Senaste inläggen

Av dennis hägglund - 11 november 2008 09:38


This may seem an overly familiar posting judging from the way it begins, but it is not merely a "Let's all get behind the environmentalist cause!" rant.

See how the birds fly. How economical is grace! Why should people fly, when it costs so much to fly without such grace? How did effort become a virtue? Nature never made any bipolar creatures, and punishment and reward, misery and relief, pain and pleasure, etc., have no place in evolution. Evolution is pure passion. Arrogance, audacity, fickleness; these are such unsustainable attitudes! Along with the greed that cultivates them: please eat more, fly more, burn more, etc.; and of course, work more, as if more work did not ravage more.

Can we discover why people have to eat an amount their bodies actually resent? Why they have to smoke, or drink or take pills? Is it so hard to love the world, to love living, to find it profound, to be fulfilled in the sane and universal way? It is not the world that bores a person so that he becomes restless and must fritter away the waking hours with familiar vices, even though the conscious, where the thinker resides and decides what the world is made up of, would refute this. It is the person’s upbringing makes it seem boring, which is to say, family, neighbors, teachers, preachers and the various media which bring us the celebrities from politics and entertainment. His upbringing has adapted him to ignore the profound and submerge himself in the sea of human endeavor, the sea of things that require the push of advertising agencies, things that cloud ones view of the cosmic depth of what evolution had accomplished before man became the next extinction level event.

If we truly mean to save the world, to restore the dignity of Earth and the star that still bothers to keep it warm, we must obviously reinvent the civilized man and woman. We must produce a generation of people who do not miss the real beauty of living, so that they don’t have to burn up the world as an opiate.

There is not one man or woman on Earth who can truthfully say, "I believe education and upbringing should lead to people thinking the kind of thoughts that constantly run through my head each day.”. (I stress the word truthfully!) Human thought, once it has become a private indulgence (which is usually shortly after puberty), is actually an affliction. Presumably we have all heard a little of the dissection of it: Messiah Complex, Superiority Complex, Superego, etc. Thought circulates around one thing, self, and actually presumes the existence of a God who agrees with this fixation, saying, "Yes, you and only you are also My only concern!".

There are extremely few men and women who could even say, truthfully, that they believe education and upbringing should lead to the more careful and disciplined reasoning processes they have achieved, the conclusions they have reached. So, to be honest, we all have to admit that it has not been working. We were educated, brought up, and it was not at all done rightly. The teachers won, and the students lost.

People have made a lot of money on us, despite this failure to cultivate our humanity. When people make a lot of money on something the ones who gain this money get together as a ruling or governing body and say, "Oh, look! It’s working perfectly!”. How does it happen that such reckless reasoning governs education and upbringing? Of course it is our own fault for being such sheep, and our own fault for assuming that the only other thing there is to be is a wolf.

How does one save a child from this petrified and fossilized kind of education and upbringing? To begin with, by not subjecting him to the words and devices we produce from our thoughts! Thought gives us things to say and do. To not say and do them is the seed of seriousness. The younger the child is the more horrid the offense of thinking about what to say and do to him.

Av dennis hägglund - 7 november 2008 22:09


We can buy a dvd with a really solid natural history class on it. Why is a teacher exempt from the requirement to produce a valuable product? Is it budget and time pressure, the way a weekly television series can't hold a candle to a Hollywood movie? Or is it just that no one but the student is watching, and the student has little or no ability to criticize education, having so little of it?

If we put teachers on the spot by making a dvd of every class they teach we will automatically upgrade education. We can also watch these teachers on the Internet while they are teaching, making it more interactive. How many parents would have to call the school about a class going wrong, a drunken teacher for example, before the children were rescued? Why, in a time when so many of us have the opportunity to be there, would we delegate the care of our children's development? Is it just a habit? Does it take time to adapt to and adopt new technology's potential?

Put a camera in every classroom, and keep it pointed at the person who is getting paid to attend. If he moves around there are devices that can be applied to keep the camera both aimed and focused on him. The student can then repeat things from A to B at his liesure. The parents can vote with real certainty whether or not a teacher ought to be teaching a particular class. And future students can refer back to see if the same class has ever been taught better.

Also there is the question of segregating classes according to scholastic aptitude. Parents can also vote with clearer insight on this issue if they watch how much or how little the slower children's attendance delays the process of educating the quicker ones, and how much or how little the quicker children's accelerates the slower ones.

The cost is nothing compared with the cost of political fencing around the education issues. You don't fine tune a broken telly; you replace it.


Teaching, if one wants it to be a profession or expertise instead of just an exercise in clock-watching, is a commitment, and a commitment is a decision or determination to separate oneself from the flock, to resist some aspect of the mass migration into the moral underworld. We need to draw a line and condemn stepping over it, even though everyone does step over it, and in this simple thesis which is not designed for the exclusive study by the exceptional person, this line is sexual.

Is it possible to derive sexual stimulation from people without them finding out about it, and what are the factors involved? If I derive sexual stimulation from you, for example, without your knowledge, how is it done? First I have to find you a likely candidate, and then you have to remain oblivious to this development in our relationship. Then I push the envelope; I become more and more bold; I experiment with your naivety, trust and insensitivity to this kind of abuse. What I find, if I do this a lot, is that there is an incredible gap or arena for this type of sexual stimulation. This becomes like kleptomania (in fact "kleptosex" is a real word in psychiatry). It is amazing to the experimenter just how much people will allow a thief to steal, quite openly. It becomes a kind of mall tourism, shop-lifting-tourism. And this tourist lives amongst us, and we rarely if ever recognize him. We all think, "Pay and receive", while in society there is a whole hidden world of just "receive".

A life of this kind of sexual indulgence begins while we are still in school. Some psychologists have called it therapy, "wish-fulfillment therapy". So by the time one can become a teacher it is already a rooted vice. And as a vice, a dependency, it becomes duty to oneself to create this gap in sensitivity to what is happening in or to a relationship. If a child has a small or no gap one wants to enlarge it. And one can't practically say, "I will only do this with older victims." or "outside the workplace". Few jobs are so strenuous that there is no energy for leisure concerns, and teaching younger children is one of the least demanding jobs if one follows the established guidelines.

One of the most significant factors of behavioral development is touch. When do adults touch the child; where, with what parts of themselves, how and why? Perhaps there are no children on Earth who are touched in more ways by more people than today's Swedes, "the passed-around kids".

Touch is an irrational substitution syndrome. At birth we have natural expectations, and adults can't imagine what is disappointing us since all adult wants are unnatural, and so the prescription for any mysterious ailment observed in the baby becomes to bounce, stroke, squeeze and rock him. This, which is common behavior, is in itself already deviant behavior. Maybe this is hard to understand, because once we try to make sense of behavior away from nature, which for man is away from rain-forests, we only have one measure: "How normal or common is this behavior?", and, "This behavior can't be right, because it isn't normal or common.". Ultimately normal or common behavior becomes a pseudoscience, and long books are written to encourage it. But irrational touch, no matter how common, leads to masochism, where the child begins to depend on the substitute, rather than sticking to his guns and continuing to demand the natural stimulant, the stimulant that conveys serious awareness of life's or evolution's intent and wonder.

Touch communicates itself very precisely to the small child. A small child does not suspect but perceives helplessly or choicelessly, perception being infallibly perfect (4 billion years of attuning), an exact and direct awareness of what is happening (This is where people want to create this gap: the child feels the motivation behind each touch perfectly, which, if it goes unchallenged, means there will be no room for secret sexual indulgence involving him once he can speak.). And when we are older we have become inured to touch because everyone has effectively (to conscious) denied all the things communicated by touch (making pickpockets very happy). This is perception becoming unconscious (perception of the intent behind the touch), and intended effect (where no one with any authority knows what was intended by the touch; obfuscated intent, leaving us to call the touch friendly, accidental, random, customary, traditional, etc.) substituting, making a conscious. ---Perception of intent becomes unconscious, while intended effect substitutes, making a conscious.

It is put this way: 'We are not conscious of people touching us. Unsolicited touch is expected to convey too little to bother noticing.' Then, using this conscious "experience" (of what unsolicited touch conveys) for judging the touch children are subjected to we say, even to therm when they complain, that it doesn't matter; that there is nothing wrong with how the people we leave in charge of little children are touching them. We have an idea that this conscious accumulation of experience, this adult observation, in which no one ever touches anyone inappropriately except on the news and in insane asylums, is the adult equivalent of a child's perception, upgraded to wisdom through the accumulation of years. "I have been here longer, so I know better than children what is happening to them."

Av dennis hägglund - 7 november 2008 05:33

 Man has produced a human environment which seems to necessitate the educating of the young. In this environment the young are no longer born equipped for the life-span ahead of them, as they once were in the rain-forests of Africa. They are born, like any creature, utterly alienated by this new environment, and we are prepared to believe that we have a way to gradually adapt them to it, a way passed down to us by our elders.

The problem becomes that this process of gradually adapting the child becomes all-consuming. We all want to say that this way served to adapt us, so there is little wrong with it, because there is little wrong with us, but how much of the weight of this conclusion is pure egotism? We are conditioned to compare ourselves, as well, so when we say, "little wrong with me" we may be merely comparing, which means we relish that there is much more wrong with many others. "I don't drink, smoke, take street drugs or go on meds, etc., so the system works if you want it to."

Must educating a child preclude leaving the child, his humanity, intact? He is born with a passion for everything but what man has produced, and we give him an interest in everything man has produced at the cost of this original passion. This has been demonstrated with 100% certainty in the laboratory. The conscious develops at the cost of what then becomes the subconscious.

Education as it is practiced (no matter how radical the school claims to be)is based upon the antiquated "empty vessel" theory, where each person is born completely devoid of everything, and it is the adult's job to fill the vessel with the mysterious cocktail of "All that is good", which begins with obedience: "Everyone will practice making friends with the teacher, liking the teacher, admiring the teacher, despite having to obey the teacher's fickle whim!" Extorting respect.

This is as destructive to the child as human progress is to the planet and its diversity of life. It is the best someone can do for a child once he himself has submitted completely to his conditioning. Someone has taken him from his childhood, and in so doing, has emptied his ability to cherish any child as he is, leaving the child to seem empty to him the way a rain-forest seems empty to the person who burns it down to plant beans in the ashes.


Fråga mig

0 besvarade frågor


Ti On To Fr
November 2008

Sök i bloggen

Senaste inläggen






Följ bloggen

Följ Revolutionary Education Class med Blogkeen
Följ Revolutionary Education Class med Bloglovin'

Skaffa en gratis