Education

The Institute is a non-profit, educational institution for the public promotion of the ideas and concepts put forth within the context of the Sanctuary Project. This forum is to discuss the structure of the Institute, requirements and the teach/learn and learn/teach systems.
User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3696
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Education

Post by LoneBear » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:16 pm

I was just wondering what people's opinions were concerning the education of the young. If a group is living and working outside the normal, corporate, government structure where public school is not available, it pretty much falls back to home schooling. But, from those I know that do it, it can be a real chore. So, I am asking:

1) Can/would kids teach themselves, if the opportunity and materials were readily available?

2) What interaction should kids have with their elders; I find that kids don't want to be educated, they want to choose role models to base their behavior on. This probably goes back to the "trade skills" days, but is education better in the classroom, or working with someone older to learn practical skills?

And I understand that we really need to fix the role models, not the students, to get positive results!

Starlight*
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

the Will

Post by Starlight* » Tue Nov 28, 2006 5:36 pm

Won't say I'm an expert. But I will share observations, experience/s and interaction with others.

1. What age/s do you refer to?
I would say, yes and no. It depends on the material, age and the interest in it. Kids will eventually have questions and would want assistance.

2. You'll find that parents are usually the one's who set boundaries; that's probably not the answer you want.

What interaction WILL the kid want to have with an elder? Folks are drawn to those they would want to learn from. :) Some elders want to choose who to teach instead of allowing the student to decide for each self.

They would benefit from both the classroom and an individual. In the classroom there is the benefit of not only learning from the teacher, but learning by having interaction with other students. on a one to one, attending to each individual specific needs would also be a benefit. Practical skills could be learned from the younger ones, too; experiences and skill can be different.


The Love of One
*******
Starlight*

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3696
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: the Will

Post by LoneBear » Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:46 pm

Starlight* wrote:1. What age/s do you refer to?
0-14 years, based on the 7-year increments of the zodiac. Not accounting for delayed adolescence, though. I'm assuming old-world, where 14 was pretty much considered adult.
Starlight* wrote:2. You'll find that parents are usually the one's who set boundaries; that's probably not the answer you want.
Boundaries and behavior are two, different things. Mr. Spock from Star Trek was my role model; not my parents, because the Vulcan philosophy was much closer to the ideals I held than Roman Catholic upbringing.
Starlight* wrote:What interaction WILL the kid want to have with an elder? Folks are drawn to those they would want to learn from. :) Some elders want to choose who to teach instead of allowing the student to decide for each self.
That's a good point, and one practiced by all the old mystery schools. Just because a kid "wants it now", doesn't mean they should be able to get it now. Perhaps something I need to personally practice more.
Starlight* wrote:They would benefit from both the classroom and an individual. In the classroom there is the benefit of not only learning from the teacher, but learning by having interaction with other students.
Which provides better education, classroom or home-schooling? The classroom is more efficient, but if one is looking for "quality" over "quantity", which is the best route?
Starlight* wrote:on a one to one, attending to each individual specific needs would also be a benefit. Practical skills could be learned from the younger ones, too; experiences and skill can be different.
What of teaching metaphysics at a young age, such that the original "connection", that most kids seem to have before they are trained out of it, is maintained?

My concern is these "indigo-ray kids", where they seem to have difficulty differentiating between fantasy and metaphysics.

Alluvion
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:37 pm

Post by Alluvion » Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:53 am

Well, before I write an answer and I am curious as to where your question originates LB. Are these children forced to learn the things we care to know? Are you talking general education (the good ole R/R/R) or bringing the university to the adolescent?

As a kid whose gone through both the private and public school systems I have to say the biggest problem with the 'efficiency' of the classroom is that it does not take into account that the rate of progression for each person is completely different. That efficiency should not pull people who are not willing (and their level of interest indicates their readiness) to learn forward to disrupt the environments of those that are ready to progress. I think initial education should begin in a general way, favouring breadth over depth - meaning, more students, more general information, more teachers, etc. Then as you learn you choose your curricular path, from breadth to depth. My head is spinning to much in this, being in school for so long and teaching now makes this issue so much more complicated for me.

To me, the real issue is about balancing between what you want to learn and what you need to learn. What you want to learn is entirely up to you at your pace, but what you need to learn you only know about by experience and by what is shared with you by those who have learned more. A critical issue I pull from my experiences in university for design is that its important each person be given the horrible responsibility of become self-sufficient in thinking, feeling, discriminating and applying. I think its part of the whole 'becoming your own individual' process and its really rough to wrench off the herd-mentality when you aren't raised by a group of people, let alone a couple, who are still deep in the herd. Consequences and choice are naturally the easiest way to begin causing people to either progress or stagnate as they see fit.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3696
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Post by LoneBear » Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:19 pm

Alluvion wrote:Well, before I write an answer and I am curious as to where your question originates LB.
I am updating the Sanctuary Project material on the main site, and was trying to fill in some of the open issues; Education was the first of several.
Alluvion wrote:Are these children forced to learn the things we care to know? Are you talking general education (the good ole R/R/R) or bringing the university to the adolescent?
In the original Sanctuary docs, I found that societies and cultures were the mechanisms to pass on societal (behavioral rules) and cultural (ancestry) knowledge. The parents were typically given the role of enforcement of what society and culture taught. So, in order to perpetuate the society and retain the cultural backgrounds, there is definitely a degree of "forced learning".

I've noticed today that:
1) Government has replaced society for teaching behavioral rules; aka the "Hitler Youth".
2) Parents no longer do the enforcing; they expect society to do it for them.
3) Cultural teaching has been, for the most part, abandoned. People do not know of their ancestry; who and where they came from, and what was held as truths.

I wonder if this is better or worse? From what I've encountered--much worse, since the upcoming generations are barely literate, despite the availability of high-tech devices for learning. Heaven forbid if the power goes out for a week, and they have to survive on their own! There is no "backup" knowledge, and the basic feelings and instincts (aka "common sense") seems to be a thing of the past.

So, is the lack of education, both from trade/apprentice and formalized teaching, responsible for this? Is the system we have good, adequate, or sucks? How should it be done, to assure the survival of the species and the growth of the individual?
Alluvion wrote:As a kid whose gone through both the private and public school systems I have to say the biggest problem with the 'efficiency' of the classroom is that it does not take into account that the rate of progression for each person is completely different. That efficiency should not pull people who are not willing (and their level of interest indicates their readiness) to learn forward to disrupt the environments of those that are ready to progress.
They used to do that, you know. When I was in Jr. High, we had to take aptitude tests, and were assigned to either "A", "B" or "C" classes for each subject; the "A" being the most advanced. But that made the "C" students feel inferior, so that practice was stopped because we all know that self-image is more important than actually knowing anything, and a random mix was put in each class. (Yes, I'm biased because I taught High School and had to deal with that random mix).

I know I greatly benefited from that segregation, because I was always studying with people near my own skill level, and didn't have to wait on the teacher to explain something 15 times to basketball star Mortimer Snerd in the back--as I had to do when teaching, and watching the smarter kids be bored to tears. Why is intelligence penalized these days?
Alluvion wrote:I think initial education should begin in a general way, favouring breadth over depth - meaning, more students, more general information, more teachers, etc. Then as you learn you choose your curricular path, from breadth to depth. My head is spinning to much in this, being in school for so long and teaching now makes this issue so much more complicated for me.
So, start with large class sizes and specialize as people remove themselves from the group mindset, and start discovering who they are and what they want to do?

How would you control advancement in the system? Right now, it is primarily the "calendar year", versus scholastic achievement.
Alluvion wrote:A critical issue I pull from my experiences in university for design is that its important each person be given the horrible responsibility of become self-sufficient in thinking, feeling, discriminating and applying. I think its part of the whole 'becoming your own individual' process and its really rough to wrench off the herd-mentality when you aren't raised by a group of people, let alone a couple, who are still deep in the herd. Consequences and choice are naturally the easiest way to begin causing people to either progress or stagnate as they see fit.
Good thoughts... should individuality be taught from the get-go? Or is that too much for a young child to handle when still out acting like a monkey on the playground?

And what about the concepts of philosophy and metaphysics? If kids knew about the other side of existence, while they were young and still close to it from the incarnative process, perhaps they could retain more? Or would making the veil thinner be a dis-service?

Alluvion
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:37 pm

Post by Alluvion » Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:00 pm

LoneBear wrote:I know I greatly benefited from that segregation, because I was always studying with people near my own skill level, and didn't have to wait on the teacher to explain something 15 times to basketball star Mortimer Snerd in the back--as I had to do when teaching, and watching the smarter kids be bored to tears. Why is intelligence penalized these days?
Intelligent people are harder to control. Intelligent people know that other people need to work hard, and want that for them as well -and thats a big no no. Intelligent people might want to displace the current systems of power that other somewhat intelligent people have happened into. Etc, etc.
LoneBear wrote:
Alluvion wrote:I think initial education should begin in a general way, favouring breadth over depth - meaning, more students, more general information, more teachers, etc. Then as you learn you choose your curricular path, from breadth to depth. My head is spinning to much in this, being in school for so long and teaching now makes this issue so much more complicated for me.
So, start with large class sizes and specialize as people remove themselves from the group mindset, and start discovering who they are and what they want to do?

How would you control advancement in the system? Right now, it is primarily the "calendar year", versus scholastic achievement.
I don't know that I would 'control' it. In a teaching methods course, we were recently talking about abolishing grades in gradschool - its purely pass/fail. Most students who are used going for the carrot-on-the-stick (grades) hate this system because it means they must learn for the sake of learning, not for impressing the teacher, being a 'good boy' or 'good girl', etc. But professors and some students enjoy the absolute freedom and participation this systems allows - the level of work you do is the level of learning you get out of the situation - no one is forcing you to pretend to learn, etc etc, to make marketable and billable levels.

Honestly, the issue with educational institutions are economic and political - abolish money and beaurocratic idealology and teachers can actually teach with students who actually want to learn.
LoneBear wrote:
Alluvion wrote:A critical issue I pull from my experiences in university for design is that its important each person be given the horrible responsibility of become self-sufficient in thinking, feeling, discriminating and applying. I think its part of the whole 'becoming your own individual' process and its really rough to wrench off the herd-mentality when you aren't raised by a group of people, let alone a couple, who are still deep in the herd. Consequences and choice are naturally the easiest way to begin causing people to either progress or stagnate as they see fit.
Good thoughts... should individuality be taught from the get-go? Or is that too much for a young child to handle when still out acting like a monkey on the playground?
I don't think you can 'teach' individuality. Studio has shown me that you can simply be a catalyst. THe two methods that seem to work with design education is either explicitly disseminating a very specific set of curricular tasks to make sure you guide the students along a checklist of items, or stepping back and sort of..dangling the fishook of curricular importance infront of the decisions, choices and vectors they follow. Both activate the student by putting them on the spot to REACT in a way that, later, they may evaluate as either their own reaction or how they have been taught to react. Consequences and choices are a necessary part of design education and I think thats part of the magic of this education - you can fail and bomb in a big way. I've done it many times. And I seem to learn by primarily figuring out what doesn't work, but then I know that.
LoneBear wrote:And what about the concepts of philosophy and metaphysics? If kids knew about the other side of existence, while they were young and still close to it from the incarnative process, perhaps they could retain more? Or would making the veil thinner be a dis-service?
Giving them that information without their own curiosity being the catalyst for it would be presumptuous. I like the eastern addage - when the student is ready the teacher appears. I think the intensity of education must rest with the free-will of the student, and the professor is simly there as a colleague and consultant - what they both agree too, they agree too together. It relieves the pressure of the professor to make sure everyone is at a certain level, and allows them to give in proportion to what the student is giving - those who give less, learn less, and thats their perogative.

Starlight*
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Starlight* » Fri Dec 01, 2006 7:33 pm

I like the eastern addage - when the student is ready the teacher appears.
Thanks, Alluvion, those were my thoughts.
LoneBear wrote:
Starlight* wrote: What interaction WILL the kid want to have with an elder? Folks are drawn to those they would want to learn from. Some elders want to choose who to teach instead of allowing the student to decide for each self.

That's a good point, and one practiced by all the old mystery schools. Just because a kid "wants it now", doesn't mean they should be able to get it now. Perhaps something I need to personally practice more.

when the student is ready, the teacher will appear". Patience, is something many struggle with. Should, eh.......even if they get it now, does it mean they really understand it; and yet, what did they understand. One would need to reach a certain stage of development anyway.
LoneBear wrote:My concern is these "indigo-ray kids", where they seem to have difficulty differentiating between fantasy and metaphysics.
again, all in due time....... "when the student is ready, the teacher will appear". Fantasy is start.

User avatar
Tulan
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Post by Tulan » Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:30 am

I put my hand up for homeschooling and a form of mentoring.

All humans do seem to have a natural curiosity about their environment, but that curiosity tends to ither evolve into a refined and developed preference for the interest becoming a very powerful impetus for movement and discovery in their lives. Or devolves into a mindset of laziness fueled by surroundings that distract rather than inspire (TV, drugs, violent games, etc...). In my idea of a learning environment it would preferably NOT be 'ideal', the children would have (what appears to them atleast) a chaotic schedule with regard to pleasure but a structured schedule in regard to academics (providing a certain pleasure in its predictability, therefore giving them a reason for 'wanting' it).

When 'playtime' is a varied schedule of what they are going to do, when, and where - I also think it important to leave them to their own devices so there is plenty of REAL play time, with physical excercise. Then, regarding TV, computer, etc... that could be allowed but while they are very young, only allowed in a 'communal sense' so there is no isolated time spent with the entertainment and it still allows for a certain amount of social interaction with the community.

Regarding the academics or the 'education', I would say that a broad spectrum coarse work would be necessary (basically similar to what is already done in schools now but with emphasis and the childs curiosity), and could be taught by the parents in their own home to inspire plenty of family bonding and family problem solving while the children are young. Of course the education would be designed and structured to provide some familiarity but also there should be some allowance for the children to explore their personal curiosities within the framework of what is being taught/learnt and create a sense of spontaneity with these 'looser' ends.

As the children progress, more and more communal activities while learning can take place - for example doing a science project with a buddy, or working together on projects - and ALSO making the structure of the system less and less rigid as they become more and more mature to handle making decisions based on what THEY would want to learn driven by their OWN curiosity.

Then by a certain time they seem to have a very well rounded 'broad spectrum' education they would be allowed to pursue their curiosity entirely on their own, BUT, for atleast half the time they have must be spent with a mentor in that general area of interest, whilst allowing them plenty of alone time or student alone time to explore and discover on their own (with a full library at their disposal).

Yet again, at another stage they should be allowed to entirely pursue education as a means on their own. I also remember my teachers in 'school' not really allowing for open-ended thought or creative ideas, so that should certainly be a must in the learning environment.

Now I suppose if this were to work, where the children become as passionate about their own curiosities (whether it is mathematics, gardening, building, hunting, or a bunch of those things) as children these days are as passionate about the next soap showing on tv, then a very independant individual can evolve with a very wide range of capabilities to enjoy life in the 'colony' or 'sanctuary'.

Outside playtime is so important, that is one of the things I am so thankful for - 10 years of outside play time (parents did not allow TV, only occasionally movies) and we had so much open land, that I see it as definitly being a very core and primary ingredient in allowing the growth of a curious child that can have a broad and general joy for his/her life.


Well, just some thoughts, hope it helps.
Ah, you seek meaning? Then listen to the music, not the song. - Kosh Naranek

Starlight*
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Starlight* » Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:30 am

Thoughts, indeed.

I prefer one to one (different ways of looking at it).

And why.......
LoneBear wrote:So, is the lack of education, both from trade/apprentice and formalized teaching, responsible for this? Is the system we have good, adequate, or sucks?

Or is it the lack of desire to want to teach those who are already willing to learn, participate and be an example and illumination to others.
LoneBear wrote:How should it be done, to assure the survival of the species and the growth of the individual?
Starting with the few who are willing.
They used to do that, you know. When I was in Jr. High, we had to take aptitude tests, and were assigned to either "A", "B" or "C" classes for each subject; the "A" being the most advanced. But that made the "C" students feel inferior, so that practice was stopped because we all know that self-image is more important than actually knowing anything, and a random mix was put in each class. (Yes, I'm biased because I taught High School and had to deal with that random mix).

Knowledge and understanding come in different forms. Connect A to B to C and back to A; connected at odd angles but never the less, sounds like the whole to me --geometry.
LoneBear wrote:Which provides better education, classroom or home-schooling? The classroom is more efficient, but if one is looking for "quality" over "quantity", which is the best route?
I see and understand your perspective as you are speaking of the "material on hand" (material being taught). The good news is they both are. Qua-ti-y and qua-l-ity are part of the whole, utilizing them.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3696
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Post by LoneBear » Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:15 pm

Starlight* wrote:when the student is ready, the teacher will appear". Patience, is something many struggle with. Should, eh.......even if they get it now, does it mean they really understand it; and yet, what did they understand. One would need to reach a certain stage of development anyway.

again, all in due time....... "when the student is ready, the teacher will appear". Fantasy is start.
So you are saying that we should abolish the education system, fire all the teachers and shut down all the classes, so these kids can wander around aimlessly, waiting for the right teachers to appear?

Given the state of education in America, I thought that's what we have now--babysitting rather than education--and it certainly isn't working!

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3696
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Post by LoneBear » Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:18 pm

Tulan wrote:When 'playtime' is a varied schedule of what they are going to do, when, and where - I also think it important to leave them to their own devices so there is plenty of REAL play time, with physical excercise. Then, regarding TV, computer, etc... that could be allowed but while they are very young, only allowed in a 'communal sense' so there is no isolated time spent with the entertainment and it still allows for a certain amount of social interaction with the community.
Good observation; one of the things I've noticed these days is that there is far too much structure in "playtime"... the parents are busy scheduling every second of their kids lives, where they will be, who they will be with, and what they are doing, that the entire concept of individuality and free will is pushed into repression in favor of over-socialization.

Of course, over-socialization leads to all sorts of other problems, commonly over-compensation (see: Industrial Society and its Future for some interesting thoughts on that subject.)
Tulan wrote:Outside playtime is so important, that is one of the things I am so thankful for - 10 years of outside play time (parents did not allow TV, only occasionally movies) and we had so much open land, that I see it as definitly being a very core and primary ingredient in allowing the growth of a curious child that can have a broad and general joy for his/her life.
The down side to that being that one can become isolated from cultural symbolism, resulting with no way to express certain concepts either internally or externally.

There is a strong component to life regarding symbolism and allegory; one that is not taught by either parents nor educators. Sometimes, the "right teacher" is a Vorlon.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3696
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Post by LoneBear » Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:22 pm

Starlight* wrote:Or is it the lack of desire to want to teach those who are already willing to learn, participate and be an example and illumination to others.
Teachers always have desire to teach; such a lack would only occur if the student picked the wrong teacher.

Starlight*
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Starlight* » Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:56 am

LoneBear wrote:
Starlight* wrote:
when the student is ready, the teacher will appear". Patience, is something many struggle with. Should, eh.......even if they get it now, does it mean they really understand it; and yet, what did they understand. One would need to reach a certain stage of development anyway.

again, all in due time....... "when the student is ready, the teacher will appear". Fantasy is start.


So you are saying that we should abolish the education system, fire all the teachers and shut down all the classes, so these kids can wander around aimlessly, waiting for the right teachers to appear?
lol, No. You were speaking of the inability for some to differentiate between fantasy and metaphysics; and teaching 0-14 year olds (lol, 0, eh). 'when the student is ready, the teacher will appear' is just a short way of saying, when the student has acquired learning and is ready for the next lesson, through his/her own efforts he will find the teacher. The efforts can be within and/or without. (what a tease, you already know that).

You stated quantity as in the classroom and quality as in homeschooling. Their both part of the whole. There are benefits to both classroom and home-schooling (one to one).
LoneBear wrote:Which provides better education, classroom or home-schooling? The classroom is more efficient, but if one is looking for "quality" over "quantity", which is the best route?

Efficiency in the classroom....., is that all you see? The reason I stated above as I have.

I see quality and quantity, both in the classroom and on a one to one (one and the same,eh).

(thought: what a freaking tease)

The Love of One
*******
Starlight*

Starlight*
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Starlight* » Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:59 am

LoneBear wrote:
Starlight* wrote:
Or is it the lack of desire to want to teach those who are already willing to learn, participate and be an example and illumination to others.



Teachers always have desire to teach; such a lack would only occur if the student picked the wrong teacher.

Heaven! Even the (soles of one's shoe) can teach us something! Ever since I learned from someone, that 'soles' have souls.



If there were such a lack, the student would not be present. Sometimes, the student is the teacher.

Your statement can be rephrased:
LoneBear wrote:Teachers always have desire to teach; such a lack would only occur if the student picked the wrong teacher.


The Love of One
*******
Starlight*

User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

Post by Gopi » Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:06 pm

Hi all,

In the case of education, I think the main part is to eliminate the kind of teaching which focusses on rote learning, I amazed to this day how much of it goes on around me. Another thing, I think which would be useful, is to remove the date and number restrictions for exams... a student should be able to take the exam whenever he/she wishes, and the only criteria for further learning is that the exam must be passed... All or none, no grades.

One thing that has me stumped is the 'get-a-degree-get-a-job-live-a-secure-life' system... which has resulted in a sort of population explosion in education here in India at least. Our batch sizes are so huge...is there no way out of that? Imagine one prof 'teaching' 850 students at once!

As for the role models, I think the apprentice system works best especially during college years, when one has an inkling of where the interest lies. The 'projects' which are done are a good idea to continue with. Requiring the seniors to teach the juniors would be a great way to enhance learning... each class would have people learning in the morning, and teaching in the afternoon, say. This way, they get to teach the juniors, and also to learn from their seniors.

The divide between classroom and home schooling is the classic male/female split... classroom is where you go get stuff, and home-schooling is where you receive lots of stuff.

Gopi
It is time.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Post by Arcelius » Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:13 pm

Gopi wrote:In the case of education, I think the main part is to eliminate the kind of teaching which focusses on rote learning, I amazed to this day how much of it goes on around me.
Rote learning has its place and can be considered to be a starting point though not the only possible one. I do agree that many people stop there and never explore beyond. Or even question many of the things learned by rote. Rote learning can provide a foundation to build upon. If you never build anything on it, it's just a hole in the ground you've fallen into.
Gopi wrote:Another thing, I think which would be useful, is to remove the date and number restrictions for exams... a student should be able to take the exam whenever he/she wishes, and the only criteria for further learning is that the exam must be passed... All or none, no grades.
Wouldn't that be great! One of the shortcoming of the education system IMHO is that is holds back the people who can make a huge difference in the world (i.e. those who learn quickly will usually learn much and be able to create based on their learning).

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3696
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Post by LoneBear » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:03 pm

aluxon wrote:Rote learning has its place and can be considered to be a starting point though not the only possible one. I do agree that many people stop there and never explore beyond. Or even question many of the things learned by rote. Rote learning can provide a foundation to build upon. If you never build anything on it, it's just a hole in the ground you've fallen into.
I believe what Aluxon is pointing out is the difference between "training" (rote) and "education".

In the old days, the first computers had no "instinctual" knowledge of arithmetic functions... what they knew was by "rote" in a sense; even addition was done by a table lookup, where the two digits to be added were indexes into a table, and the table cell was the answer. This is how most of us are trained to add and multiply--the old addition and multiplication tables.

But as we found out with computers, the table solution, though effective, is far from efficient. This is why ALUs (Arithmetic Logic Units) were created, at first to handle integer functions, then later, enhanced to perform floating point math. The process went from rote tables, a mix of tables and hardware (subroutines using math and logic to do floating point), to all hardware (first, a separate math chip, then later integrated into the Processor).

This seems to be the natural progression for the rote systems... memorization, part of which becomes habit/instinct and no longer needs conscious calculation, then eventually becoming all "built in" to the mind.

Another example is typing. I took my first typing class in High School, and it was tough with those mechanical typewriters! But again, done by rote... fff jjj fff jjj... to create associations in the mind with physical actions. I've typed so much in the decades since, that when I type, I don't think of letters, nor even words, anymore. I think of a phrase, and it just shows up on the screen--my fingers just know the sequence of muscle motions to produce the text without thinking about it.

What becomes our instincts is essentially rote learning by the collective unconscious, at various levels (familial, social, cultural, racial, species) of patterns that keep us alive and healthy.

Education, however, is a different matter. Rather than the repetition or memorization process, education appears to be pattern recognition, where one learns to see a pattern in behavior, structure, reason, feeling, emotion... any of the rational valuing functions, and can then apply those patterns to new situations.

It is also interesting to note that "fear" comes from a lack of education! When the rote learning doesn't have a table lookup from memory for some particular situation, either from the collective (instinct) or personal unconscious, the spirit falls back to its education--to see if the situation matches any known pattern. If it doesn't, panic! You don't know how to deal with the situation, and the complexes of the psyche realize that their number may be up.

That is one of the things I loved about REAL science fiction (not horror), like Dr. Who and Star Trek: they educate you with a huge diversity of patterns, which can then be applied in life. One of my favorite references comes from a Dr. Who episode, "The Talons of Weng Chiang", where the Doctor and others encounter a ghost in the basement. New situation for the humans, who panic--but the Doctor, being educated, simply goes, "Oh look... isn't that interesting", and walks over to the ghost, discovering it is a hologram.

What I do with Antiquatis and the RS2 theory site is try to educate... to show recurring patterns in all sorts of disciplines, psychology, mythology, religion, science, biology... and show that the Universe is actually a simple place, once you understand the basic patterns behind it.

It all comes down to that old saying, "Give a man a fish, and he has food for a day. (rote training) Teach a man to fish, and he has food for a lifetime. (education)".

I would think that in childhood, rote learning is essential, sort of like a computer BIOS--a bootstrap to education. The problem with education these days is that the power Elite do not want people to be educated--to think for themselves--because if they do, they'll learn how to fish, and not be doing the Elite's bidding for daily handouts (also called "wages").

I believe education is the essence to this project... educated people who can think for themselves, and CHOOSE to work with others along common lines, because they see the patterns that will result in the evolution of consciousness.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Post by Arcelius » Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:01 pm

LoneBear wrote:Education, however, is a different matter. Rather than the repetition or memorization process, education appears to be pattern recognition, where one learns to see a pattern in behavior, structure, reason, feeling, emotion... any of the rational valuing functions, and can then apply those patterns to new situations.
Most people seem to view higher education (more University/College degrees than skilled trades) as a way to make more money. This may be true (certainly not universally true though) but it is not the most motivating reason to become educated. I think that the most motivating reason to become educated is elucidated by Edith Hamilton when she said:

"It has always seemed strange to me that in our endless discussions about education so little stress is laid on the pleasure of becoming an educated person, the enormous interest it adds to life. To be able to be caught up into the world of thought -- that is to be educated."

Pattern recognition is a very broad topic and like most things, some people do it better than others. Certainly, it would belong to the world of thought and education can be instrumental in developing this skill and applying it appropriately (whatever that really means). Certainly not everyone with a degree could be considered to be educated and not everyone without one could be considered to be non-educated.

Interestingly, I do know that chess Grandmasters play mostly by using pattern recognition while computers play mostly by exhausing as many moves as possible in a brute force methodology (by rote). While computers have beaten chess Grandmasters at chess, it is more because of the specific chess-playing intelligence (pattern recognition) that has been built into them rather than the speeding up of the computers so they can examine more and more moves.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3696
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Post by LoneBear » Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:06 pm

aluxon wrote:Most people seem to view higher education (more University/College degrees than skilled trades) as a way to make more money. This may be true (certainly not universally true though) but it is not the most motivating reason to become educated.
As the Native Americans say, "white man's god is green."

That is not the way it has always been in the University system. Go back 200 years, and you'll see the colleges turning out Statesmen, rather than "politicians"... they went to college to be educated, because they wanted to be educated. Like virtually everything these days, the original intent has been lost.
Edith Hamilton wrote:"It has always seemed strange to me that in our endless discussions about education so little stress is laid on the pleasure of becoming an educated person, the enormous interest it adds to life. To be able to be caught up into the world of thought -- that is to be educated."
Edith Hamilton was a wonderful writer. And IMHO she is right on the mark with this one. I've been teaching in one form or another all of my life. And there is nothing more thrilling for a teacher to find a student who WANTS to learn, because they are interested... not because they are forced to take a class, or are doing it for the money. I realize it's a bit Pythagorean, but look at the scholars the Greeks turned out, 3000 years ago--and still regarded as some of the best thinkers of our time.
aluxon wrote:Pattern recognition is a very broad topic and like most things, some people do it better than others. Certainly, it would belong to the world of thought and education can be instrumental in developing this skill and applying it appropriately (whatever that really means).
Most of my knowledge in this area comes from working with artificial intelligence, back in my college days. A lot of what I teach people is simply the recognition of patterns--extra-sensory skills being one of the prime examples. Many people have TP skills, but don't realize it because they have never seen the pattern in themselves.

I think it is the ability to move outside the scope of a pattern, and make it generic that is the basic difference between education and training. Training uses patterns, but the pattern is locked into a specific task. Education of patterns allows them to be applied as a template to any other field of experience and learning. Examples here being motifs and allegory.
aluxon wrote:Interestingly, I do know that chess Grandmasters play mostly by using pattern recognition while computers play mostly by exhausing as many moves as possible in a brute force methodology (by rote). While computers have beaten chess Grandmasters at chess, it is more because of the specific chess-playing intelligence (pattern recognition) that has been built into them rather than the speeding up of the computers so they can examine more and more moves.
I was around in those days, where the Grandmasters would clobber the computer chess programs, much to the dismay of the programmers! I agree; they didn't get "smart enough" until the Grandmasters were surveyed and all the classic moves were encoded into rule sets.

So, is the lack of desire for true education something that is programmed out by our current society and educational system? Is there a natural desire to be educated, that has been repressed? If so, how does one go about releasing that repression?

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Post by Arcelius » Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:41 pm

LoneBear wrote:That is not the way it has always been in the University system. Go back 200 years, and you'll see the colleges turning out Statesmen, rather than "politicians"... they went to college to be educated, because they wanted to be educated. Like virtually everything these days, the original intent has been lost.
I know. As well, 200 years ago, only those with financial backing could afford to get an education. It is certainly not for everyone and I think part of the problem is that society is trying to push as many as possible to get an "education" (a degree). Unfortunately, not everyone wants a true education and so the Universities have changed. It also used to be that a person's character was one of his/her most important attributes. Few people talk about that anymore and a quick survey of politicians seems to reveal a general lack. Speaking about the Greeks, they were also quite concerned about their character and the Golden Mean and much less so about money.
LoneBear wrote:
aluxon wrote:Interestingly, I do know that chess Grandmasters play mostly by using pattern recognition while computers play mostly by exhausing as many moves as possible in a brute force methodology (by rote). While computers have beaten chess Grandmasters at chess, it is more because of the specific chess-playing intelligence (pattern recognition) that has been built into them rather than the speeding up of the computers so they can examine more and more moves.
I was around in those days, where the Grandmasters would clobber the computer chess programs, much to the dismay of the programmers! I agree; they didn't get "smart enough" until the Grandmasters were surveyed and all the classic moves were encoded into rule sets.

So, is the lack of desire for true education something that is programmed out by our current society and educational system?
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:Is there a natural desire to be educated, that has been repressed? If so, how does one go about releasing that repression?
I think it depends on the person as to whether there is a natural desire to be educated or not. 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.

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). A person must be prepared to buck the system a bit in order to become truly educated (of course, it will not stop there). 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.

On an individual level, I think it is entirely possible to release that repression. I would think that it would be easier on someone if they had mentor or someone modeling a true education to respark a desire to do the same. Even so, it can be a difficult path to trod these days. You must really want to have it or you won't bother with it. I've seen a few highly intelligent, creative, and educated people become entirely marginalized by society simply because they expressed some ideas.

User avatar
BlueEagle
Centurio
Centurio
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:33 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re:

Post by BlueEagle » Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:40 am

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). A person must be prepared to buck the system a bit in order to become truly educated (of course, it will not stop there). 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.
I can speak personally about this. I am going to college not because I think it will teach me something but because it is what my parents expect of me (and what I expect of me) and because it will allow me to make more money someday. When looking for a job, they don't ask if you are a nice guy, they just want to see if you have the right 'education.' No employer wants to teach a person how to work.

In order to change the idea that education if for learning, I would have to be sure that I could make a life doing what I love. Then I could learn, spend real time, not just a few days here and there, learning things. But, I can't be sure that I can make money doing what I love. I would love to go teach people about this stuff. That there is more to life. But, I doubt it would work, because just like me, they are afraid that if they let go, they will fall, and be unable to get back up. (G: What's so bad about falling? If you are falling off a cliff, you may as well try to fly.) It would have to be a major change for people to see education for what it is, not what it has come to be.

I could spend months in a library, but no, I have to go read a text on computer programming for my class. I read the first few chapters of this book by myself before school started, and I had fun with it, and compiled simple little programs. But now that I am in class, it tends to be a pain to read. I don't know why that is. Learning is so much easier and better when it is by choice.
Last edited by BlueEagle on Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Alluvion
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:37 pm

Post by Alluvion » Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:45 am

blue-eagle,
I *COMPLETELY* understand. When I am not taking classes, and nothing is expected of me other than what I put on myself, I learn with an open heart and an open mind and it comes without any effort, in the zen sense. When classes start up, even the things I really care about I have to struggle to put an effort towards.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3696
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Post by LoneBear » Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:22 am

BlueEagle wrote:G: What's so bad about falling? If you are falling off a cliff, you may as well try to fly.
So if flying doesn't work, then...
"...they made a very satisfying thump when they hit the floor!" --G'kar :)

Well, this is one of the reasons that I started the Sanctuary project 26 years ago. To see what true man could do, given the opportunity, away from cultural, social and familial pressures.

But what I found was that when those pressures were removed, that impetus to grow tends to be removed with the pressure. The result: people wandering around aimlessly, looking for someone to follow or tell them what to do, or trying to create problems and confusion, so they have something to complain about.

I just recently got the 1976 DVD musical, "Lost Horizon", which is what I based Sanctuary on, many years ago. Though it is a fiction, what they have in Shangri-La is what spiritual man really needs... compassion, moderation, life without stress or pressure, and all the time in the world to take yourself through the Magnum Opus. It is what the Greeks strived for in Arcadia. But how to recover it, in a society locked in a web of fear?

What conditions need to exist, outside of financial security, to allow you to be and express who you are, and "be all that you can be"?

Starlight*
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Starlight* » Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:29 pm

Since you asked, you go first.

What conditions need to exist, outside of financial security, to allow you to be and express who you are, and "be all that you can be"?


*******
Starlight*

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3696
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Post by LoneBear » Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:30 pm

aluxon wrote:I know. As well, 200 years ago, only those with financial backing could afford to get an education. It is certainly not for everyone and I think part of the problem is that society is trying to push as many as possible to get an "education" (a degree). Unfortunately, not everyone wants a true education and so the Universities have changed.
The mystery schools were interesting in this respect--they were open to anyone, but you really had to work to get accepted. They only wanted people whom were dedicated to learning. On the day of application, 200 people would be sitting outside the school gates, with their qualifications ready. But the gates did not open. Couple days later, there were only 100 people, and still the gates didn't open. After a few weeks, when there were just a couple students left, then he would open the gates and accept his new students. And even if you got in--you couldn't participate! You could only attend class with your back to the lecturer, and could not speak a word for at least the 1st year, because it was assumed you did not understand enough of the fundamentals to ask an intelligent question.

Good observation about schools changing to fit "demand". Reminds me of the Golden Rule. To quote King Id, "he who has the gold, make the rules."
aluxon wrote:It also used to be that a person's character was one of his/her most important attributes. Few people talk about that anymore and a quick survey of politicians seems to reveal a general lack. Speaking about the Greeks, they were also quite concerned about their character and the Golden Mean and much less so about money.
Yep, people suppose to HAVE character, not BE one.
aluxon wrote:
LoneBear wrote:So, is the lack of desire for true education something that is programmed out by our current society and educational system?
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.
So for non-financial education to be successful, it would basically have to work underground in western society, as a type of "forbidden fruit"?

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.
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.
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.

It would make sense if the Ra material is correct, and the Orion group is promoting ignorance to keep this planet from being harvested.
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).
Could you list or give some examples of these techniques?
aluxon wrote:A person must be prepared to buck the system a bit in order to become truly educated (of course, it will not stop there).
Agreed! Let's hear from those stuck in the educational system... Blue, Gopi, Alluvion? Are you going to be assimilated by the University collective, or join the rebels? :)
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.
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?

But what would happen, psychologically, to a person removed from the pressures of modern, commercial society? Can they survive without the latest cell phone?

The biggest problem most people have with living outside the system, is that the one person they see the most of, is themself.
aluxon wrote:You must really want to have it or you won't bother with it. I've seen a few highly intelligent, creative, and educated people become entirely marginalized by society simply because they expressed some ideas.
Very true. Society is not exactly "receptive" to change, particularly radical change. One of the reasons that the mystery schools were secret societies... it tends to be an either/or situation. Either you pursue the knowledge, or sucumb to the pressures of conformity.

Interesting conversation, Thanks!

Post Reply