More or less, yes. It would have to work at least enough underground so that it does not become an explicit target. Western society has a fantastic media machine that can easily shape the ideas and biases of most of its members. "Forbidden fruit" is an interesting term. I think at least a few (and maybe more than a few) people only find out about the whole "forbidden fruit" thing after it's too late. At least for me, I found that a bit of a shock to discover that the same people who suggested that I follow certain lines of thought had never actually done so themselves as evidenced by their responses as I try to explain where the lines had taken me.LoneBear wrote:So for non-financial education to be successful, it would basically have to work underground in western society, as a type of "forbidden fruit"?aluxon wrote:Interesting question! To a certain extent, the desire for a true education is not something that current society values. Current society (speaking more of western society) values an accumulation of money. Any form of education that supports an unencumbered accumulation of money is therefore desirable. Any form of education that might question whether this accumulation is actually a good thing or maybe question the effects on the environment (in a broad sense) of this accumulation is not desired by society and so society must repress this or suffer its own demise.LoneBear wrote:So, is the lack of desire for true education something that is programmed out by our current society and educational system?
Knowedge should be free in the sense of not costing money to purchase the knowledge itself (people do need to eat though). I think that people should be given knowledge as quickly as it can be assimilated. As you have noted, if this happens too quickly, this knowledge is not assimilated and undesired effects usually happen. If this happens too slowly though, people tend to lose interest in the subject. It has been noted here that the "bright" people in the education system may fall into that category. By assimilated, I mean that the knowledge has gone through the process of being digested and becoming a part of who you are. I don't mean being able to regurgitate an answer on an exam.LoneBear wrote:What are your views on the accessibility of knowledge? I used to believe that knowledge should be free to all. But then, you find that it often moves people faster than they can handle it, and the result is running away rather than moving to higher understandings. Or, it simply makes enemies when someone gets access to truths that they are unable to comprehend, and the fear sets in.
I would note that gaining in intelligence doesn't stop with 4D and that it has been going on since 1D (and possibly before). Back to the question though: unless enough intelligence is acquired, the choice cannot be made. Perhaps the choice could not even be understood. You make a good observation! A true education would be invaluable to gaining the intelligence necessary to become harvestable. It is hard for me to imagine a situation where someone could get to that point without having some attributes of a true education.LoneBear wrote:But what if the old philosophers were correct in equating the spirit with the animus, and that the route to harvestability and ascension to 4th density is thru intelligence? You could not get to that situation unless it is addressed now, in 3rd density.aluxon wrote:As part of the evolutionary process of going from 3D to 4D+, I would expect that at some point the desire to become educated will be present. Whether it is initially acted upon is another question. In the right environment (i.e. 4D+), this should be easy to bring out.
It would make sense if the Ra material is correct, and the Orion group is promoting ignorance to keep this planet from being harvested.
Here I was thinking of Stanley Milgram's earlier work on obedience. This is the electrical shock learning study where someone wearing a lab coat got 66% of the population (replicated internationally) to complete the experiment. This involved having the subjects thinking that they were giving lethal electrical shocks to another person long after the screams had ended. The other person was really just an actor and no electrical shocks were really administered. A film of this used to be commonly shown as part of a Psych 101 class. The study was showing that people tend to follow someone in authority. That can easily be a school teacher, police officer (or other officer of the court -- there are good reasons why the judge sits above everyone else), military personnel, medical doctor, religious leader, etc. This is the simplest way to get people to do what you want them to. If 2/3s of the population would follow someone in a lab coat (never identified as being a doctor or anything) to kill someone, imagine what people would do if there were actual consequences to saying no. Spending time in jail, low marks (or failure) on tests and exams, or more (imagine Nazi Germany though I hope nothing like that will ever happen again). In the experiment, there were very few people who never started it.LoneBear wrote:Could you list or give some examples of these techniques?aluxon wrote:For those who may have a natural desire, this can be fairly easily repressed or discouraged. There are many effective psychological methods for behaviour modification which are used throughout society (including Education).
Another example along the same lines comes from another Psych 101 film about an elementary school teacher in Iowa. On Martin Luther King's birthday, she would run a full day experiment in her classroom. After starting the day talking about King and what he had done, she then proceeded to demonstrate what he was fighting against. She split the class up into 2 groups: perhaps the blue-eyed children and the brown-eyed children. She then rearranged the class so that all the blue-eyed children were sitting together and the brown-eyed children were together. She then systematically complimented the blue-eyed children whenever possible and denegrated the brown-eyed ones. "Great answer Johnny! The sort of thing I expect from someone with blue eyes" "I don't know why I bother! Brown-eyed people are so dull." It took less than 1 hour and the blue-eyed children were right in there with the teacher and the brown-eyed children had no defense. After lunch, she switched things around with the brown-eyed children being superior to the blue-eyed children. In took much less time for the switch to take effect. At the end of the day, she wrapped by explaining that no one is superior to another based on physical attributes and everyone returned to their normal seating. A lesson not easily forgotten! The teacher eventually had to stop this due to parental complaints (the ethics of doing something like that to their children).
I have heard a former student of a Catholic school (a large number of years ago) say that if they could get a child from the ages of 3-7, the child would be Catholic for life. It was apparently much easier back then to involve corporal punishment in schools. I've read in Psych testbooks that B.F. Skinner made a similar comment about children and professions. There are also a number of New Religous Movements that employ behaviour modications techniques (love bombing, separation from former life, promotion of an authority figure, etc) to support themselves. Of course, the military does similar things as well (recruitment, boot camp, working for the President, etc).
Yes. I don't see it being very possible (or desirable) to fully withdraw from society. That may have its own set of potential problems (a la Jim Jones and the People's Temple -- not implying that that is the direction that Sanctuary would take ). It would be easier in a sense to have a high-level of financial independence.LoneBear wrote:So the conclusion I am starting to see here is that Sanctuary, in order to be successful, must be free of the financial encumberences of western society?aluxon wrote:Ultimately, in order to release the repression on a grand scale, society must change enough to value a true education again. I don't see this happening without a lot of upheaval. Society will protect itself at the expense of itself. It will rather destroy itself (if it can) than change significantly.
People have survived for thousands of years without a cell phone. The real question is do they think that they can survive without the latest cell phone (or other gadget or TV show)? For the most part, no. This is one of the things that keeps the current system running. If the normal person in the system wants it or believes that s/he wants it, then they also will do anything to keep it running. To make that kind of a fundamental change in the way people think in a short time frame would probably require some form of mass hypnosis (maybe like the mass media).LoneBear wrote:But what would happen, psychologically, to a person removed from the pressures of modern, commercial society? Can they survive without the latest cell phone?
There are certainly enough distractions to take one's view off of oneself. "Know Thyself" Oracle at Delphi (after all, it's the only thing you're stuck with).LoneBear wrote:The biggest problem most people have with living outside the system, is that the one person they see the most of, is themself.