A Conference on Education

The Founding Fathers warned that a "free people" would not remain free without information, or education. Did the Founders mean formal education or information forthcoming from the government (or leadership)?  And what is eduation after all? It seems that today, we have had those that have "set a new vision" for change, that is to globalize the "nation-state". And globalization has been done in the name of the environment, poverty, and education.

This conference was led by elite educators, a community college President, a representative from a minority group, an innovative thinker, authors, and administrators concerned in general for our country and citizens's  future well-being.

The discussion covered aspects of the changing needs of our society, and the world and the change of the student population. Questions concerning tuition costs, and state budget strains were driving the innovative ideas, as well, as the ethical questions of business taking over such aspects of our culture.

The concern for the students of today, costs of education, the needs of society, and the preparation of the future work-force are all of grave concern. There were no solid solutions, except for the possibility of university "patronage".

University "patronage" is not a different concept, as the university was a "patron" of the Church in the Middle Ages. But, I just wonder how liberal an education might be under the auspices of the Church. We do have historical accounts as to how "open" the Church was to modernity/Enlightenment thinking. And how free are certain forms of learning, such as theology, law and medicine, when they are done under Kant's "form" or structuring of the university?

On the other hand, education under the auspises of government oversight is a centralization, beauracrazation and nothing unlike China's. The Church is a "patron" to the nation-state, as is education, itself in this "model".

Kant believed that the academics in other disciplines, the philosophers, made judgment over these three "higher forms" of education. The practical aspects of 'life', theology, medicine and law were to benefit society's "good", while the leisured philosopher was to "take his time" to understand the "finer things" of life.

Reason or the intellectual aspects of man are what make man different from the animal kingdom, and is to be cultivated, if we believe that civilization is of value. Otherwise, humans are prone to be a pawn of their lower passions. And so it is today, for the most part. The disciplined mind is not valued in our society anymore.

The generation that is facing the university today has been over-stimulated by many media "forms" and information outlets that have impacted how the brain recieves information. The previous way of teaching and learning, via 'content" dissemination is "dull" and "out of date" for most of today's students.

Europe is already establishing "standards" across borders, where information./ education can be shared. This is an 'ideal" concept, but what of the security of the West? How are we to protect against certain information that might be dangerous in certain segments of the world? Or do educators believe that education can be "co-erced" and recieved by these segments, so that change to the students might happen? And what of the governance of education, itself, if it is to be globalized? We see how "mass production" has affected education in our own country, so how do we "do" education in such a "global" context"?

I believe that research has proven that without stimulating the student where he volutarily desires an education, the information is "lost". The information will not be internalized, but disregarded out-right, or defensive strategies of rationalization will occur that support an irrational "worldview". This is what religions do all the time to support their "life".

The recent release of classified information has put many in danger of their lives, because to betray a 'faith" is a betrayal of 'god" which is blasphemous. And such behavior demands accountability and judgment! One will not overcome terror through a naive view of education. Terror is a 'worldview', and an experience of life. Cult de-programmers are needed to overcome such a mind-set.

Perhaps, the view that medicine, law, and theology, as a practical disciplines, should be "useful" under government auspices, since it is to benefit society, instead of individual physicians, lawyers, and individual theologians. Does this mean that those in these disciplines are "pawns of the State" and the philosophers? '

I believe that setting up such a "caste system" does disservice to philosophy itself, as well as underming certain segments of society, because it makes the "elite" more pompous about their certain discipline. And wasn't it the scenario that Nazi Germany set up to do their research? or the Roman Empire? Medicine, law, and theology supported such national ambition. Today, the problem is not with nationalism, but globalism. Whenever a universalization is sought there is a discrimination against another group. This is why the "individual" is important to America's understanding of liberty in individual conscience. A globalized world will be a world run by an identified elite, which will be "out in the open" oppression, because it will be considered "legal"!

I am afraid we are playing into the hands of those that want to destroy America's exceptionalism, as it concerns individual liberties and it will be done in the name of society, or "morality". One will be a communistic leaning, the other will be a theocracy under Shairia.

Now I Get IT (Kant Must Be Proved)

A long time ago when I was in undergraduate school, I had a professor who idealized Kant. He would uphold the value of the "habit of virtue" and "human flourishing". His ideal was acting according to a "standard" of habit, as "human flourishing " was the goal.

Another professor that I had also wanted to do a "study on Kant", just as another liked the idea of an Eastern Christology. These liked the idea of virtue in a world that is filled with dishonestly (The Noble Lie) and personal gain. So, what these aspired to was a behavioral experiment of sorts.

"God was in Christ reconciling the world," The language is theological, but the experiment was a human one. This is a belief in a divinized human being, a saint, if you will. But, can one "create" a saint from the outside, that is, "form" a person by manipulation, and control?

Yes, I think this can and does happen, but not to those who are attuned to such manipulation and controls. These are those who have "understood that language all their lives. And the greater offense is the betrayal of everything that was good, noble and kind in the world. What they thought was to be trusted has left a gaping hole in the heart and life.

What God wants is Personal Sacrifice, as this is True Faith. One is to die for a cause, alto one might not know what the cause is really for. And yet, one is to believe that "God loves them, personally"! No, it is not God loving the Sacrificed; it is God loving others through the sacrifice. This is the life to be embraced, as this is maturity.

 But, isn't this an object lesson to those that want to do such social engineering? and manipulation of the "facts" and the life or another human being? Faith has to be a peronsl choice of value, not an engineered social experiment.

Evil is not understood as an objective, but a personal experience. This justifies what science does to prove the validity of faith. It doesn't seem short of Facist.

Humans might not be equal in all their abilities, but that doesn't negate their individual value. This is why I've been blogging about individualism. Without intellectual humility, "social" or "collectivity" leads to genocide. This is proven by social psychologist. It is group behavior at its worst!

Our nation has gotten to the point of dividing over "the good" or "the right".  And it is collective thinking. And caught in the midst of these fights are those that have lost hope altogether, because of the life left to them.

My brother's suicide taught me that one cannot tell another what is "right", because the personal weight of what seems "the right" might be the "last straw". Was my brother's suicide a lack of faith? Would one judge his life as a life that lacked "character"? I just wonder how his life really matters to those that make such judgments!

"Inception"'s "Perception"....

Tonight, we went to see "Inception", a post-modern, anti-realist movie that had several "messages for me" :). These messages were on human development, human experience, and human memory. The characters as "social constructionists" were not beyond their own human limitations, or ability to remove themselves from thier own pasts, fears, and ability to cope with human experience. These 'leaders' found out that their experiment had real consequences in a real world which did not necessarily result in "good outcomes". Humans are, after all, a subject of their environment, and not objective of it.

On the level of human development, the main character has a hard time removing himself from the past guilt and responsibility of exposing his wife to ideas that seeded in her paranoia and real mental illness. Her "leap of faith" sent her to her death and was based on irrationality and not the real world of experience. His "ideal" was his wife's hope of growing old together, which had been dashed upon the reality of  his wife's real and actual suicide. It was not just, the "symbolic". From that time on, his wife's memory and hope haunted him and prevented him from entering another's reality. He kept projecting his own guilt and anxiety into another's experience. "Faith" in experience was challenged. His life had been defined by faith in the ideal. And 
"the" ideal always remained a hope, but never a reality.

The main character grew to know that the ideal world of "growing old together" or "living happily ever after" was after all a childish hope. He had coped with his dis-illusionment with 'splitting his personality'. In the end, the "wise old man "was re-united with his "youth" of adventure. This time, "the leap of faith", was not based on irrationality, but a realization of the paradox of reality and the real world of human experience. The main character had grown intellectually to embrace a rationale of hope, recognizing the limitations of the choice to commit to a certain viewpoint.

Another character found that his fear of never attaining his father's acceptance, because he kept pursuing the image he imagined his father had for him, was a baseless fear. His 'ideal" was based on a misconception of his father's real intent. He rejected what he really had needed and wanted all along; acceptance, and hope of realizing his own person. He came to find out that his father had saved his childish "toy" and his father had made provision in his last will and testament for accomplishing his hope of attaining his own ends. He was freed from his fear of never measuring up.

The "social constructors" became aware of how their creation and distortion of other "realities" had real consequences in a real world, another's world. This is where the reality of human experience cannot make judgments, or rationalization about another's life, as an "ideal". There is only human experience, human hope and human choice, which makes for a human reality.

I think the movie was a little less developed than "The Matrix", in my personal opinion, but that might have been a conscious decision on the producer/writer's part, as part of the dis-jointed post-modern story about human reality.....

"What Children Don't Know"

"What children don't know, won't hurt them", is a common phrase here, in America. But, what adults don't know does hurt them.

When government is not forthcoming with information to the American people, either through power over the press, or elitist attitudes about policy making, then our "common interests" no longer exist, and we are not duty bound to continue in "the social contract" or we are called to reform the contract. Voting is just the beginning to changing what needs change.

A social contract was to be defined by "equality under law". The law is to protect the liberty of opinion, while limiting governmental oversight. Now, things seem reversed. We seem to be given pablum, because "what the children don't know, won't hurt them". And all the while, we are commended to protect the interest of the public's good. Peace at all costs looses much of what has been paid for in blood.

Our country was founded by those that believed that all were created equal and protected and provided for civil liberties.

Virtue is a relative term, when one faces evil. What is one to do? Submit? Resist? Fight? Surrender? Run? What is one's "duty"?

Kant says to do what you would want to become universal. But, universiality is still dependent on one's values, isn't it? And one's values are individually embraced. That is, unless there is a 'universalized agenda" that would undermine liberty of choosing one's values, or changing one's commitments as life requires.

My grand-daughter's "wisdom" is child-like. She believes that everyone wants the same thing that she does, so she will understand things in a childlike way. But, this is not true to reality. People want different things from life, and that should be allowed in free societies.

So, put away childish things and understand that all are not alike.

Collectivism Leaves Us Demoralized

“The word 'altruism' was coined in the early nineteenth century by the French philosopher Auguste Comte (who also invented the word 'sociology' ). For Comte, altruism is not simple benevolence or charity, but rather the moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good. It should be noted that Ayn Rand did not oppose helping others in need, provided such actions are voluntary. What she opposed was the use of coercion--that is, the initiation of physical force--in social relationships. The doctrine of altruism, in Rand's view, is evil partially because it serves to justify coercion, especially governmental coercion, in order to benefit some people at the expense of others.” -- George H. Smith

"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice -- which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction -- which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as the standard of the good.
"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: "No." Altruism says: "Yes." ...
"As to Kant's version of the altruist morality, he claimed that it was derived from 'pure reason,' not from revelation -- except that it rested on a special instinct for duty, a 'categorical imperative' which one 'just knows.' His version of morality makes the Christian one sound like a healthy, cheerful, benevolent code of selfishness. Christianity merely told man to love his neighbor as himself; that's not exactly rational -- but at least it does not forbid man to love himself. What Kant propounded was full, total, abject selflessness: he held that an action is moral only if you perform it out of a sense of duty and derive no benefit from it of any kind, neither material nor spiritual; if you derive any benefit, your action is not moral any longer. This is the ultimate form of demanding that man turn himself into a "shmoo" -- the mystic little animal of the Li'l Abbner comic strip, that went around seeking to be eaten by somebody.
"It is Kant's version of altruism that is generally accepted today, not practiced -- who can practice it? -- but guiltily accepted. It is Kant's version of altruism that people, who have never heard of Kant, profess when they equate self-interest with evil. It is Kant's version of altruism that's working whenever people are afraid to admit the pursuit of any personal pleasure or gain or motive -- whenever men are afraid to confess that they are seeking their own happiness -- whenever businessmen are afraid to say that they are making profits -- whenever the victims of an advancing dictatorship are afraid to assert their "selfish" rights.
"The ultimate monument to Kant and to the whole altruist morality is Soviet Russia." – Ayn Rand



I think that demoralization happens whenever choice is devalued or denied. And demoralization leads to addictions, and even suicide, because of the demoralization that subsumes individuality. Russia has a high addiction to alcohol, for instance. Suicide happens mostly from those who have been demoralized through crisis in life. Why live, if one has been annihilated anyway?

Christians "use" the term of self-sacrificial "love" to affirm such sacrifice for the 'greater good'. But, this is does not come from a healthy self assessment, but from a needy and perverted way to gain self-affirmation from others.

Jesus has been useful for Christian "moralists" as an example. But, Jesus life was taken by the power hungry religious and the greedy and powerful State. Fortunately, for us, there is a recourse to such greedy grabs for power over the individual in today's modern world.

We must not allow such means an opportunity to gain a foothold under any "moral guise" of "greater good". Otherwise, we will become pawns to dictators, who demand obedience at the costs of our liberty. We must not submit!

New Information on Happiness and How Life and Liberty Intersect

Today, in my e-mail, it was reported in The Happiness Journal that doing volunteer work, alturistic service, etc. made children happier than organized religion, such as prayer, attending church, etc.. Although the e-mail was not detailed, I wondered how they assessed their "subjects". And I wondered if this was the wisdom of the "kingdom of God" that Jesus spoke about...

Is spirituality the utmost goal of a human being? Or is ethical formation in one's duties and responsibilities? One is based on a transcendent Being superintending life and the circumstances of life, while the other view understands man's duty to man, without regard to the supernatural.

The question for me concerning the spiritual aspect is; Is spirituality based on "feeling" rather than organized religion being based on reason? Psychologists deal with personality, as well as behavior. So, my question would be why would a ENFP be understood as "childish" in their spirituality, while a "ISTJ" would be understood as reasonable?

Some years ago I took a personality test and asked the counselor if the results would be skewed because of life events or stressors. She agreed that they could. And it has proven to be true, as my personality type "changed". I have always wondered about their validity anyway.

On the behavior side, was habit formation, such as Kant's duty bound ethics, and the categorical imperative a variable in assessing children? As this would be understood to be discipline for the training of children and in opposition to spirituality? Or is the universal beyond the childish imagination?

And in regards to children and adults, wouldn't an adult have their values clarified enought to decide for themselves what they would be committed to...Does duty come before desire, or is desire something that should be trained and honed? I think duty is religion's law, whereas, desire is art's hope or vision of life purpose.

Again, motivation is also an element to consider when addressing the behavior of subjects. What motivates one person to respond to a need, and another not? What worldviews benefit man's responsible nature, or is there a nature that needs to be trained toward responsiblity? Whether there is an innate responsible nature or not, what hinders or distorts it's development?

All these questions interface the moral, ethical, psychological, spiritual realms that intersect man made in God's image! I don't know the answers, does anyone else?

Oops! Wittgenstein, not Kant

Correction! Wittgenstein was the anti-realist....Kant was the moral idealist...wouldn't Jesus life be understood by Kant as the "ideal", whereas, Wittgenstein would understand Jesus life as a "way of life"based on one's understanding of value, meaning, context, which is a cultural language....etc...