Re: Re: digest #242 (on education)
Jun 24, 1998 09:17 PM
by Annette Rivington
> Problem seems to be that a few others do not recognize nor care to ponder
> whether there is any bit of "trouble" in their way of thinking on this issue
> - are they trying to benefit children or themselves? Many adults tend to
> see children as mini-clones of themselves. . .and end up simply mucking it
> all up. . .or worse.
You know, Kym, I've had about 2 hours sleep since Sunday trying to be
all things and I go into work and people are like ENMESHED in some
reality that I don't know whether to laugh hysterically at or cry
pityfully about (stike that, pity and tears are OUT). Thinking things
through is the last thing on their minds!
> True, but that appears to be an individual teacher or school principal
> problem - not the public-school philosophy in general. You're right, though
> - for example: it is well known that boys are given much more attention by
> teachers than girls are. . .many studies by sociologists have reflected this.
Actually, I was thinking equally as much of what students do to other
students, which of course parrots what their parents do to other
> If the Execs and other employees of your company kept
> their children in the public schools, they could be more involved and aware
> of the problems. They would, since their children were there, be more
> motivated to solve such problems - and many more children would receive the
> education all children deserve.
Admirable concept. You'd have to legislate it though and make
punishment for failure to comply at the least a public announcement and
at the worst taking away their rosewood desks and business attire!
By the way, some professor up here is giving a "ground breaking"
university course on life skills, problem solving and thinking things
through. The newspaper article continues: "and, surprisingly, the
students taking this course appear to be getting higher grades in their
> >propaganda, authoritarianism and prejudice are and would be part of the
> >curriculum, and what better way to eradicate them in the long term than
> >by insisting that a young learner follow them to the letter?
> I don't quite understand what you are saying here - could you please further
> explain what you mean? Are you saying we should put children under the yoke
> of authoritarianiam and prejudice and that will turn them off so much that
> they will not practice it as adults? If so, how does one explain the
> success of the Hitler Youth? Have I misunderstood you?
No, I am saying that these things are in existance and provide the ying
for the yan to blossom. I wasn't thinking of anything like the Hitler
Youth Movement, more like compulsory physical education scantily clothed
on a freezing winter morning when the fat kids were singled out and made
to jump the horse, nearly killed themselves, and were shouted at for
being failures. Like when I went to school!
I was just trying to verbalize a concept of needing the -ve to
experience the +ve, in a guided and controlled setting.
And now for something completely different:
A quote from the book I just read that warmed the cockles of the
feminine part of my being....
"I, like most men, was a "wanter" rather than a "giver". I was inwardly
wimpy - weak. Most women want a man that is inwardly strong, and not
"needy" of them. That goes EVEN MORE SO for higher consciouness women.
And even *higher* consciousness women also want one who is at least
dedicated to god and achieving enlightenment, if not already
That's my comment on the Asian financial situation.
I think I'm in love! But it's written by a Bhuddist monk - oh no, not
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application