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

NMyTree

Pj_Gurl wrote:

so the schools will have the responsibility to integrate this into their current education program and work with the students, during school hours to achieve this?

you invest in america and america invests in you.....

i don't have a problem with it.

Finally, we need to integrate service into education, so that young Americans are called upon and prepared to be active citizens.

Just as we teach math and writing, arts and athletics, we need to teach young Americans to take citizenship seriously. Study after study shows that students who serve do better in school, are more likely to go to college, and more likely to maintain that service as adults. So when I'm President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you'll have done 17 weeks of service.

We'll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities. At the community level, we'll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.

For college students, I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000. To receive this credit, we'll require 100 hours of public service. You invest in America, and America invests in you - that's how we're going to make sure that college is affordable for every single American, while preparing our nation to compete in the 21st century.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/02/text-obamas-speech/

It's called conditioning and brainwashing. Which is exactly what they will attempt to do. Get 'em while they're young, condition them to be "patriotic" and support all acts of war and aggression.


This is an idiotic, intrusive, manipulative and oppressive agenda.

The term itself is an oxymoron and deceptive by nature.

How many of you folks in this thread, who are all for this and like this idea; have kids?

How many of you are at the high school or college age?

This is utter nonsense. Just more erosion our freedoms and rights.

Watch, if this happens there will be a stipulation that any kid who "voluteered to serve his/her hours " will be locked in to immediately be dragged into the military, the minute these jerk-offs go and start another war. They will have no choices. And that's what they want. They want every teenager and young adult to be shackled to their every whim and agenda. Legally obligated to fight all of their wars.

I can't understand how anyone can support this crap, when you consider the war we are currently involved in (Iraq) and the war they are just itching to start with Iran.

Isn't it interesting that they have recently stepped up their "War On Home Schooling" ? Hmmm.....wonder if there's a connection:rolleyes:

My kids will NOT go risk their lives or give up their lives for their " Corporations For Christ Wars " !!!!!!

lgt

angelica wrote:

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

fair enough.

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.

That's not what I am saying, angelica.

No one is denying subjective knowledge or intuition - the issue is to make it acceptable to others, and you can only do that by providing evidence and proof. Otherwise it's just your own ideas and opinions.

I can claim that I've brushed my hair. But for another person to accept this has happened, I also need to present evidence if I want to claim it as a fact. Otherwise they can claim it's not true. And why not? Everyone has a right to their own ideas and opinions. The point is establishing which one is valid and accurate. This is what knowledge and intellectual reasoning is about - providing a framework to understanding and learning.

So it's not enough to say, I've said this so it must be true (or the church has said that, or again to go back to my favourite topic the Middle Ages Aristotle said that - this is actually what happened those days. It was enough to say "Ipse dixit", that is "he said it" - meaning Aristotle - and whatever claim was considered to be valid just on moral authority.

Also, I do not have faith that what I have been taught is the Truth, because I do not blindingly believe everything I read - I use critical reasoning. Indeed, I strongly abhor the use of the term. One can never claim to know the truth, but as close an approximation as possible.

One famous philosopher once said... actually let me google the exact words

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."
Socrates

Sure, I can trust more claims rather than others - that's my prerogative and the test for me is whether such claims can be proven but that's not faith, because I am willing to modify my ideas if new ideas disproving mine come up and are proven to be valid.

Again, this is not faith, but reason and intelligence, including emotional and intuitive intelligence.

Furthermore, this does not mean that I only trust academic sources - I am open to all sort of knowledge. As I said, the issue is whether whatever claim can be resonably proven.

Besides, the absolute certainty, faith in one's belief to be the Truth is the path towards many problems - as history's proved time and time again.

Faith as a term really should be confined to religion. You believe something regardless of whether it exists in actual fact or not (e.g. God - many tried to prove rationally its existence but many also still believe in it whether such an entity has been proven to exist or not, because it is a matter of faith, not reason).

angelica

lgt wrote:

That's not what I am saying, angelica.

No one is denying subjective knowledge or intuition - the issue is to make it acceptable to others, and you can only do that by providing evidence and proof. Otherwise it's just your own ideas and opinions.

I can claim that I've brushed my hair. But for another person to accept this has happened, I also need to present evidence if I want to claim it as a fact. Otherwise they can claim it's not true. And why not? Everyone has a right to their own ideas and opinions. The point is establishing which one is valid and accurate. This is what knowledge and intellectual reasoning is about - providing a framework to understanding and learning.

Ultimately, knowing something is, by definition knowing something. You are talking beyond that. I am not. Knowing is knowing besides any extensions added, such as communicating that knowing to others. Also, when you put limits on knowing, based on the context of the moment, I am still speaking about something more fundamental to your added constructs: what I speak to remains knowing.

So it's not enough to say, I've said this so it must be true (or the church has said that, or again to go back to my favourite topic the Middle Ages Aristotle said that - this is actually what happened those days. It was enough to say "Ipse dixit", that is "he said it" - meaning Aristotle - and whatever claim was considered to be valid just on moral authority.

Again, you are speaking to an objective standard of knowing. I'm speaking about knowing, itself.

Also, I do not have faith that what I have been taught is the Truth, because I do not blindingly believe everything I read - I use critical reasoning. Indeed, I strongly abhor the use of the term. One can never claim to know the truth, but as close an approximation as possible.

One famous philosopher once said... actually let me google the exact words

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."
Socrates

Sure, I can trust more claims rather than others - that's my prerogative and the test for me is whether such claims can be proven but that's not faith, because I am willing to modify my ideas if new ideas disproving mine come up and are proven to be valid.

Again, this is not faith, but reason and intelligence, including emotional and intuitive intelligence.
Furthermore, this does not mean that I only trust academic sources - I am open to all sort of knowledge. As I said, the issue is whether whatever claim can be resonably proven.

Besides, the absolute certainty, faith in one's belief to be the Truth is the path towards many problems - as history's proved time and time again.

I merely differentiate between knowing and believing.

Faith as a term really should be confined to religion. You believe something regardless of whether it exists in actual fact or not (e.g. God - many tried to prove rationally its existence but many also still believe in it whether such an entity has been proven to exist or not, because it is a matter of faith, not reason).

Faith, as a human function, enters into all avenues of life, and cannot be confined to certain contexts, except intellectually, which would then be removed from being realistic.

farfromglorified

lgt wrote:

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 )

This is absolutely correct. I do have more of a classically liberal (America) perspective that I do a progressive (European) perspective. However, in the context of this discussion, what I'm proposing is not mutually exclusive to government playing a role in education.

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

That's fine, but you cannot erase coercion by simply assigning a nicer name to it. Certainly public education and even compulsory attendence do, in many cases, "enable" people to get whatever the state decides is an education. But that doesn't make it less coercive or even necessarily good. Even a "just war" is still a war.

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.

This is fine. However, to suggest that receiving an education in and of itself is a "duty to our fellow human beings" is frightful. What would you think if I proposed conscripted labor as a "duty to our fellow human beings"?

Our primary duty to our fellow human beings is to respect their existence as free agents with basic rights that prohibit us from aggressing against them. You're violating both of those via compulsory education, even if its done in the name of preventing potential violence (as education does accomplish, on a large scale) or other admirable goals.

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.

I can certainly see how there could be more truancy and how it could be a disadvantage for all, but this again does not justify your means. Using your logic, there are entire populations of adults in many locations that could be justifiable imprisoned solely because you can identify the higher potential of crime and violence stemming from those populations.

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.

I find that to be specious reasoning. One can certainly have advocacy and outreach groups in the absence of compulsory education.

As I indicated earlier, people will flock to value. The definition of value is a subjective one, determined by each person to whom you make a proposal. I would much rather have an educational system that must convince the population of its value as opposed to an educational system whose value stands as an irrelevancy as it can simply command its customers.

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

Absolutely -- we are certainly getting into a "how do we improve education" discussion. However, as I indicated above, compulsory education plays into this concept. Why on earth would you expect these institutions to improve when they have little motivation to do anything other than to continue to exist? When the system may simply command its utilization, what incentive have you actually provided the system to serve the value judgments of its users?

FiveB247x

Since we're talking about education:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121623686919059307.html?mod=yhoofront

NMyTree

FiveB247x wrote:

Since we're talking about education:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121623686919059307.html?mod=yhoofront

I remember talking about this very topic and getting called a nutcase; three years ago. LOL!

angelica

NMyTree wrote:

I remember talking about this very topic and getting called a nutcase; three years ago. LOL!

I think that's a compliment...;)

lgt

angelica wrote:

Ultimately, knowing something is, by definition knowing something. You are talking beyond that. I am not. Knowing is knowing besides any extensions added, such as communicating that knowing to others. Also, when you put limits on knowing, based on the context of the moment, I am still speaking about something more fundamental to your added constructs: what I speak to remains knowing.

Again, you are speaking to an objective standard of knowing. I'm speaking about knowing, itself.

I merely differentiate between knowing and believing.


Faith, as a human function, enters into all avenues of life, and cannot be confined to certain contexts, except intellectually, which would then be removed from being realistic.

I disagree, to know something is to prove what you think. That's what knowledge is and it is a process that intrinsically involves something external to the individual - whether the outside world, other people ideas. Otherwise, it's solipsism - only ideas that come into one's mind can be known and therefore exist. And in this context one can say and think whatever they want, and still only make it real for them.

Unless... what do you consider knowing then? I'm not sure I understand it.

I also don't understand your last point - if faith enters all areas of life but then you agree not the intellectual area, first that's a contradiction in itself, then what does it mean faith is removed from being realistic in the intellectual context? that it is not real, that it doesn't exist?

lgt

farfromglorified wrote:

This is absolutely correct. I do have more of a classically liberal (America) perspective that I do a progressive (European) perspective. However, in the context of this discussion, what I'm proposing is not mutually exclusive to government playing a role in education.

What role for the government in education then? The same as now but without imposing compulsion?

farfromglorified wrote:

That's fine, but you cannot erase coercion by simply assigning a nicer name to it. Certainly public education and even compulsory attendence do, in many cases, "enable" people to get whatever the state decides is an education. But that doesn't make it less coercive or even necessarily good. Even a "just war" is still a war.

But the state by definition is an imposition, coercion and limitation of individual right to do as one pleases regardless of anyone else. That's the point I was making before of rights and duties - the state actually guarantees some rights (e.g. justice is administered impartially by the state institutions not by individuals as in a lawless state) but also duties (e.g. payment of taxes)

So, the state forces kids to go to schools until whatever age. Yes, there is indeed coercion because there are legal consequences if you don't; but there is also enablement because there are advantage to foster education not just for the individual concerned but for society as a whole; and secondly, enablement because it guarantees the right to an individual intellectual development that might not be guaranteed if such right were not enforced by the state.

farfromglorified wrote:

This is fine. However, to suggest that receiving an education in and of itself is a "duty to our fellow human beings" is frightful. What would you think if I proposed conscripted labor as a "duty to our fellow human beings"?

Our primary duty to our fellow human beings is to respect their existence as free agents with basic rights that prohibit us from aggressing against them. You're violating both of those via compulsory education, even if its done in the name of preventing potential violence (as education does accomplish, on a large scale) or other admirable goals.

Maybe I wasn't clear - when I meant duty was in more general term as duties pertaining to all members of society.

I believe education foster - or should - better understanding between people and teach them to respect opposing views even when disagreeing with them. Education will also help all become better citizen and members of societies, that is teach not just the rights of citizens but duties towards the rest of societies (e.g. it is your duty to pay the taxes which are used to pay for a series of public services)

farfromglorified wrote:

I can certainly see how there could be more truancy and how it could be a disadvantage for all, but this again does not justify your means. Using your logic, there are entire populations of adults in many locations that could be justifiable imprisoned solely because you can identify the higher potential of crime and violence stemming from those populations.

Sorry but I don't see the logical link in your example. I'm not saying that you should imprison adults on the chance they might be likely to commit crime!! That's quite terrifying - and dictatorial. And I really don't see how it follows from my example.

Compulsory education is for kids and if you eliminate it you have a likely consequence of more kids on the streets with more potential for crime (it's already happening now with truancy and so quite a feasible hypothesis to make)

farfromglorified wrote:

I find that to be specious reasoning. One can certainly have advocacy and outreach groups in the absence of compulsory education.

As I indicated earlier, people will flock to value. The definition of value is a subjective one, determined by each person to whom you make a proposal. I would much rather have an educational system that must convince the population of its value as opposed to an educational system whose value stands as an irrelevancy as it can simply command its customers.

If you eliminate compulsion you will leave it up to families and their kids to decide whether they should go to school - where is the incentive for them?
As history proved chances are more kids will be sent to work, indeed many may choose so themselves instead of studying, which in itself requires intellectual discipline and sacrifice. Whereas going to have a job and earn a few bucks to pay for whatever trendy gadget would be more appealing.

I don't get where the value and incentive for family would be. My priority is to guarantee the opportunity to study for all, especially those kids that otherwise would not have a chance - economically because too expensive, personal because of family interference, etc. And I believe compulsory education is the best solution.

The more education the more the benefits for all - that's my view. As I said, it will foster better understanding and progress not just material benefits such as technological inventions, scientific discoveries, etc.

Is your position then - make the education system a better proposition and families will send their kids to schools even if there is no compulsion?

What about the costs?

Will you stil have state-funded schools?

farfromglorified wrote:

Absolutely -- we are certainly getting into a "how do we improve education" discussion. However, as I indicated above, compulsory education plays into this concept. Why on earth would you expect these institutions to improve when they have little motivation to do anything other than to continue to exist? When the system may simply command its utilization, what incentive have you actually provided the system to serve the value judgments of its users?

So, the value is linked to the quality of service provided by the educational institution, and that's what provides incentive for people to attend schools?

Cheers

angelica

lgt wrote:

I disagree, to know something is to prove what you think. That's what knowledge is and it is a process that intrinsically involves something external to the individual - whether the outside world, other people ideas. Otherwise, it's solipsism - only ideas that come into one's mind can be known and therefore exist. And in this context one can say and think whatever they want, and still only make it real for them.

Unless... what do you consider knowing then? I'm not sure I understand it.

I also don't understand your last point - if faith enters all areas of life but then you agree not the intellectual area, first that's a contradiction in itself, then what does it mean faith is removed from being realistic in the intellectual context? that it is not real, that it doesn't exist?

You yourself said this earlier when defining education: "Knowledge is considered to be inside the human being (e.g Socrates) but you need tools to bring it out"

Your own definition of education includes the fact that the knowledge is already considered to be within the individual. And that education extracts what is already there. (as you said: "Etimologically education is from Latin "educare" which means to extract from within, bring out from within")


Remember my view is holistic -- within and without. When I had philosophical knowledge emerge within myself, it certainly coincided with my interactions outside myself, and with my experiences. That's why I say "knowledge is experience, all the rest is just information" (I heard this quote attributed to Einstein, many years ago). For example, when you brush your hair, you know it's a fact that you did brush your hair. This includes inner understanding integrated with external circumstances. However, proof is not necessary at all in order to know you brush your hair. Knowing, itself, is enough. As with my inner philosophical understandings. When I experienced certain principles and had a knowing of them, I had a knowing of them. Later when I found validation from numerous philosophical schools of thought, that was mere validation. The knowing was immediate and came much earlier.

That is what intuitive and emotional intelligences are based on. They are of direct knowing type of perception. Direct knowing processes are direct and immediate. They are not linear processes hinging on proof. They are instant understandings.

You ask what I consider knowing. I cannot define it. Words cannot define it. Dictionarys cannot definitively define the principle that the words direct us to. Knowing is what it is.

That said, there are many dictionary definitions of knowledge that are independent of proof ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge ):

knowledge: 1. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

2. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience or report: a knowledge of human nature.

3. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

4. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.

5. The state or fact of knowing.

6. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.

7. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.


What I meant about faith is that faith enters ALL areas of life that humans are involved in. The only way we can separate faith from human endeavors in any way, is by using logic to create an artificial separation that does not actually exist. Like all energy, we cannot contain faith, and hold it merely in the religious realm.

lgt

angelica wrote:

You yourself said this earlier when defining education: "Knowledge is considered to be inside the human being (e.g Socrates) but you need tools to bring it out"

Your own definition of education includes the fact that the knowledge is already considered to be within the individual. And that education extracts what is already there. (as you said: "Etimologically education is from Latin "educare" which means to extract from within, bring out from within")


Remember my view is holistic -- within and without. When I had philosophical knowledge emerge within myself, it certainly coincided with my interactions outside myself, and with my experiences. That's why I say "knowledge is experience, all the rest is just information" (I heard this quote attributed to Einstein, many years ago). For example, when you brush your hair, you know it's a fact that you did brush your hair. This includes inner understanding integrated with external circumstances. However, proof is not necessary at all in order to know you brush your hair. Knowing, itself, is enough. As with my inner philosophical understandings. When I experienced certain principles and had a knowing of them, I had a knowing of them. Later when I found validation from numerous philosophical schools of thought, that was mere validation. The knowing was immediate and came much earlier.

That is what intuitive and emotional intelligences are based on. They are of direct knowing type of perception. Direct knowing processes are direct and immediate. They are not linear processes hinging on proof. They are instant understandings.

You ask what I consider knowing. I cannot define it. Words cannot define it. Dictionarys cannot definitively define the principle that the words direct us to. Knowing is what it is.

That said, there are many dictionary definitions of knowledge that are independent of proof ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge ):

knowledge: 1. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

2. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience or report: a knowledge of human nature.

3. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

4. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.

5. The state or fact of knowing.

6. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.

7. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.


What I meant about faith is that faith enters ALL areas of life that humans are involved in. The only way we can separate faith from human endeavors in any way, is by using logic to create an artificial separation that does not actually exist. Like all energy, we cannot contain faith, and hold it merely in the religious realm.

Indeed. Education brings the knowledge within an individual out and it is this confrontation with the outside reality (other people's idea, the surrounding world) that provides the foundation for any thought or idea that comes to mind to be true, valid knowledge in the epistemological sense.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies what knowledge is. Quite interesting but I won't digress

If you're interested though, check out:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

(especially sections 2.3 and 4)

http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/P059

The definition you've quoted are the common language uses of the word.

It then looks as though we are saying the same thing but just using different words (within and without), whereas I thought your position was different as you initially referred to self-education, which did not make any sense to me and I now see you probably just meant self-teaching and self-learning.

However, on the issue of faith we disagree. I guess I am more skeptical.

Based on what can you claim that faith is all pervasive in all areas of human interactions? Because is it some sort of energy?

By faith I mean irrational belief, that is belief that is not proven or actually disproven by reason and logic but still accepted anyway "on faith".

And sure, we cannot know and understand everything - I accept there are momentary limitations to reason and science and also that there are things that you just intuitevely know but I'd rather leave faith in the religious sphere.

Cheers

angelica

lgt wrote:

Indeed. Education brings the knowledge within an individual out and it is this confrontation with the outside reality (other people's idea, the surrounding world) that provides the foundation for any thought or idea that comes to mind to be true, valid knowledge in the epistemological sense.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies what knowledge is. Quite interesting but I won't digress

If you're interested though, check out:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

(especially sections 2.3 and 4)

http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/P059

The definition you've quoted are the common language uses of the word.

It then looks as though we are saying the same thing but just using different words (within and without), whereas I thought your position was different as you initially referred to self-education, which did not make any sense to me and I now see you probably just meant self-teaching and self-learning.

However, on the issue of faith we disagree. I guess I am more skeptical.

Based on what can you claim that faith is all pervasive in all areas of human interactions? Because is it some sort of energy?

By faith I mean irrational belief, that is belief that is not proven or actually disproven by reason and logic but still accepted anyway "on faith".

And sure, we cannot know and understand everything - I accept there are momentary limitations to reason and science and also that there are things that you just intuitevely know but I'd rather leave faith in the religious sphere.

Cheers

I'm glad we are mostly in understanding of one another. I appreciate the reasoned discussion.

All knowledge is valid, including the inner knowledge that's not yet been proven to others, or validated. Because all knowledge it's based on knowing, which means one knows. I understand if that cannot be quantified or assessed without outside...assessment. And yet, as I said earlier, knowing is by definition knowing. It's knowing whether it's been validated by a scholar, a scientist, an "expert" or what have you.

Jung, when looking for scientific validation for his principle of "synchronicity", was said to say he knows it exists, having had personal experience with the principle he referred to. He was looking for ways to explain or rationalize what he knew.

By faith, I mean arational belief. This means it is a belief that goes beyond rationale or logic. Many of our brain functions operate in such a manner (intuition, emotions). Irrational means it is faulty in reasoning. Given matters of faith cannot be disproven, because they are of a dimension beyond reasoning, and where reason/logic cannot comprehend or fathom, arational or alogical are the terms that apply, and which do not diminish the validity of the faith.

When one tries to logically disprove that which cannot be proven/disproven, one is starting from a flawed premise.

Peace.

decides2dream

6 pages in, and has anyone really provided more information on if indeed this possible program idea would actually be 'forced'...or would it be as it seems from reading in the first post, that it actually would encourage volunteering, voluntarily? and incentives for volunteering, such as getting access to additional federal educational aide, to me, is still nothing even remotely close to force. merely curious.....

TrixieCat

Ok, so I have someone that is trying to get me to support Obama...not that I don't like him, but I was a Hillary girl.
Reading this has really caught my attention.
Slavery??? lol....let's all relax
Anyone that attempts to regain the enthusiasm for public service the way JFK did when he first challenged students to volunteer, is good for me.

lgt

angelica wrote:

I'm glad we are mostly in understanding of one another. I appreciate the reasoned discussion.

All knowledge is valid, including the inner knowledge that's not yet been proven to others, or validated. Because all knowledge it's based on knowing, which means one knows. I understand if that cannot be quantified or assessed without outside...assessment. And yet, as I said earlier, knowing is by definition knowing. It's knowing whether it's been validated by a scholar, a scientist, an "expert" or what have you.

Jung, when looking for scientific validation for his principle of "synchronicity", was said to say he knows it exists, having had personal experience with the principle he referred to. He was looking for ways to explain or rationalize what he knew.

By faith, I mean arational belief. This means it is a belief that goes beyond rationale or logic. Many of our brain functions operate in such a manner (intuition, emotions). Irrational means it is faulty in reasoning. Given matters of faith cannot be disproven, because they are of a dimension beyond reasoning, and where reason/logic cannot comprehend or fathom, arational or alogical are the terms that apply, and which do not diminish the validity of the faith.

When one tries to logically disprove that which cannot be proven/disproven, one is starting from a flawed premise.

Peace.

Cool, I see now what you mean

And I'll check out Jung and his thoughts on synchronicity (I only know the Police album! )