglorified.

HailHailVitalogy

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You agree that everyone should be FORCED to "VOLUNTEER"?

Can you explain that a bit further to me?

More importantly, can you explain how that jives with the ideals of our Republic and the root princple of "FREEDOM" ?

[edit: Angelica: You stole my tttthunder]

First of all, i agree with you on a lot of subjects that you've posted but yes i agree that you should be FORCED to VOLUNTEER, if you want to put it that way. Kids in middle and high school need to learn the values of helping the less fortunate or helping those who are going through rough times. And I would know better than most of the people here on this board because I just graduated high school a year ago. Maybe it would change some kids ideas for the future and WANTING to help those people, or believe in saving the environment. It could help keep the "bums" or "druggies" stereotypes out of schools as well as change some kids for the good.

DriftingByTheStorm

HailHailVitalogy wrote:

First of all, i agree with you on a lot of subjects that you've posted but yes i agree that you should be FORCED to VOLUNTEER, if you want to put it that way.

oh.
i absolutely agree with you.

I also heavily advocate bringing the goose step to public schooling, along with some modern iteration of "seig heil".

I think it would go a LONG way to restoring a sense of duty to and respect for our political structure, as well as a sense of obedience to power. I'm seeing this all mixed in with the Pledge of Allegiance. Children goose-stepping around the courtyard before opening bell, saying the pledge. The bell rings repeatedly, and the principal comes over the intercom, commanding a refrain of Seig Heils!

Remember, National Socialism can be FUN!

:cool:

Rhinocerous Surprise

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

oh.
i absolutely agree with you.

I also heavily advocate bringing the goose step to public schooling, along with some modern iteration of "seig heil".

I think it would go a LONG way to restoring a sense of duty to and respect for our political structure, as well as a sense of obedience to power. I'm seeing this all mixed in with the Pledge of Allegiance. Children goose-stepping around the courtyard before opening bell, saying the pledge. The bell rings repeatedly, and the principal comes over the intercom, commanding a refrain of Seig Heils!

Remember, National Socialism can be FUN!

:cool:

Aw, guy, come on: you know the only appropriate link for the goose step is this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-AVDeLNC0M

angelica

lgt wrote:

But yes, I agree with you that concepts and ideas might be disproven but the methods can still be proven valid and used throughout the years. Indeed, in science the intellectual method applied is the same not to mention Aristotle's inductive and deductive reasoning.

I'm also saying that many concepts stand, even if the masses don't agree with them. Their inherent validity is what causes them to stand. Validity is what it is, independent of proof, or external validation by individuals or the masses. And often the principles are fine tuned, and distortions are clarified and the original concepts become laser sharp, while inaccuracies are revealed and fall away. The key to this happening is our personal evolutionary stage that is brought to our processing in each moment.

I disagree though when you claim that if you have no personal experience of something you have no knowledge of it but only information. I have no personal knowledge of Ancient Greece but I know its political institutions, its literature, culture, etc. It's not merely information. Knowledge is combination of different concepts, proven to be correct and valid, true.

When I talk of knowledge and knowing, I talk of knowing. When you learn about Greece, you take it on faith that what you are told is accurate. You don't know, until you know by connecting the information with experience (experience encomapsses inner processes too).

There are things we "know" intuitively, and again, this is where knowledge begins within, and as you pointed to earlier is the base of education, wherein the external action of educing is about using tools to activate what is already understood and known. Based on this, the "tools" of education used from without, if they elicit knowing from within, do not educate in of themselves. Education is dependent on the inner connection. for example, what you might know about Greece, hinges on knowing what you know on other subjects, that relate to what you are learning on Greece, hence being, again, knowing, and not mere disconnected information taken on faith.

angelica

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

oh.
i absolutely agree with you.

I also heavily advocate bringing the goose step to public schooling, along with some modern iteration of "seig heil".

I think it would go a LONG way to restoring a sense of duty to and respect for our political structure, as well as a sense of obedience to power. I'm seeing this all mixed in with the Pledge of Allegiance. Children goose-stepping around the courtyard before opening bell, saying the pledge. The bell rings repeatedly, and the principal comes over the intercom, commanding a refrain of Seig Heils!

Remember, National Socialism can be FUN!

:cool:

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Aw, guy, come on: you know the only appropriate link for the goose step is this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-AVDeLNC0M

Oh, man............you guys are hysterical!!

lgt

farfromglorified wrote:

This is silly. A return to the Middle Ages in the context of education implies a return to the economic modalities of the Middle Ages. The removal of compulsory education would not undo centuries of economic progress.

Children have rights but you have the right to force them into schools?

I certainly believe children are free agents and that they have rights..

Human beings have innate incentives to learn. If I have to aggressively incentivize schools, it means my schools probably have little to do with learning.

Poor families, centuries before, relied on children for income via agriculture or similar activities. The assumption that poor families would do this today, however, is a pretty poor assumption.

Absolutely!!!! But be careful equating education and intellectual pursuits to the insitutions you are forcing children into. In most cases, those institutions reflect the opposite of education and intellectual pursuits, which is in large part why you have to force people to participate in them.

Do you agree with Luther's aims then -- to expose the masses via compulsion to Biblical teachings?

He replaced the dogma of the day with a slightly modified dogma, yes.

Definitely! Can you not see the harm of centrally dictated systems of dogma that everyone, by law, is forced to participate in?

Education is funded, for the most part, by landowners in America. Most of our schools are payed for via property taxes. Corporations represent a large shareholder in that enterprise.

American public schools, like most public schools, stress dogmas of nationalism, economic modalities preferred by the government, history lessons biased towards the state. Certainly American public instruction is largely innocuous in its content, but it's methods and biases are painful strains on American minds.

Please - the return of the Middle Ages was a sarcastic reference as to the effect of eliminating compulsory education, which would become the preserve of a few while the masses remain uneducated. Certainly, not implying that elimination of compulsory education would also bring about feudalism, the political and economic model of the Middle Ages by default! It would take something more, yes, of course.

There is a valid point though about economic incentives for the poor to send their kids to schools. Which are they again?!? History backs me up on this. Why would it be such a poor assumption?

An innate desire to learn is not an incentive for education, especially if the framework is just not there. You may want to learn but if you are not guaranteed the opportunity and time to learn you simply won't be educated. The exception, i.e. only few, would be in this way.

It seems to me you claim that choice should be just with families as to whether to educate their kids or not. Whereas I claim, families should have a choice as to the best way to educate their kids (public school, private school, home schooling, whatever), but education must be provided for kids. Hence the right to universal education, mandatory for kids up to 16, or whatever age the state decides.

If you agree children have rights, do these include rights to education? If so, how do you guarantee those rights? I believe that like any other right, the child right to education must be protected by law and enabled by the state because there might be those families who prefer their kids not to be educated, regardless of their innate desire to learn.

Yes, I agree with Luther's position to dissiminate knowledge as far as possible and give the masses the tools to learn. But, no, I'm not a Lutheran, nor Roman Catholic, if it's of any relevance.

My point is that I strongly disagree that knowledge and education should be the preserve of the few, which would happen - as it has happened throughout history - by eliminating compulsory education.

Finally, schools might teach one dominant school of thought - whatever it may be in time and geography (state schools in China would be different in their teachings, right?) - but as part and parcel of education one learns the less dominant viewpoint too and especially the intellectual framework and tools to research and make your own mind, and not digest whatever dogma is inculcated into your mind, be that at school, church, family, etc.

Do you then simply view schools and public institutions as the instruments to suppress the masses by promulgating whatever dominant dogma?

Is all education, schools, just the means to teach dogma for you then? Don't you think it allows for free-thinking which by definition intellectual pursuit is and that education in schools should provide? The spread of knowledge is a guarantee AGAINST dogma, not a supporter of it.

By the way, historically, the more knowledge has been spread to the masses (via print in local languages) the more the status quo, and its dominant ideology (dogma in a loose sense) has been challenged, politically, economically, etc.

lgt

angelica wrote:

Which is as valid as any other measure of truth.

When I refer to Truth, that is independent of going consensual understandings of reality, including accepted academic 'truths'. The Truth is what it is, always, despite different approaches or levels of understandings towards it.

What I'm doing isn't a contradiction. The way you are tying it together may "reveal" a contradiction. By that same token, if your intent is to understand me, you might be looking to connect the dots in a different way.

Disagreement noted.

if one covers the 'within' and the 'without' at one time, that is not a synthesis of different approaches?

I can use 10 different maps to direct you to the same destination. The problem occurs when people think the map is the territory. Or that my chosen words are the energy they describe. They are rather approximations of the energy I describe. Also the words/symbols and teachings of, say, science are also approximations of the energy described as well. Just like the words/symbols etc. used to impart subjective knowing is an approximation. We have an imbalanced bias in our society that places these varying perspectives on an illusory 'objective' scale for worthiness. That is a human bias and endeavor, and not objective Truth.

To answer your question...if I experience and know something from within, and have highly credible validation from without, that presents a pretty whole picture of the issue at hand for me.

So, ok, with holism you are integrating the within and the without. How?

You also claim there is a Truth out there (not to sound too X-Fileish) - is this the without you refer to? Is this only learned by inner revelation? or also by academic teachings? if so which?

How do you learn about this external objective Truth? Especially if - as you claim - humans are biased in their learning? if they're not intellectually equipped to truly grasp it as they can only get to an approximation of the Truth?

I'm afraid, I don't get your analogy of the map and the territory. Even if you're using 10 different maps they should all represent the same territory, so they are not different maps. They might use different colourings to trace lines, etc, but they should all show the same external representation, i.e. the territory.

lgt

angelica wrote:

I'm also saying that many concepts stand, even if the masses don't agree with them. Their inherent validity is what causes them to stand. Validity is what it is, independent of proof, or external validation by individuals or the masses. And often the principles are fine tuned, and distortions are clarified and the original concepts become laser sharp, while inaccuracies are revealed and fall away. The key to this happening is our personal evolutionary stage that is brought to our processing in each moment.


When I talk of knowledge and knowing, I talk of knowing. When you learn about Greece, you take it on faith that what you are told is accurate. You don't know, until you know by connecting the information with experience (experience encomapsses inner processes too).

There are things we "know" intuitively, and again, this is where knowledge begins within, and as you pointed to earlier is the base of education, wherein the external action of educing is about using tools to activate what is already understood and known. Based on this, the "tools" of education used from without, if they elicit knowing from within, do not educate in of themselves. Education is dependent on the inner connection. for example, what you might know about Greece, hinges on knowing what you know on other subjects, that relate to what you are learning on Greece, hence being, again, knowing, and not mere disconnected information taken on faith.

I totally disagree. Knowledge must be validated and proved. Otherwise, it's just your opinion, and sure all opinions are valid but they are not knowledge.

Inner validity of ideas, thoughts, must be proven externally - that's what knowledge is all about, not to mention science.

It has however, nothing to do with appeal to the masses.

Indeed, quite the contrary. When Copernicus and Galileo challenged thousand years of dogma claiming that the earth actually moved, they had to prove their claim. Otherwise, it was just their opinions against the dominant thought that instead it was the centre of universe around which everything revolved.

Also, I don't take anything on faith. Faith is the opposite of knowledge: you believe something because of whatever reason, including the inner validity of certain thoughts. That however is not knowledge - it is opinion, ideas, beliefs.

I only take ideas as valid if they can be proven. To know about Ancient Greece I also went to the primary sources - therefore not just relied on history books, but also on books written by Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle and if no written sources are available I relied on their information and cross-referenced it with other sources. I never take anything for granted not faith.

However, I agree there are things you intuitevely "know".

Then again, while education is extracting this knowledge (the Socratic method) the tools to extract such knowledge are important - they do educate in themselves. They provide the framework needed to extrapolate what is valid or not. I mentioned earlier the deductive and inductive methods of reasonings - those are tools useful to understand the external world and reality.

My whole position is to claim that education is an essential and fundament human right that must be guaranteed by the laws of the state.

How you choose to pursue your education is up to you.

Finally, education should aim to provide the tools to learn and achieve knowledge.

You can still have knowledge without a formal education and being self-taught (like many great thinkers in the past) - the point though is that to be knowledge it must be validated and justified externally. Otherwise, it's just opinions, ideas, etc. (and those great thinkers of the past also tested their new ideas against the old and provided reference points so they could be validated).

farfromglorified

lgt wrote:

Please - the return of the Middle Ages was a sarcastic reference as to the effect of eliminating compulsory education, which would become the preserve of a few while the masses remain uneducated. Certainly, not implying that elimination of compulsory education would also bring about feudalism, the political and economic model of the Middle Ages by default! It would take something more, yes, of course.

There is a valid point though about economic incentives for the poor to send their kids to schools. Which are they again?!? History backs me up on this. Why would it be such a poor assumption?

An innate desire to learn is not an incentive for education, especially if the framework is just not there. You may want to learn but if you are not guaranteed the opportunity and time to learn you simply won't be educated. The exception, i.e. only few, would be in this way.

It seems to me you claim that choice should be just with families as to whether to educate their kids or not. Whereas I claim, families should have a choice as to the best way to educate their kids (public school, private school, home schooling, whatever), but education must be provided for kids. Hence the right to universal education, mandatory for kids up to 16, or whatever age the state decides.

If you agree children have rights, do these include rights to education? If so, how do you guarantee those rights? I believe that like any other right, the child right to education must be protected by law and enabled by the state because there might be those families who prefer their kids not to be educated, regardless of their innate desire to learn.

Yes, I agree with Luther's position to dissiminate knowledge as far as possible and give the masses the tools to learn. But, no, I'm not a Lutheran, nor Roman Catholic, if it's of any relevance.

My point is that I strongly disagree that knowledge and education should be the preserve of the few, which would happen - as it has happened throughout history - by eliminating compulsory education.

Finally, schools might teach one dominant school of thought - whatever it may be in time and geography (state schools in China would be different in their teachings, right?) - but as part and parcel of education one learns the less dominant viewpoint too and especially the intellectual framework and tools to research and make your own mind, and not digest whatever dogma is inculcated into your mind, be that at school, church, family, etc.

Do you then simply view schools and public institutions as the instruments to suppress the masses by promulgating whatever dominant dogma?

Is all education, schools, just the means to teach dogma for you then? Don't you think it allows for free-thinking which by definition intellectual pursuit is and that education in schools should provide? The spread of knowledge is a guarantee AGAINST dogma, not a supporter of it.

By the way, historically, the more knowledge has been spread to the masses (via print in local languages) the more the status quo, and its dominant ideology (dogma in a loose sense) has been challenged, politically, economically, etc.

lgt, I appreciate your thoughtful responses and your participation in this discussion.

I think our disagreement boils down to three major points. First, you're suggesting that, without the compulsory in compulsory education, many would go uneducated. This is an odd viewpoint to me because with compulsory education, many go uneducated. Every year, schools in this country produce confused, poor thinkers who have a tenuous and soon to be lost grasp on a handful of facts. To defend this system in the name of "universal education" seems, well, a little crazy, given the realities of high drop-out rates, poor student performance, and the paltry amount of knowledge that 12 years of forced education currently imparts upon students.

Secondly, you are invoking a child's "right to education" in your argument. However, what I hear you advocating for is the state's right to compel students into educational modalities and institutions that fit its approval. If we accept education as essentially the process of producing a free thinker, I do not believe coersion to be a good first step down that road.

Finally, you, in my view, keep synonomizing education and the process students are currently being forced in to. This is a connection I simply cannot see. The heart of education, in my opinion, is to instill in a human being the ability and confidence to acquire, process, and apply objective knowledge about their world. Most of our public and private schooling institutions, however, do little to help students acquire knowledge -- they simply foist approved knowledge onto students. Most of our public and private schooling institutions do little to help students process knowledge -- they provide little guidance or opportunity for students on how objective information should be examined and measured. Most of our public and private schooling institutions do little to help students apply knowledge -- they simply ask students to regurgitate, briefly, something that was told to them for the purposes of regurgitation.

It is absolutely and importantly true that when the masses have access to and control of the tools of learning that they challenge the status quo. This is one of the inherent beauties of the medium we are using to have this discussion. I only wish the same were true about the institutions we force so many bright and insouciant students into, only to see them come out confused and jaded towards the process of learning.

Societies are wise to ensure that the children of all its members have access to the tools of intellectual betterment. However, societies are also wise to understand that "intellectual betterment" means many things to many people. Assuming upon others your definition, and doing so via coersion and force, is a crime against not only their minds, but yours as well.

angelica

lgt wrote:

So, ok, with holism you are integrating the within and the without. How?

You also claim there is a Truth out there (not to sound too X-Fileish) - is this the without you refer to? Is this only learned by inner revelation? or also by academic teachings? if so which?

How do you learn about this external objective Truth? Especially if - as you claim - humans are biased in their learning? if they're not intellectually equipped to truly grasp it as they can only get to an approximation of the Truth?

I'm afraid, I don't get your analogy of the map and the territory. Even if you're using 10 different maps they should all represent the same territory, so they are not different maps. They might use different colourings to trace lines, etc, but they should all show the same external representation, i.e. the territory.

The point is, holism refers to having a reference to the whole. When I say "within/without", I refer to subjective knowledge and objective knowledge, that both , when synthesized = holistic knowledge. Another map I use for holistic knowledge is to use logical/intuitive and emotional intelligences together, being whole-brained awareness, which equals holistic awareness, blended with objective feedback. Others (or myself at different times) may define their approach to the whole differently. One can take many paths to the same destination. Ultimately, holism becomes much more than the sum of it's parts, so it must be experienced in order to be understood. The territory is farrrrr more than what it appears on the map.


How do I integrate within/without? First of all, we are so trained towards an objective bias, that it can be complicated for the average person to reach this balanced view.

How do I do it? I do it by balancing my integrated whole-brained subjective awareness with objective feedback. Reality is not either subjective or objective alone. In reality the two are blended. Therefore in order to be realistic, we must be able to bring the two together in an integrated fashion.

And further, as per your earlier definition of education, which I basically agreed with, education itself, when authentic, depends on a holistic process of the inner knowing, tied into objective validation.

angelica

lgt wrote:

I totally disagree. Knowledge must be validated and proved. Otherwise, it's just your opinion, and sure all opinions are valid but they are not knowledge.

If you ate a bowl of cereal this morning, you require a scientist, philosopher or scholar to prove that to you before it is knowledge for you? Same for if you brushed your hair? The "fact" that you brush your hair when you do is merely opinion until someone externally validates you? This 'problem' in our general training and widespread human awareness, when individuals have been taught to deny subjective knowledge is a part of our sweeping imbalance as humans at this time. It is part of our not trusting direct knowing processes inherent in us. It is a human constructed inaccurate bias, internalized by the masses.

For me, knowing is knowing. Proving a happening is proving a happening.

Inner validity of ideas, thoughts, must be proven externally - that's what knowledge is all about, not to mention science.

This is not what knowledge is about, it's what human-made systems, and, yes, the scientific method is about. Again, knowing is knowing, whether it's proven or not.

It has however, nothing to do with appeal to the masses.

Indeed, quite the contrary. When Copernicus and Galileo challenged thousand years of dogma claiming that the earth actually moved, they had to prove their claim. Otherwise, it was just their opinions against the dominant thought that instead it was the centre of universe around which everything revolved. Also, I don't take anything on faith. Faith is the opposite of knowledge: you believe something because of whatever reason, including the inner validity of certain thoughts. That however is not knowledge - it is opinion, ideas, beliefs.

You have faith that what you are taught is the truth, even when you haven't independantly proven that for yourself.

I only take ideas as valid if they can be proven. To know about Ancient Greece I also went to the primary sources - therefore not just relied on history books, but also on books written by Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle and if no written sources are available I relied on their information and cross-referenced it with other sources. I never take anything for granted not faith.

It sounds like you "trust" (as in faith) certain sources/academia, or when others claim they can prove their assertions, even when you don't independantly know by experience.

However, I agree there are things you intuitevely "know".

Cool. Because this is the precursor to scientific advancement...flashes of knowing and inSight that precipitate enactment of processes which prove such inSight as accurate. This is also how the philosophers have come to understand the very schools of thought they created, when there was no one prior to them teaching them.

Then again, while education is extracting this knowledge (the Socratic method) the tools to extract such knowledge are important - they do educate in themselves. They provide the framework needed to extrapolate what is valid or not. I mentioned earlier the deductive and inductive methods of reasonings - those are tools useful to understand the external world and reality.

I'm a great believer in education, which is why I've educated myself to the degree I have.

My whole position is to claim that education is an essential and fundament human right that must be guaranteed by the laws of the state.

fair enough.

How you choose to pursue your education is up to you.

Finally, education should aim to provide the tools to learn and achieve knowledge.

You can still have knowledge without a formal education and being self-taught (like many great thinkers in the past) - the point though is that to be knowledge it must be validated and justified externally. Otherwise, it's just opinions, ideas, etc. (and those great thinkers of the past also tested their new ideas against the old and provided reference points so they could be validated).

In order to be considered knowledge by others, I see that one's inherent knowing must be validated externally. Still, when I get up and brush my hair, I don't need validation in order to know Truth.

Likewise, the philosophical Truths I've known over the past 14 years were Truths and knowings/knowledge, even before they were validated externally with information or the agreement of experts.

DriftingByTheStorm

farfromglorified wrote:

lgt, I appreciate your thoughtful responses and your participation in this discussion.

I think our disagreement boils down to three major points. First, you're suggesting that, without the compulsory in compulsory education, many would go uneducated. This is an odd viewpoint to me because with compulsory education, many go uneducated. Every year, schools in this country produce confused, poor thinkers who have a tenuous and soon to be lost grasp on a handful of facts. To defend this system in the name of "universal education" seems, well, a little crazy, given the realities of high drop-out rates, poor student performance, and the paltry amount of knowledge that 12 years of forced education currently imparts upon students.

Secondly, you are invoking a child's "right to education" in your argument. However, what I hear you advocating for is the state's right to compel students into educational modalities and institutions that fit its approval. If we accept education as essentially the process of producing a free thinker, I do not believe coersion to be a good first step down that road.

Finally, you, in my view, keep synonomizing education and the process students are currently being forced in to. This is a connection I simply cannot see. The heart of education, in my opinion, is to instill in a human being the ability and confidence to acquire, process, and apply objective knowledge about their world. Most of our public and private schooling institutions, however, do little to help students acquire knowledge -- they simply foist approved knowledge onto students. Most of our public and private schooling institutions do little to help students process knowledge -- they provide little guidance or opportunity for students on how objective information should be examined and measured. Most of our public and private schooling institutions do little to help students apply knowledge -- they simply ask students to regurgitate, briefly, something that was told to them for the purposes of regurgitation.

It is absolutely and importantly true that when the masses have access to and control of the tools of learning that they challenge the status quo. This is one of the inherent beauties of the medium we are using to have this discussion. I only wish the same were true about the institutions we force so many bright and insouciant students into, only to see them come out confused and jaded towards the process of learning.

Societies are wise to ensure that the children of all its members have access to the tools of intellectual betterment. However, societies are also wise to understand that "intellectual betterment" means many things to many people. Assuming upon others your definition, and doing so via coersion and force, is a crime against not only their minds, but yours as well.

i think this is one of the most gently crafted sublime truths you have ever put to "paper", FFG. Have you ever thought about becoming an author?

-Yours Truly-
Mr. Ego Maniac

lgt

farfromglorified wrote:

lgt, I appreciate your thoughtful responses and your participation in this discussion.

I think our disagreement boils down to three major points. First, you're suggesting that, without the compulsory in compulsory education, many would go uneducated. This is an odd viewpoint to me because with compulsory education, many go uneducated. Every year, schools in this country produce confused, poor thinkers who have a tenuous and soon to be lost grasp on a handful of facts. To defend this system in the name of "universal education" seems, well, a little crazy, given the realities of high drop-out rates, poor student performance, and the paltry amount of knowledge that 12 years of forced education currently imparts upon students.

Secondly, you are invoking a child's "right to education" in your argument. However, what I hear you advocating for is the state's right to compel students into educational modalities and institutions that fit its approval. If we accept education as essentially the process of producing a free thinker, I do not believe coersion to be a good first step down that road.

Finally, you, in my view, keep synonomizing education and the process students are currently being forced in to. This is a connection I simply cannot see. The heart of education, in my opinion, is to instill in a human being the ability and confidence to acquire, process, and apply objective knowledge about their world. Most of our public and private schooling institutions, however, do little to help students acquire knowledge -- they simply foist approved knowledge onto students. Most of our public and private schooling institutions do little to help students process knowledge -- they provide little guidance or opportunity for students on how objective information should be examined and measured. Most of our public and private schooling institutions do little to help students apply knowledge -- they simply ask students to regurgitate, briefly, something that was told to them for the purposes of regurgitation.

It is absolutely and importantly true that when the masses have access to and control of the tools of learning that they challenge the status quo. This is one of the inherent beauties of the medium we are using to have this discussion. I only wish the same were true about the institutions we force so many bright and insouciant students into, only to see them come out confused and jaded towards the process of learning.

Societies are wise to ensure that the children of all its members have access to the tools of intellectual betterment. However, societies are also wise to understand that "intellectual betterment" means many things to many people. Assuming upon others your definition, and doing so via coersion and force, is a crime against not only their minds, but yours as well.

Likewise

I think the root of our disagreement, if you will, is the opposing view of the state and its role in society: you appear to be more individualistic whereas I - as a true European - are more in favour of an interventionist role to guarantee basic rights (I won't even enter into a debate into universal healthcare, for instance )

While you equate the right of education with coercion I instead equate it with enablement, if such a word exists, by the state.

I can see why you would consider it coercion - one individual must be free to do what s/he pleases even if it means shunning education, etc. But one lives in a society, with not just rights but also duties to our fellow human beings.

I agree, there is already quite high truancy especially in inner cities, but can you imagine how much more truancy there would be and why it would be a disadvantage for all, including the individual in question?

The situation would be much worse if you eliminate compulsory education.

While now there are local government-sponsored outreach groups trying to get those truant young people off the streets and out of trouble, if you eliminate the right to compulsory education this will no longer happen, and it will be much worse for all.

Education in schools - as far as I have personally experienced - should foster critical thinking and hone your thinking skills as it were. Learning by regurgitating facts can be viewed as improving memory skills; arguing and debating as improving your reasoning skills, which will allow you also to dismiss what you've learned at school or embrace new ideas, etc. This is what should happen in schools, especially when you go to college; and true, this is an ideal scenario, but then the argument would veer towards how to improve education.... provided we agree that it should be a fundamental and compulsory human right

lgt

angelica wrote:

The point is, holism refers to having a reference to the whole. When I say "within/without", I refer to subjective knowledge and objective knowledge, that both , when synthesized = holistic knowledge. Another map I use for holistic knowledge is to use logical/intuitive and emotional intelligences together, being whole-brained awareness, which equals holistic awareness, blended with objective feedback. Others (or myself at different times) may define their approach to the whole differently. One can take many paths to the same destination. Ultimately, holism becomes much more than the sum of it's parts, so it must be experienced in order to be understood. The territory is farrrrr more than what it appears on the map.


How do I integrate within/without? First of all, we are so trained towards an objective bias, that it can be complicated for the average person to reach this balanced view.

How do I do it? I do it by balancing my integrated whole-brained subjective awareness with objective feedback. Reality is not either subjective or objective alone. In reality the two are blended. Therefore in order to be realistic, we must be able to bring the two together in an integrated fashion.

And further, as per your earlier definition of education, which I basically agreed with, education itself, when authentic, depends on a holistic process of the inner knowing, tied into objective validation.

Ok, I see your point - the use of emotional intelligence as the link between internal, innate ideas, thoughts and external reality, validation, etc.

FYI, Hegel also used the concept of synthesis as combination of contrasting ideas (thesis and anti-thesis) in his dialectic. You should check him out, although he's not one of the easiest philosophers to "digest" as it were.