Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:03 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:07 pmGreta, Belinda, and A_uk are all concerned with governments. But if governmentts just reflect what we are, how could they be any different from what we are?

Actually, I asked because for dozens of pages you have talked about how schooling must become more religiously based. You may quibble and say you are not aligned with those *ptui!* secular religions but that leaves a question as to what you actually want.

If you want schools to change their syllabus generally that is political. That is concern with governments. That is your concern.

Now maybe you will answer my earlier question as to what you actually want?

What I want is no longer possible in public schools. Secular intolerance has won the day and the young are being indoctrinated into service to the great Beast. One has to know when to throw in the towel. I surrender. That is why I encourage private education of a type built on esoteric principles or recognition of the nature of the inner man.

Anyone can verify the tripartite soul or nature of Man. We have a mechanical, emotional, and intellectual nature that function as separate parts out of balance. Each person has an inclination. The ideal for a human education is to harmonize the inner man

Without getting into details, human education should include gymnastics and exercises to calm the body. Music, arts, mythology, of a certain quality should be introduced to arouse the mind and heart in an enjoyable manner to feel beyond the mundane rather than indoctrinate or suppress them as is done now. Along with critical thinking, special attention should be made to open the student to conscious knowledge of the “good” in the Platonic sense: to create an opening to the third direction of thought.

None of this is possible now because of secular bias. Gymnastic invites law suits and gender disputes. Arguments over emotional quality makes teaching objective emotional quality impossible. Arguments over the “good” and the assertion that God must be kept out of secular schools prohibit opening the mind through anamnesis. Needless to say, secular intolerance will prevent a human education in favor of secular indoctrination into the beliefs of the Beast ignoring the question of objective human meaning and purpose in relation to the Good which is the foundation of a human education.

I cannot imagine a better education for the very young than what is provided by the Blue Rock School. Obviously such schools and their teachings are rare but the young who experience it as opposed to learning the art of putting condoms on cucumbers are indeed fortunate.

http://www.bluerockschool.org/

Nick_A wrote:...
I cannot imagine a better education for the very young than what is provided by the Blue Rock School. Obviously such schools and their teachings are rare but the young who experience it as opposed to learning the art of putting condoms on cucumbers are indeed fortunate.

http://www.bluerockschool.org/

Looks like a good education and pretty much completely secular with not a hint of your proposed religious indoctrination.

From the sounds of it you are for STD's and early pregnancies, so much for the girls position in life then and contrary to what you think boys also find knowing how to use a condom a handy skill.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:37 am

Nick_A wrote:...
Yes I support the young still spiritually alive with the need and courage to "know thyself" in the context of what is greater than themselves in pursuit of objective human meaning and purpose. It isn't easy remaining normal in the presence of the spirit killers intimidating them into becoming spiritually blind atoms of the Great Beast through the denial of the quality of consciousness and impartiality necessary to "know thyself."

How are you supporting them?

How are you 'knowing yourself'?

What are you actually doing?

You are asking me to describe spiritual practices without preparation. That is a bad thing to do

I live in NY and will have two meetup groups in the fall. The first will be on "Simone Weil: a Seeker of Truth" It will be an exploration into her individuality raising the question if it is a good or bad thing. How do we accept a person beyond classification in the modern age when all we have are collectives. If people come and want to explore her ideas on a monthly basis, we'll start a group open to her ideas on reality. Hopefully it will inspire thought for the sake of truth as opposed to political correctness.

The second will be a discussion on the many meanings of a famous painting which arouses the feeling of awe and wonder by an ancestor of mine. If it provides the sensation of what we are losing it will be worthwhile.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:06 amWhat I want is no longer possible in public schools. Secular intolerance has won the day and the young are being indoctrinated into service to the great Beast. One has to know when to throw in the towel. I surrender. That is why I encourage private education of a type built on esoteric principles or recognition of the nature of the inner man.

Anyone can verify the tripartite soul or nature of Man. We have a mechanical, emotional, and intellectual nature that function as separate parts out of balance. Each person has an inclination. The ideal for a human education is to harmonize the inner man

Without getting into details, human education should include gymnastics and exercises to calm the body. Music, arts, mythology, of a certain quality should be introduced to arouse the mind and heart in an enjoyable manner to feel beyond the mundane rather than indoctrinate or suppress them as is done now. Along with critical thinking, special attention should be made to open the student to conscious knowledge of the “good” in the Platonic sense: to create an opening to the third direction of thought.

None of this is possible now because of secular bias. Gymnastic invites law suits and gender disputes. Arguments over emotional quality makes teaching objective emotional quality impossible. Arguments over the “good” and the assertion that God must be kept out of secular schools prohibit opening the mind through anamnesis. Needless to say, secular intolerance will prevent a human education in favor of secular indoctrination into the beliefs of the Beast ignoring the question of objective human meaning and purpose in relation to the Good which is the foundation of a human education.

I cannot imagine a better education for the very young than what is provided by the Blue Rock School. Obviously such schools and their teachings are rare but the young who experience it as opposed to learning the art of putting condoms on cucumbers are indeed fortunate.

In other words, you'll like schools to adopt the Steiner model.

I like that but it's not "secularism" but competition that is the issue, competition for university places. The more people you have, the more competition there is for everything, and all good and beautiful things are "rationalised out". I noticed that in the workplace how, every time a job presented some enjoyable aspects you could be sure it would be taken away and replaced by policy straitjackets.

The more people there are, the more they need to be organised to prevent chaos. Look at how people are living in India.

This process of rationalising has been in train for centuries, at least. People 100 years ago would find the controls of today's modern living intolerable, and this generational tension has always existed. We are logically most adapted the decade of our formative years so the inevitable changes that occur over time will usually not be welcome.

Nick _A quoted:

What is needed is a either a new understanding of God or a new understanding
of Man: an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific
mind, while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the
heart; or an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal
weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we are meant to be– both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose.

It's true that what Nick calls 'secularism' lacks the colourful foundation myths and rituals that religions teach. 'Secularism' teaches morality by way of the arts, especially the tellers of stories. For 'seculars' one of those many stories may well be the main stream Christian story with or without folk insertions such as the Christmas story . 'Seculars' however want the Christian story to be told as story, not as history. 'Seculars' don't want children to be taught any myth as if it were history. If this is done it's child abuse.

So how do teachers teach morality without also teaching some specific religion? What morality is taught, and how is this morality taught?

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/ ... te-schools

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/a ... es/492866/

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/a ... ht/499940/

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... on/275585/

The last of these articles addresses how character education is done in a forward-looking secular school in America.



Nick , what you would replace those traditional religions with is still religion. What you want would be another man- made institution . Indeed the hierarchical , quasi-Platonic, model that you recommend is inherently more autocratic and infested by social class than main- stream Christianity which teaches the more inclusive, egalitarian ethic of Jesus.

Belinda

It's true that what Nick calls 'secularism' lacks the colourful foundation myths and rituals that religions teach. 'Secularism' teaches morality by way of the arts, especially the tellers of stories. For 'seculars' one of those many stories may well be the main stream Christian story with or without folk insertions such as the Christmas story . 'Seculars' however want the Christian story to be told as story, not as history. 'Seculars' don't want children to be taught any myth as if it were history. If this is done it's child abuse.

If the Christian myth is based on a lie, it shouldn’t be taught and secularism is right to keep Christianity out of schools. Secularism by definition cannot know better which is why private schools are necessary.

So how do teachers teach morality without also teaching some specific religion? What morality is taught, and how is this morality taught?

External morality is only necessary because the human condition has forced the loss of the normal human ability to experience objective conscience. External conditioned morality has taken the place of conscience inviting all the hypocrisy normal for indoctrination. A human education would enable students to “remember” what is normal for the human essence

From the Character Education link

When I asked parenting expert Borba to explain why she thinks character education is so overlooked as a vital part of children's success, she wrote, "That's what parents don't seem to get, the hidden values of character traits for success. They see character education as fluff, because that's often how it's taught -- posters and worksheets. Character education needs to be relevant. It needs to be woven in curriculum, not tacked on. We are such a trophy-, SAT-obsessed society, but if parents would recognize the value beyond the humanness, civility and ethics, they might get it."
Here on our campus, our marshmallow is a duck. Our students must weigh their desire for a quick peek at Mom Mallard with the promise of ten ducklings waddling around our playground in 28 days. If everyone, even the youngest, most impulsive kindergarteners, can learn to exercise self-control, we will all benefit.

Secularized religion has replaced experiential education with posters and worksheets in the attempt to produce character through indoctrination. Objective conscience requires opening to the experience of higher consciousness to remember what has been forgotten.

Secular morality as described in the link is defined by pragmatic results. Leave the mallard alone if you want more ducks. Conscience if allowed to function would show concern for the mallard protecting her young. This is old fashioned. Modern morality must serve immediate pragmatism so screw the mallard and think of more ducks.

As Weil would later admit, her belief in the value of sacrifice was shaped in great part by a story she heard as a child. Sitting at the bedside of her three-and-a-half-year old daughter, who was in the hospital recovering from surgery for appendicitis, Selma Weil entertained Simone with the tale “Marie in gold and Marie in tar.” As Weil friend and biographer Simone Pétrement explains,

The heroine of this fairy tale, who was sent by her stepmother into the forest, reaches a house where she is asked whether she wants to enter by the door in gold or the door in tar. ‘For me,’ she replies, ‘tar is quite good enough.’ This was the right answer and a shower of gold fell on her. When her stepmother saw her bring back gold, she then sent her own daughter into the forest. But when asked the same question, her daughter chose the golden door and was deluged with tar.”

For Weil, “tar”—whether in the form of physical suffering or intellectual obscurity—was always “quite good enough.”

Modern morality in a secular society places the individual and their rights as the deciding factor. The Great Beast is supreme. Awakening to conscience or a goal of a human eduction reqires opening to a higher level of reality and the source of objective conscience. It awakens the value of voluntary obligations which makes rights possible. The prized golden door promised by secularism will produce tar and the humility of human education which requires awakening to the higher source of humanity will produce gold.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:06 am Obviously such schools and their teachings are rare but the young who experience it as opposed to learning the art of putting condoms on cucumbers are indeed fortunate.

http://www.bluerockschool.org/

Why are you opposed to young people learning how to use condoms and other sexual facts of life? Are you such a spirit killer of the erotic in the young that you would condemn them to STDs and unwanted pregnancies?

Oh wait, never mind. Sex is part of Plato's Cave, the Great Beast, and Secular Intolerance. See, Nick? I've spared you the need to recycle your nonsense yet again.

Nick wrote:

If the Christian myth is based on a lie, it shouldn’t be taught and secularism is right to keep Christianity out of schools. Secularism by definition cannot know better which is why private schools are necessary.

Do you understand that a myth is wholly or in part a fiction which can or did once describe the human condition?

Sometimes real historical events are mythologised because they sum up the human condition and perhaps also show how we may live .

Historical events are not supernatural events such as occur in the Christian myth. It is wrong to tell the Christian myth as history but right to tell it as a story which may or may not be edifying. There are Humanists and/or atheists who are encouraged by the teaching and example of the man Jesus.

I regret that I don't know how I or anyone else could teach you, as you show no curiosity about any ideas apart from your own fixed views.

Nick wrote in reference to my link to an Atlantic article about a progressive school in America:

Conscience if allowed to function would show concern for the mallard protecting her young. This is old fashioned. Modern morality must serve immediate pragmatism so screw the mallard and think of more ducks.

Don't despair. I can assure you that there are progressive schools that teach morality such that a moral choice would exclude an expedient option. As I said previously very young children show evidence of inborn sense of fair play. If any school tries to kill this innate moral sense that school should be closed down, or taken over by better management.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:10 pm Nick wrote:

If the Christian myth is based on a lie, it shouldn’t be taught and secularism is right to keep Christianity out of schools. Secularism by definition cannot know better which is why private schools are necessary.

Do you understand that a myth is wholly or in part a fiction which can or did once describe the human condition?

Sometimes real historical events are mythologised because they sum up the human condition and perhaps also show how we may live .

Historical events are not supernatural events such as occur in the Christian myth. It is wrong to tell the Christian myth as history but right to tell it as a story which may or may not be edifying. There are Humanists and/or atheists who are encouraged by the teaching and example of the man Jesus.

I regret that I don't know how I or anyone else could teach you, as you show no curiosity about any ideas apart from your own fixed views.

Nick wrote in reference to my link to an Atlantic article about a progressive school in America:

Conscience if allowed to function would show concern for the mallard protecting her young. This is old fashioned. Modern morality must serve immediate pragmatism so screw the mallard and think of more ducks.

Don't despair. I can assure you that there are progressive schools that teach morality such that a moral choice would exclude an expedient option. As I said previously very young children show evidence of inborn sense of fair play. If any school tries to kill this innate moral sense that school should be closed down, or taken over by better management.

I regret that I don't know how I or anyone else could teach you, as you show no curiosity about any ideas apart from your own fixed views.

What essentially in your opinion am I missing that the cast of characters responsible for my current understandings were and are oblivious of?

davidm wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:23 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:06 am Obviously such schools and their teachings are rare but the young who experience it as opposed to learning the art of putting condoms on cucumbers are indeed fortunate.

http://www.bluerockschool.org/

Why are you opposed to young people learning how to use condoms and other sexual facts of life? Are you such a spirit killer of the erotic in the young that you would condemn them to STDs and unwanted pregnancies?

Do you know the relationship between the energy of love and sex energy? Do you know the purposes of sex energy or its relationship to respect for life as a whole? You are only concerned with placating secular misconceptions. Why are you opposed to understanding and so easily satisfied with the superficial? The idolatry of the protected cucumber. Who can defy such dedication.

Greta wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:02 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:06 amWhat I want is no longer possible in public schools. Secular intolerance has won the day and the young are being indoctrinated into service to the great Beast. One has to know when to throw in the towel. I surrender. That is why I encourage private education of a type built on esoteric principles or recognition of the nature of the inner man.

Anyone can verify the tripartite soul or nature of Man. We have a mechanical, emotional, and intellectual nature that function as separate parts out of balance. Each person has an inclination. The ideal for a human education is to harmonize the inner man

Without getting into details, human education should include gymnastics and exercises to calm the body. Music, arts, mythology, of a certain quality should be introduced to arouse the mind and heart in an enjoyable manner to feel beyond the mundane rather than indoctrinate or suppress them as is done now. Along with critical thinking, special attention should be made to open the student to conscious knowledge of the “good” in the Platonic sense: to create an opening to the third direction of thought.

None of this is possible now because of secular bias. Gymnastic invites law suits and gender disputes. Arguments over emotional quality makes teaching objective emotional quality impossible. Arguments over the “good” and the assertion that God must be kept out of secular schools prohibit opening the mind through anamnesis. Needless to say, secular intolerance will prevent a human education in favor of secular indoctrination into the beliefs of the Beast ignoring the question of objective human meaning and purpose in relation to the Good which is the foundation of a human education.

I cannot imagine a better education for the very young than what is provided by the Blue Rock School. Obviously such schools and their teachings are rare but the young who experience it as opposed to learning the art of putting condoms on cucumbers are indeed fortunate.

In other words, you'll like schools to adopt the Steiner model.

I like that but it's not "secularism" but competition that is the issue, competition for university places. The more people you have, the more competition there is for everything, and all good and beautiful things are "rationalised out". I noticed that in the workplace how, every time a job presented some enjoyable aspects you could be sure it would be taken away and replaced by policy straitjackets.

The more people there are, the more they need to be organised to prevent chaos. Look at how people are living in India.

This process of rationalising has been in train for centuries, at least. People 100 years ago would find the controls of today's modern living intolerable, and this generational tension has always existed. We are logically most adapted the decade of our formative years so the inevitable changes that occur over time will usually not be welcome.

Education should provide a foundation for becoming a conscious human being. The human condition has made it so that we don’t know what it is. We create faulty foundations for education. As you suggest as society becomes more complex rationalization natural for a faulty foundation produces chaos. That is what we have now; chaos and fine speeches. It is clear that the situation is hopeless in a secular society which denies the normal human connection to higher consciousness and intensifies its denial through egoistic secular intolerance.

That is why my concern is for the young minority capable of gaining from a human education based on a realistic foundation which requires the rejection of the negative emotion of secular intolerance

Nick_A wrote:Do you know the relationship between the energy of love and sex energy? ...

Yes.

Do you know the purposes of sex energy or its relationship to respect for life as a whole? ...

Yes. But there is no 'life as a whole', this is a reification as there are only living things.

You are only concerned with placating secular misconceptions. Why are you opposed to understanding and so easily satisfied with the superficial? ...

I'm not, I'm interested in kids not getting STD's because they are embarrassed about using a condom. I'm interested in girls not having accidental pregnancies through ignorance.

The idolatry of the protected cucumber. Who can defy such dedication.

You got any kids?

Nick_A wrote:You are asking me to describe spiritual practices without preparation. That is a bad thing to do

Why, what is this preparation? As surely one has to be told or shown beforehand what one is to practice?

I live in NY and will have two meetup groups in the fall. The first will be on "Simone Weil: a Seeker of Truth" It will be an exploration into her individuality raising the question if it is a good or bad thing. ...

Why would her individuality be a good or a bad thing? Although I'm unsure what you mean by her individuality as her form of Christianity has been around many times.

How do we accept a person beyond classification in the modern age when all we have are collectives. ...

You just classified her? And on top of that you are trying to make a collective about her ideas.

If people come and want to explore her ideas on a monthly basis, we'll start a group open to her ideas on reality. Hopefully it will inspire thought for the sake of truth as opposed to political correctness. ...

So basically a philosophy group, good luck to you.

The second will be a discussion on the many meanings of a famous painting which arouses the feeling of awe and wonder by an ancestor of mine. If it provides the sensation of what we are losing it will be worthwhile.

Which painting is this?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:04 pm

Nick_A wrote:You are asking me to describe spiritual practices without preparation. That is a bad thing to do

Why, what is this preparation? As surely one has to be told or shown beforehand what one is to practice?

I live in NY and will have two meetup groups in the fall. The first will be on "Simone Weil: a Seeker of Truth" It will be an exploration into her individuality raising the question if it is a good or bad thing. ...

Why would her individuality be a good or a bad thing? Although I'm unsure what you mean by her individuality as her form of Christianity has been around many times.

How do we accept a person beyond classification in the modern age when all we have are collectives. ...

You just classified her? And on top of that you are trying to make a collective about her ideas.

If people come and want to explore her ideas on a monthly basis, we'll start a group open to her ideas on reality. Hopefully it will inspire thought for the sake of truth as opposed to political correctness. ...

So basically a philosophy group, good luck to you.

The second will be a discussion on the many meanings of a famous painting which arouses the feeling of awe and wonder by an ancestor of mine. If it provides the sensation of what we are losing it will be worthwhile.

Which painting is this?

You must understand that spiritual practices can be taken wrongly so cause more harm than good. That is why such things are done in person.

Why would her individuality be a good or a bad thing? Although I'm unsure what you mean by her individuality as her form of Christianity has been around many times.

People are often wary of what cannot be classified. It makes a person feel insecure. Simone is an individual beyond classification. Simone Weil was a brilliant young Marxist and atheist admired by Leon Trotsky and Albert Camus who died a Christian mystic and intellectual influence on Pope Paul VI. "Weil came to her philosophical and religious ideas by a path that included elite university training, factory work, potato digging, harvest in the vineyards, teaching philosophy to adolescent women, partisanship in trade unions, anarchistic Socialism, pacifism, rejection of pacifism, a conversion experience that did not lead her to joining ... a religion, exile in New York City, and employment by De Gaulle's government-in-exile in London."

What collective does she belong to?

So basically a philosophy group, good luck to you.

The modern way is to debate philosophy. I am proposing a discussion about how these ideas effect us. Simone effects people personally. We may as well discuss the experience

Which painting is this?

I’d rather not discuss it on a site which may feel free to be rude. It isn’t just personal to me but many Russians, Armenians, Greeks, etc. hold it in high esteem. Why risk abuse which would never happen during an in person art discussion?

Do you know the purposes of sex energy or its relationship to respect for life as a whole? ...
Yes. But there is no 'life as a whole', this is a reification as there are only living things.

So what is this relationship?