| Subject: Spirit Albert EINSTEIN Interview about EDUCATION & EMOTIONAL MATURITY |
Author:
Maryse
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09:15:15 07/05/09 Sun
In reply to:
maureen
's message, "Re: Spiritualists' National Union" on 20:38:03 07/03/09 Fri
Maureen,
So true! Yogis teach all these. They teach the path for PSYCHOLOGICAL LIBERATION, so they give the advice to get rid of the ballasts: the desirs and ambitions, in order “to fly” light and high like the birds, free from internal and external controls. It is the ambitions and desirs (of power, of sensual pleasures, self-gratification, of revenge, jealousy,…) that keep humankind earthly and earthbound.
Since few years now, I give advise for reaching EMOTIONAL MATURITY and for changing the patterns of thoughts, as these teachings have not been part of schools' educational program in any countries [I copy below a little part of Spirit Albert EINSTEIN interview about this subject].
Through examples, people understand better the reasons. Sometimes, for better ideas, the lecturer has to used his/her own experience of life, and this is exceptional and for good reasons : for leading people on the right path of extended responsibility, Freedom and Independence. So for example, sorrow and sadness because of a lost lover during the teenage period, or because of a parent who is dead and missing, are wrong because sorrow, sadness, anxiety,... are part of the long list of negative emotions, and they pollute the magnetic auric field which record every thoughts. All the range of negative emotions are invasive, and are the reasons why immature individuals are behaving as wild animals, using their brutal force, judgements, cruelty, and do not know about self-control and the right non-judgemental observer attitude.
We should all erase the past from our memory, and especially the pains and abuses, in order to walk our path ahead with joy, with open mind, with open and light heart.
**********
INTERVIEW OF SPIRIT ALBERT EINSTEIN
Question: But it is relevant for people to be reminded of the potential dangers of scientific breakthroughs. As we look for more and more powerful answers to our problems, we have a responsibility to grow up and become more civilised.
Question: Yes, I think these comments certainly apply to the theme of this project — the work of the priest of civilisation, the priest of God, whether it is a writer, author, doctor or scientists. The priest of God certainly has a responsibility to civilisation to make sure his work is helpful, not harmful.
THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SCIENTIST:
Can we talk some about the scientist as a humanitarian, and the responsibilities of the scientist in terms of his training, his outer work, and his relationship to people outside the field of science?
Answer: Of course. It should be clear that many times, for good reasons and bad reasons, scientists as well as others get caught up in the mere physical phenomena of life — in finding solutions to problems and making major breakthroughs just for the sake of discovery, rather than because the discovery advances a basic human purpose. Scientific work sometimes becomes a goal in itself, justified in the holy name of “pure” science. The classic example of this is what we’ve just been talking about — the scientist who harness a new kind of energy, thereby unleashing forces which should not be given to those who lack the enlightenment to use them wisely.
There’s much science fiction written about this particular problem.
Question: Yes.
Answer: I know the pressures that can be involved. The atomic and hydrogen bombs were all developed in the spirit of so-called pure science and given to a world which was not prepared to use this science wisely. These breakthroughs probably should never have been disclosed.
A lot of pure science is done in the name of hate and war-like attitudes between nations. The arms building up today among the major countries is one of the great incentives for new technological advances, and yet the ultimate goal is mere military advantage and a greater capacity to destroy. As with any endeavour, science can be perverted to the ends of those who wish to do harm or evil to the world, rather than make the world a better place. So it’s a harmful illusion for the scientist to become wrapped up in the “science for the sake of science” argument.
The reasoning goes something like this : “I am the brilliant scientist who can make these major breakthroughs. What the world does with them is not my problem.” Well, what the world does with them IS his problem. But it is easy to rationalise the problem away, because the pressures can be great.
Question: Exactly what are the pressures?
Answer: One of them is the loss of scientific PRESTIGE by withholding or not disclosing a breakthrough. There is an intense desire among scientists to be well-respected and well-known in the scientific field. It is very difficult not to publish new information in the name of humanity.
Of course, scientists aren’t the only ones who seek respect and fame in their worlds. Most creative people do. And certainly politicians do. But the scientist has a unique problem in that many of the fruits of scientific labour can be used for physical destruction, which is not true in other fields of creativity. I guess politicians are good at using the fruits of scientific labour to cause damage, but that is precisely why the scientist has a special responsibility.
Question: Who’s holding the gun to the heads of scientists forcing them to create inventions which destroy life and property?
Answer: That’s my point: the pressures are far more subtle. Usually, there is hope or promise of some kind of gain. It’s not always just prestige, however; sometimes a scientist is caught up in politic rhetoric. He begins to believe that there are good reasons for this country to develop an advantage in destructive capability.
Question: And of course we have in this country an enormous military industrial complex which seems to pay scientists very well, in addition to supporting their line of research and invention. Well, what are the solutions to these problems? Better education for scientists? Some kind of humanitarian alliance among scientists?
Answer: That’s an interesting question. I suppose everyone who has participated in these interviews has grappled with this basic question in terms of their field of enterprise. When you discuss the problems of society and try to come up with solutions, the all-encompassing answer always is that humanity as a whole must become more aware and must learn more about the purposes and principles of human living. Mankind needs to learn to put principles above personal gain, individually and collectively. Of course, this is a very starry-eyed statement, but until people start taking it seriously, none of the other possibilities will stand much of a chance of succeeding.
Both of the possibilities you mentioned are good ones. The scientific community should become more compassionate, more protective of humanity, and more concerned about the impact of its discoveries. T should realise that there is more to life than scientific prestige, and if realising a discovery or invention will lead to increased destruction, it is better that it be suppressed. But it is not just enough for scientists to endorse these principles, even though it would be a good beginning. The whole issue revolves around the wisdom and intelligence and compassion of the world in general. And these qualities are conspicuously lacking in a few pockets here and there.
THE EDUCATION OF SCIENTISTS:
Question: Are there specific recommendations you can make for improving the education and training of scientists, so that it emphasises these humanitarian principles more?
Answer: My specific recommendations would pretty much follow the ideas we’ve been talking about this afternoon. There ought to be instruction which would help scientists appreciate that the full scope of their inquiry must embrace a larger perspective than just physical observation and study. But the problem with trying to teach this very fundamental principle is that it gets tinged with religion and all the preconceptions associated with it. It’s very difficult in our modern world to teach a proper evolutionary and metaphysical background for science. Using non-scientific terms such as “God” and “creation” is very difficult; the discussion soon becomes warped and politicised.
Question: Yes, you were well known to have strong mystical tendencies in your approach to science, but I find very few scientists who are comfortable talking about that aspect of your life.
Answer: The ideal would be to give scientists some background in the subtle force of life, a knowledge of how they behave, and an appreciation for the different levels and planes of existence. If this could be taught without associating these concepts with religious assumptions and creeds, it would be very beneficial.
In addition, I would like to see scientists trained in the ethics of working on behalf of humanity. They need to be given a framework whereby judgements can be made ethically regarding the propriety of disclosing potentially dangerous information.
Question: You seem to be presuming that every scientist would always know exactly when he is about to open a Pandora’s box. Is that always possible?
Answer: No, you are absolutely right. It is often a very difficult thing to know.
Question: A good example of this difficulty, it would seem to me, is the genetic manipulation currently being done. It is not exactly clear how harmful this could potentially be. The hope is that it will be highly beneficial — but horrible things could come from it, too.
Answer: I’m not advocating that scientists shy away from pursuing new discoveries, simply because they may be harmful. What I am saying is that better judgements must be made, once a discovery occurs, as to whether humanity is prepared to use it — and its implications — in an enlightened way.
You would be surprised, when you look at it from this side, how many inventions and discoveries have been disclosed by scientists, precisely because humanity was not prepared to use them wisely.
Question: I was about to ask you about that. It does seem that some scientists do make these judgements.
Answer: Absolutely. There have been some wonderful inventions and discoveries which would have been quite an advancement for the planet as a whole but also had so much power for destruction, if misused, that the scientists involved decided, with a lot of prodding from the inner side, that it would be better not to make them known.
Question: Yes, I’ve run into people who have made that kind of decision. They were all individual, personal decisions, though. This was never a case of someone being hounded by others into suppressing his discovery.
Answer: Right. It’s a little more difficult to make that kind of decision if the scientist is working in a government sponsored program, however. A bureaucrat is bound to run in, grab it, and steal it.
Question: Could you give us an example of some of the discoveries and inventions which have been suppressed?
Answer: Well, because of the energy crisis, there have been numerous discoveries in the last several years for harnessing energy. Some amazing prototypes have been developed. The original motivation for working on these devices has usually been to light our cities and power our automobiles more efficiently. But when the prototype has actually been developed and the scientist put his “evil hat” on, he has begun to think about what would happen if the president of a banana republic somewhere would start to use these devices. So he has decided that humanity would be better off without his invention at this time.
Question: Yes, I know someone who scrapped some electronic devices which could manipulate consciousness to a surprising extent. Well, it sounds as though the project of getting scientists to think in these terms is basically one of moral and philosophical ethics.
Answer: I might add that it applies not just to the work of the physicists and the chemists, but also t the work of such scientists as psychologists and sociologists. They have exactly the same responsibility to make sure that the ideas and projects they develop truly serve the public, and not harm them.
Question: What kind of potential harm could the ideas of a psychologist or sociologist do?
Answer: It’s often quite subtle, and not everyone has the capacity to recognise it. There are certain brainwashing tactics [NLP], for example, which are now being incorporated into psychological practices. Of course, the psychologists get very annoyed when someone accuses them of brainwashing, but the use of the term is valid.
Like physicists and engineers, the psychologists tend only to see the positive side of their theories and how they help people, but some of these practices are very dangerous. There is one new application of hypnosis in particular which is rapidly becoming popular in America that is a veritable bomb threatening the unsuspecting public. There are also the bizarre theories and new techniques for managing “sexual problems” which are now being used by some unorthodox schools of psychology. The potential harm of these new developments in psychology — psychological technology, if you will — is going to be difficult to assess, but some of it will be quite detrimental. It will also be hard to reverse the damage, once it is done.
The influence of new discoveries in sociology is more indirect. Sociologists usually don’t have much direct contact with the public, but they do influence politicians, political scientists, and other social planners. Some of their discoveries about the reasons why certain groups exhibit antisocial behaviour are valid, but superficial. Just like other scientists, they often are looking only at physical phenomena, and do not embrace the larger perspective. They do not look at the physical lane from the next higher level. And the solutions they frequently propose, as a result of their research, often actually deepen the real problem. In particular, there are a lot of strange ideas coming out of the sociologists who study the so-called “disadvantaged” or the “victims” of society. They are not seeing the whole picture, and if society accepts their conclusions, the damage done could be very serious.
I don’t pretend to be an expert in these fields. But I do think it is important for people to understand that it is not just the hard sciences which need to improve their ethics and be aware of their potential for harm. Anyone who would serve humanity must struggle with the possibility instead — and take action to make sure this does not occur. It is part of the responsibility which falls to hose who would serve.
Question: You mean it’s not easy being a priest of God? [Laughter]
Answer: It’s certainly no role for anyone who blithely assumes that we live in the best of all possible worlds. [More Laughter]
Question: I should think your comments would also apply to the more militant religious groups. Some of the theories and techniques they embrace are certainly dangerous.
Answer: And militant political groups, too. Yes, but they aren’t often confused for scientists. [Laughter]
Keep in mind that WHEREVER there is power to be wielded by a group, there is also the risk of misusing that power. My basic point is that even though the discoveries of researchers in all scientific disciplines may be valid and useful in a limited way, not all of them will be useful to society in the long run. Some may be positively harmful — and this should be a concern for all researchers.
We are moving into a period when it will be more and more important to make these decisions. We are going to have to examine philosophically the PURPOSES of psychology, sociology, and the hard sciences to determine how well they are being served. Do our sciences SERVE humanity and civilisation? This is a fundamental question. For years, we have been dissecting the mind and the atoms and gazing at the stars and amassing an amazing amount of information. Now it is time to stand back a bit and look at why we are gathering all this scientific information. I’m not saying it is wrong to gather data — not at all. I’m simply suggesting that we need to better understand why we are doing it — and the benefit humanity will receive from proceeding along any particular scientific line of inquiry.
Here are many advances we can make in this regard.
Question: For a start, it would help just to get scientists to appreciate the full significance of the fact that we all live on the same planet, are all part of the same race, and all share the same problems.
Answer: Yes.
Question: Is there other advice you can give on the education of scientists?
SCIENCE AND SPIRITUAL SIDE OF LIFE HAVE TO BECOME BEDFELLOWS AGAIN:
Answer: I have to say it is a mistake to divorce the spiritual side of human life from the scientific side. We do not integrate these two sides of life very well. The mode of the day seems to be to go worship God, and when God is done with us — or we are done with God, and which is closer to the truth — then we go do our scientific work. There is very little bridging or understanding between the two. In fact, there is almost a kind of ELITIST ATTITUDE on the part of scientists; their religion, in a sense, becomes either their inventions and discoveries or the scientific methodology they follow.
So I want to stress the usefulness of educating the scientist about the spiritual side of life — or, as our friend over here [C.W. Leadbeater] calls it, “the hidden side of things”. We need to give the scientist the perspective that he is merely in the process of discovering what God has already thought of and created. True science is the discovery of divine vision — and the understanding of how this divine vision has manifested itself in the physical plane. It is not and never should be the simple discovery of some isolated little phenomenon.
The scientist’s education should include the concept that there is ORDER in the universe and that AN INTELLIGENT FORCE has, in fact, THOUGHT through and GIVEN LIFE to the phenomena science observes. This needs to be part of science. It would be an important leap forward.
Question: Of course, you realise that many scientists, particularly the ones who control the education of scientists, would look askance at such an idea. Many of them automatically — and I might even say unthinkingly — consider religion as something which only undermines and pollutes the pragmatic basis of scientific endeavour.
Answer: And that’s precisely the difficulty, as I mentioned earlier — that the teaching of the value of the hidden side of life becomes warped by religion. I’m not really advocating a religious approach to the hidden side of life , but rather a scientific or metaphysical approach. You can’t teach a scientist devotion. It is sort of a contradiction in terms.
Question: Well, they can develop a respect for the truth , and that would be a reasonable equivalent of devotion.
Answer: Exactly. The scientist needs to include God in his scheme of things, but he must approach God on his own terms, in his own way — through the path of inquiry and respect for truth , not through religious devotion.
Question: The path which leads to the wisdom aspect of God rather than the love aspect. Yes, I think that concept could be incorporated into the scientific method.
Answer: It could be done, and ought to be done. But it would be very difficult, precisely because of the people who staff the universities and control he education of scientists. But it isn’t impossible.
Question: That begs the question —
Answer: We’ve begged a lot of questions today. [Laughter]
Question: Well, I’m just thinking that while science needs a greater measure of spirituality, it is also true that religion needs a greater measure of scientific pragmatism.
Answer: That would be for someone else to discuss, though. Why don’t you go ahead. I’ll give you five minutes. [Laughter]
Question: It is an interesting corollary, don’t you think?
Another questioner: Something like East meets West, but in this case Science meets Religion.
Question: It certainly would be an enrichment of religion to get rid of some of its wool and bombast and replace it with intelligent thinking.
Answer: Unfortunately, the people who control religious education are just as rigid and sceptical of this blending as the people who control scientific education.
Question: I suppose in the case of science, a few enlightened members of the scientific community here and there will start to set an example and articulate the ethics and philosophy you’ve just been describing, to their peers, and it will slowly take root and evolve. I assume there is substantial interest “upstairs” among you spooks to promote the spiritualisation of science – or at least a new definition of humanitarian ethics among scientists.
Answer: Absolutely. There’s quite a push on, because we are getting to a very critical period in the development of technology and science. As you know, the last time we reached this level of ability, we did end up blowing ourselves up.
Question: Yes.
Another questioner: Should there be an explanation of what that’s a reference to, for the benefit of those readers who missed it in history class? [Laughter]
Question: Yes, go ahead.
Answer: Why don’t one of you explain it?
Question: Well, it’s a reference to the final days of Atlantis, approximately 14,000 years ago. Atlantis was a civilisation centered on a large island in the middle of what is now Atlantic Ocean. The history of this civilisation has been lost except for a few lingering myths, but it is said to have been quite sophisticated and technically advanced. The scientists of that era invented extremely powerful sources of energy and fantastic devices which transmuted matter and manipulated consciousness. In the end, the power sources were misused in such a way that it led directly and indirectly to the disappearance of the whole continent, plunging the Atlantean civilisation to its death. Humanity then forgot about all this vast technology and scientific achievement and proceeded to slide into a very long dark age.
Answer: We certainly don’t want anything such as that to happen again. None of us is expecting it, at least. And I think there are signs that the more concerned members of humanity are taking steps to nudge civilisation and science — as well as government — toward safer and more humane levels of operation.
Question: Yes, I know what you’re talking about. Beyond some of the bombast and strident rhetoric of a few of environmentalists, there are many good people who are truly concerned about protecting our environment. These people certainly have a humanitarian motive and interest. And there is also a group of physicians who speak out very articulately about the possible dangers of radioactive poisoning and nuclear holocausts. I assume these would be examples of the point you’ve been making.
Answer: Yes.
Question: To change the topic to something far from the mainstream of orthodox science, it seems to me that you are hinting that the new frontiers of science are moving toward magic. If science is to take up the study of the subtle planes of matter and the forces and phenomena of those levels, isn’t this really the study of true magic? I know this label offends many scientists, who consider it scientific heresy even to mention the subject, but what about it?
Answer: In a sense, it is magic, yes. We are coming up to the exhaustion, so to speak, of the possibilities for analysing physical phenomena. Science has been taking a magnifying glass and magnifying everything in the physical level of life to such an extent that there isn’t that much left to look at anymore. So it will have to begin to appreciate the causes underlying the phenomena it has been viewing and analysing — and attempt to manipulate these causes rather than just monitor the phenomena. Yes, that could be called magic — not sleight of hand, of course, but real magic.
The training of the scientists in the 21st century will therefore be quite different than now.
Question: Will this transition to real magic begin to occur in the foreseeable future?
Answer: No. We are still at a point where we are far too selfish and greedy. The value of science for most people is in using it to get ahead of their neighbours, to build the best weapons of destruction, or to grab the power which will make them king of the world. We have too much of this kind of thinking. The consciousness of humanity is no where ready for the type of exploration you are suggesting. But it is a nice ideal to think about and strive toward. It will be possible one day.
EDUCATION IN GENERAL:
IF I may, I’d like to add a few more comments about education — not the education of the scientist, but education in general
Question: Of course.
Answer: I would like more people to realise that education should not be limited to academic study. If an in-depth analysis is ever made of education, it will become clear that there is a time and place for academic study, but also a time and a place to concentrate on other important aspects of our human skills and talents.
Let me ask you to think of formal human education as a process which should last from childhood to age thirty. In that span of time, there are various stages of development that the human child passes through, as he grows and learns. Each of these stages should be taken care of at the appropriate age. I will discuss each of these stages briefly, and then come back and make some comments about the meaning of education itself.
Obviously, one of the first stages in the development of the human being is learning the lessons of PHYSICAL CORDINATION. I would say that up to the age of ten years, learning physical coordination is the most important task to concentrate on.
From ages ten to twenty, the main thrust of development should be in the emotional area, learning the LESSONS OF EMOTIONAL STABILITY AND MATURITY. This may seem like an over-simplification to some, but it is interesting to speculate on.
From twenty to thirty, MENTAL PERCEPTION AND INTELLECTUAL DISCERNMENT would be the major emphasis of development. Again, I am simplifying the analysis in order to make my point.
Now, it is interesting that what conventional education does is lump all of these together, from the time the child enters school until he or she is eighteen — or twenty-two if he goes to college and may be thirty if he goes to graduate school and beyond. I don’t think this is sensible. It has always been my conviction that we do not concentrate on the critical areas of development in the right years. In fact, we leave out the whole issue of emotional development and concentrate on physical and intellectual development — and even this is done in the wrong years!
Three facts are essential in developing a sensible format for education:
FIRST, MATURE EMOTIONS ARE A PREREQUISITE FOR CORRECT AND INTELLIGENT THINKING. If we do not have mature emotions, then our feelings will tend to interfere quite substantially with our thinking and our intellectual pursuits.
SECOND, the growth of the intellect occurs in the latter part of our development; certainly, we are in the late teens before this intellectual ability really begins to flower. And yet, this is precisely the point where most general education usually stops!
THIRD, most of the emotional development which occurs between the ages of ten and twenty goes relatively uninstructed. There are virtually no courses and no instruction in right emotional development and behaviour. And so, for the average person, the educational process stops right when it should be beginning. WE NEED TO RETHINK OUR PHILOSOPHY AND EDUCATIONAL METHODOLOGY, so that we can identify the real educational needs of the growing person and tailor those needs to the developmental cycles of the human being as a whole. This is not to say that certain basic education tools cannot be taught at an early age. Nor do I think that nothing should be taught between the ages of zero and ten except athletic abilities. Certainly, all of the basic lessons of mathematics and reading need to be taught in these early stages, but the primary emphasis should be on the lessons of PHYSICAL COORDINATION, SKILLS, AND HEALTH.
Question: Language is a good example of what you are saying. If a young child is taught a foreign language, he can pick up the pronunciation very quickly and very accurately. But a teenager has a much harder time, because the physical patterns of manipulating the mouth have become set. Yet a young child has no capacity to comprehend the logic of grammar, and even a teenager has difficulty doing so. It is in the twenties when mature understanding of any subject becomes possible.
Answer: Exactly. I hope people will see that the stages I have described are not rigid divisions, but focal points of development.
Question: Is this program feasible, though? Many people would want to marry and start heir family before age thirty. Yet you would have them still in school learning their professions and not being free to launch their careers or even their personal lives.
Answer: I’m not sure that’s the case. Much of the intense emotional development which goes on in the teenage years is left untouched by our educational system. It’s very interesting to me how it is totally ignored educationally.
Question: I think it’s been getting more attention in the last twenty years — certainly in America, at least.
Answer: In my case, I had virtually no interest at all in facts during my teen years. I was more interested in what was going on around me emotionally. I had very little incentive to study facts, even in the sciences. And when I did, because I had to, I plodded through it.
Of course, when I reached the point where I became interested in the intellectual elements of life, I was ready and capable and genuinely interested in learning about facts, and I threw myself right into the study of them. But the educational process didn’t help me discover this interest. It grew from within me. And I think it is sad that our educational systems do not recognise these natural stages in development.
To answer your question, not everyone would have the interest to pursue intense intellectual development that I did — or the two of you did. They would go off and start their families and careers. It would be expecting too much to demand that they say in school through the age of thirty.
Question: Well, I know many who would not want to pursue mature emotional development, either.
Answer: Well, they should be forced. [Laughter]
Question: If not for their own sake, then for ours. [More Laughter ]
Another questioner: I agree, but this statement will drive certain psychologists right up the wall.
Answer: Good. That’s where they belong. [Laughter]
Well, as I said, I kept my original statements about the stages of human development DELIBERATELY SIMPLISTIC , so they would be easier to comprehend. It might very well be intelligent to offer TWO EDUCATIONAL ROADS. One would be the GENERAL EDUCATION for the person who did not want to go on to INTENSE INTELLECTUAL PURSUITS. The other would be a SPECIALISED EDUCATION education involving a far more INTENSE TRAINING, first of the EMOTIONS and then INTELLECTUALLY.
Question: Of course, many parents are very ambitious for their children. They know their little five year-old is destined to be a doctor or a scientist, and they will push the intellectual development almost irrationally.
Answer: Which is one reason why we need to better understand the cycles of human development.
Question: Well, how about the children who demonstrate precocious talents at a very young age. Shouldn’t those talents be honoured at that time?
Answer: Sure, but what if they weren’t? What if they spent their time becoming emotionally mature? Wouldn’t that be a satisfactory outcome?
Question: It certainly would be different than the norm. [Laughter]
Answer: I make no excuses for myself in this regard. I suffered emotionally for many years, and it affected my ability to think and my desire to pursue intellectual studies. It would have been a great advantage to me to have received training in an educational setting which would have helped me deal with my emotions in a more disciplined fashion.
Question: Who would make the decision as to whether a child would pursue the intense intellectual education or the more general education?
Answer: The individual would.
Question: Do you think kids would be allowed to make that decision? Do you see ambitious parents saying, “Okay, son, it’s all up to you. Go ahead and be a janitor. We’ll support you all the way .” [Laughter]
Answer: I don’t think you’re getting my point. Ambitious parents will distort any educational system, no matter how enlightened. My point is that our present educational system is not geared to take advantage of the natural cycles of human development — and it ought to be.
I am not proposing that all intellectual studies should be eliminated during the teenage years. I am merely stating that the teen years are the natural time when a child is focusing intensely on emotional development, and the primary emphasis of education at the time should be to help children become emotionally mature — to learn the principles of right human relationships, for example, and techniques for disciplining the emotional effectively. After all, there are lessons the two of you find you have to teach adults — precisely because they didn’t learn them when they were children.
Question: Do we have the psychological theories and techniques — and the teachers — to teach emotional maturity on a large scale in our high schools?
Answer: Of course not.
Question: I don’t think we have the proper role models, let alone the teachers and techniques.
Question: Yes, there is the danger that we could end up with instruction on how to be better con artist or manipulator.
Another questioner: If you look at the heroes of the high school set, they are usually rock and roll stars, athletes, and people who become well-known because of the glamour and flair of their life — not because of their maturity or competence or contribution to society.
Answer: Which is precisely why WE NEED TO RETHINK OUR EDUCATIONAL PRIORITIES. The current system is doing a terrible job of guiding our young people toward EMOTIONAL MATURITY.
Question: Yes, I think you’ve hit on something important here. There would be immense value in the kind of program you are proposing. See many people whose brilliant mental capacities are dissipated in excessive attention to their frustrations, a bad self-image, and their fears. It is a tragedy to see this magnificent potential being so grossly under-utilised because of because of basic emotional immaturity. I suppose this is another issue where civilisation must evolve a bit more before these good ideas can be adequately implemented.
Answer: It may be that civilisation will not evolve that much more until this type of philosophy and practice revolutionises our educational system. It is the basic selfishness and materialistic greed of humanity which limits mankind’s capacity to achieve major scientific breakthroughs. Making training in emotional and ethical maturity a major focus of our educational system would go a long way to answering a basic need of humanity. I think it would help a great deal. In fact, I KNOW it would help.
Am not saying these would not be enormous problems in establishing this kind of educational system. I’m just suggesting that certain people ought to start thinking about pursuing the educational objectives I have outlined.
Question: I think you are absolutely right.
Another questioner: Amen.
Answer: That should be enough to get the right people thinking. If I may, I would like to talk some more about non-planetary issues.
Question: You mean intergalactic Zionism or something like that? [Laughter]
Answer: No, no.
Question: I’ve heard of the wandering Jew, but this would be too much. [More Laughter]
**********
.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
