This all is one reason I have been ‘into’ metaphysics for quite a while now Neil. Like you, I had looked around and found most institutions and methods to be at the least disappointing along with one’s own associated sense of disillusionment. Having already explored religion and finding most institutions thereof to be hollow or vapid at best, turning to a larger area, that of metaphysics was but one more attempt at feeling whole. It includes the healthy skepticism you embody along with the physics of the thing. I already had looked into physics in general and saw its value and limitations…the same for mathematics and rhetoric. I ‘did’ the arts for a long time and eventually found even them lacking although I still do appreciate much in this area. And when it comes to politics, the wide divide between ideals and current practices makes such pursuits anathema.
Overall, metaphysics can offer the value of skepticism in the sense of looking for the ‘gold’ and not getting bogged down in your now infamous ‘dross’. Having ‘done’ skepticism in the now traditional arena of reduction ad absurdum and being left ‘empty’ along with intuitively sensing the associated nihilism and its full vacuousness, I continued to explore. Within many schools one’s activity is pointed towards ‘doing’ in the sense of not for one’s self alone but for all of humanity. This orientation has a function and a result. Also, there comes a point where one doesn’t mess so much with ‘the painting’ having recognized the temporary and actual nature of appearances. So, in the Hinayana sense, one reaches a personal state while in a Mahayana sense, one is by clarifying one’s self doing it for us all. Here it all is Vajrayana too. Of course, from the Sufi perspective, self observation is a paramount step. Only when one knows the parameters of the observing locus can one feel any comfort and confidence it that which is observed. Also, there are other methods including the actual reverse, that of observing the apparent external and ignoring the internal. Now, outside of this, regardless of apparently external motivators let alone one’s own idealistic drive, there is no blame for living in the world, protestations for ‘right livelihood’ aside. What has been found before to be distractions now becomes mirrors to the source of all. Even using an outmoded form of inquiry, an analysis of the importance of adapting AND believing the resultant behavior/thinking is reality itself finds its death when eternity and the finality of this life is included. Many consider death at the core of philosophy, I agree. And, there is much ‘dross’ in the literature and even more to the point of impossibility when it comes to current trends. Pat has his focus, Vam his…even lee et al share their paths openly. This never ending process of disclosure, followed by reintegration followed by diffusion again is but a part of the cyclical process. Enough of this waxing poetic/esoteric/stream of consciousness! It is all chitta or mindstuff anyway! Perhaps you will return to the pub, perhaps not. Perhaps a different culture and/or profession, perhaps not. The adventure goes on. Of course, like the Tarot, one starts out as the Fool and after the entire deck is traversed, one returns as a Fool too, however this time with the knowledge of the deck. There are few true mystery schools today and many that do exist are rejected for one reason or another, often replaced with either the meme of the day and/or one’s own philosopher charlatan theory. In health, be well! On Oct 9, 5:20 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I've given up teaching in universities. They have failed to find the > real aims of education and perhaps were always to elitist to be fit > for this purpose. Education is increasingly a vile, trillion-dollar > international business - though I'm very grateful to our local primary > school for its efforts locally - I'd find it hard to fault a > magnificent, caring staff. Yet I would advocate a 'de-schooling' in > order that we could all start learning work across the globe. I make > the proviso that this would have to include armed services working on > a democratic basis - a massive problem. > I took a stance that university education can be technical - but that > this has to be in a wider context of trying to do something decent > with lives and the planet - maybe further in my wilder sci-fi dreams. > One key element concerns teaching people how to learn - this > containing an obvious element about how we come to know what best to > teach, an argument very similar to 'who polices the police'? > > There are no 'blank slates' to teach - even in primary schools. Kids > come from a variety of backgrounds, often very problematic - whether > from poverty or wealth. One issue in deciding what education is about > is the way in which routes through privileged schools and universities > exist and attract parents prepared to pay very high fees. This > applies across the globe. In this model 'education' retains its Greek > origin 'to make like a Duke' - something very elitist and to do with > the sham of meritocracy. Parents believe this privileged form of > education gives great advantages - in the UK you only have to look at > the success of public schools and elite universities in placing > students in professions - a royal route also found in the more > 'egalitarian' France (the book had 'the making of a European business > elite' in the title). I doubt there is any connection between > 'intelligence-talent' and success in this system - but such > meritocracy is only part of what we should be trying to do and should > not lead to the 'success' it does in any case. > > Even most university students have little clue (even on graduation) on > intrapersonal intelligence (to some extent Orn's intraspection), how > to keep learning about insight on skills and the lack of them in the > area. They can't really do research either and will mostly have > actively avoided it. There are frequent claims in class that to be > taught independent thinking and 'finding out' only leads them into > conflict with the 'hymn sheet singing' employers expect. It's almost > impossible to teach anything of value, other than what can be used > technically, either in a science (not many jobs) or as a functionary > (lawyer, accountant, manager, teacher ...) serving interests not to be > questioned. To be teaching at all in a university one is already a > functionary and already not 'universal' in the sense that one's duties > are limited. > > With the Internet, we should be able to make great strides in creating > a free and easily searchable resource for people to learn on their own > - our learned papers should be available to all (most are actually so > vapid no one would want them, which is why they remain so 'secret' - > laughably available at great cost and often mere plagiarism or as dumb > as 'Chicken Soup for the Soul'). Most university teaching is now > located somewhere near what a grammar school 5th form used to get. > > I would want people to explore 'what motivates you, what do you think > motivates others, how might we improve matters' (we can all do this) - > yet this collapses to 'critically evaluate process and content > theories of motivation at work'. The answer to this latter is much > more simple (find the answer in the text book your tutor has given you > and from which her lectures are delivered using notes from the > publisher). We basically rank and grade on this copying ability. I > might set an apparently more complex question that appears radical. > 'Critically evaluate Foucauldian Accounting's Contribution to the > Deconstruction of World Bank Policy' - but this is just the same in > some ways as a shrewd student can find the 'answer' in another text > book. A colleague once announced his students had finally discovered > Gramsci was the answer to everything (and nothing) in one module - > they had simply shrewdly assessed the lecturer's preferences. He was > asking me to remark a brilliant paper zeroed by the lecturer which > equated Margaret Thatcher and Gramsci - actually excellent parallels - > the lecturer merely annoyed his idol had been exposed. > > Beyond this we should be out of the classrooms doing stuff - or at > least organising our students in doing stuff - creating some kind of > valid economy of people doing worthwhile stuff and learning where most > learning takes place - in action. Instead we have a sickening > 'Chinese Bureaucracy' of temporary bookishness. I always wonder what > right I have to teach, what knowledges - yet no such 'reflection' > takes place in regard to the world on offer to work in - even as we > see it burning the planet and with no answer to pre-historic problems > of war, greed and survival. I feel like a chemist making great > discoveries, only for them to be poured into a festering septic tank! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
