Now that explains your sickness, Neil, and gives you the right to teach the mice to always keep the cats in your house on their highest possible entertainment level.
On 9 Okt., 15:36, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > 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, ho mmight 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 a a shrewd sstudent 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. Hewas > > > 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 ofhe clasassrooms 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 offer to w work in - even as we > > see it burning the planet and wi no answerer 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 festeri septic tanknk! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
