1
   

Internet Forum: a catalyst for change

 
 
coberst
 
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 06:38 am
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change

I claim that the educational institutions of all Western democratic nations are very conservative. They are designed to foster the status quo. As such they are focused upon graduating individuals with the means to maximize production and consumption.

Our technology has provided us with the capacity to easily slip into a condition that will end human life.

We must provide a means for our citizens to quickly recognize this fact and to develop a new path for human enlightenment following the end of school days. Only with a significant advance in our general intellectual sophistication can we hope to develop a basis for restructuring society and thereby save humanity from a quick extinction.

I see no other vehicle than the Internet discussion forums presently available to provide that catalyst for change.

If you find merit in this claim I would like to discuss it further.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,471 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 05:31 pm
How about those who don't find merit in your claim? I agree that one of the primary roles of schools is manufacture the future cogs in the machine of our political economy. I also agree that our technological achievements have created a historically unprecedented threat of human extinction. However, the Internet and forums such as these are a million voices talking at once, which makes it both unlikely that you'll find the right voice and difficult to hear it if you do.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 06:23 am
Modern humans have two imperatives; both must be met if we are to survive. The practical imperative is the necessity to produce and consume, the moral imperative is the necessity to live together in harmony.

Pre-bomb humans could ignore the moral imperative but modern humans cannot; we have created a technology that illuminates the need for the moral imperative.

Our educational system is designed to solve the practical imperative and ignore the moral imperative. The only way I see that we can solve the moral imperative is that we become self-actualizing self-learners after our schooling is complete. If we do this we can develop the understanding required to solve the moral imperative.

Solving the moral imperative is a long range goal; we cannot continue in our childish manner of indifference, ignorance, apathy, and skepticism.

Keep hope alive by awakening from your childish slumber. You are no longer a child; you are men and women with a big job to do. Are you up to that challenge?

Keep hope alive!
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 08:08 am
Re: Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
coberst wrote:
I see no other vehicle than the Internet discussion forums presently available to provide that catalyst for change.

If you find merit in this claim I would like to discuss it further.


I think Internet forums are very valuable for increasing communication and awareness.

Interactive communication on such a large global scope has not been available before.

I'm not sure if it will significantly alter the course of human thought, but I'm sure it will alter it some.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 08:16 am
coberst wrote:
Our educational system is designed to solve the practical imperative and ignore the moral imperative. The only way I see that we can solve the moral imperative is that we become self-actualizing self-learners after our schooling is complete. If we do this we can develop the understanding required to solve the moral imperative.


Our educational system is intended to impart a certain base of knowledge which is considered productive to personal and cultural ends.

We all learn from everything every day. Experience is a far more versatile educator than schools will ever be.

The Internet and Discussion Forums are just another way to gather experiences and information. It's just an additional resource for expanding experience.

If you're suggesting that schools need to start teaching Morals, then I disagree. But if you're suggesting that additional opportunities for experiences are beneficial to ongoing learning, then I think you're just observing the obvious.

coberst wrote:
Solving the moral imperative is a long range goal; we cannot continue in our childish manner of indifference, ignorance, apathy, and skepticism.

Keep hope alive by awakening from your childish slumber. You are no longer a child; you are men and women with a big job to do. Are you up to that challenge?

Keep hope alive!


What are you trying to solve exactly?
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 12:57 pm
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2007 01:17 pm
coberst wrote:
I would expect that with this group... would offer their judgment regarding stem cell research or global warming or globalization.


coberst wrote:
Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.


These two statements seem not to be consistent with each other. How do you reconcile your call for the select group of self-learners to help in stem cell research, global warming and globalization, on one hand, with your call for a kind of knowledge independent of specific applications, on the other hand?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2007 03:32 pm
coberst wrote:
Thus we might then reach equilibrium in five years and by the tenth year we would begin to have a large group who had reached the learning level at which they could begin to act in the capacity of informally advising the nation.

In ten years we would have in hand a large group who could act as a "think tank" of wise Dutch uncles acting as a wise council for the nation.


This whole idea seems redundant to the existing natural system which is already happening.

For example, what would differentiate these people from the current top eschelon of learned individuals?

And if such a group of "Dutch Uncles" evolved, what would prevent people from seeing them as a Dutch Uncle Cabal?

And even more realistically, what mechanism would be in place to hone the validity of their ideas?

Currently, Science has a natural, and controlled peer review system.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2007 05:26 pm
coberst wrote

Quote:
The only way I see that we can solve the moral imperative is that we become self-actualizing self-learners after our schooling is complete. If we do this we can develop the understanding required to solve the moral imperative.


This is the complete antithesis of Bohm's (and most other's) take on "enlightenment". The key issue for "harmony" is dissipation of the "self" not "self-actualization". Such a view stresses that it is only by seeing that the "self" is a microcosm of "humanity" with all its travails and inner conflicts that real empathy can be fostered. What matters is "being" not "becoming".
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Apr, 2007 07:35 am
Shapeless wrote:
coberst wrote:
I would expect that with this group... would offer their judgment regarding stem cell research or global warming or globalization.


coberst wrote:
Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.


These two statements seem not to be consistent with each other. How do you reconcile your call for the select group of self-learners to help in stem cell research, global warming and globalization, on one hand, with your call for a kind of knowledge independent of specific applications, on the other hand?


There is no select group. There is a body of individuals who have learned a lot. Some individuals in this body would have the capacity to dialogue on specific matters based upon their knowledge. The group that was capable of dialogue together might be similiar to the Hamilton-Baker group who dialogued about Iraq except that there would be no authority figure such as Hamilton or Baker.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Apr, 2007 11:32 am
coberst wrote:
There is no select group. There is a body of individuals who have learned a lot. Some individuals in this body would have the capacity to dialogue on specific matters based upon their knowledge.


My question is, do these September Scholars deal in distinterested knowledge? In your explanation, you made it sound like disinterestedness was one of their requirements. Amending the question to remove the "select," I'm wondering how you reconcile your call for self-learners to help in stem cell research, global warming and globalization, on one hand, with your call for a kind of knowledge independent of specific applications, on the other hand.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 05:54 am
http://www.septemberscholar.com/
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 05:57 am
Ah, self-promotion . . . that's a wonderful thing.

Can someone tell me when dialogue became a verb?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 06:22 am
Setanta,

Coberst attempts to use "dialogue" in the specific sense coined by David Bohm but without either understanding it or acknowledging it. Thus "Dialogue" has become shorthand for "Bohmian Dialogue" and has achieved verb status in the same way that "to Hoover" is a synonym for "to vacuum".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue

As for self-promotion, what we have here is a guy whose prolific blitzing of websites with shallow summaries of his reading has caused reaction ranging from one "accolade" by a popularist magazine looking for something to write about, to derision from topic specialists. He is in effect a secular "Hollis T Mathis" ....an internet creation feeding his addiction.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 06:53 am
fresco wrote:
He is in effect a secular "Hollis T Mathis" ....an internet creation feeding his addiction.


Wow, Hollis Mathis. There's a name I haven't seen in a long time.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 07:49 am
Shapeless wrote:
coberst wrote:
There is no select group. There is a body of individuals who have learned a lot. Some individuals in this body would have the capacity to dialogue on specific matters based upon their knowledge.


My question is, do these September Scholars deal in distinterested knowledge? In your explanation, you made it sound like disinterestedness was one of their requirements. Amending the question to remove the "select," I'm wondering how you reconcile your call for self-learners to help in stem cell research, global warming and globalization, on one hand, with your call for a kind of knowledge independent of specific applications, on the other hand.


The concept of disinterested knowledge seems to be a very difficult concept for people to comprehend. It is a simple idea but apparently so alien to our culture that few people can grasp its meaning quickly.
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 08:00 am
what, may i ask, is the meaning of disinterested knowledge?

im pretty sure i know what it means but better safe than stupid.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 08:14 am
Hollis Ray Mathis differs from Coberst in that Hollis would drop off his rant, and almost never respond to other people posting in his threads (he would, very rarely, deign to tell someone quoting scripture just how stupid they were and how their scriptural ignorance would damn them). Coberst will respond to other people posting in his threads, either to state or imply that they are too stupid to understand his sublime concepts, or to spew more meaningless drivel which he believes is redeemed by his use of what is considered to be specialized vocabulary at his house.

Otherwise, the comparison to Hollis Ray Mathis is very apt.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 08:22 am
Setanta wrote:
Hollis Ray Mathis differs from Coberst in that Hollis would drop off his rant, and almost never respond to other people posting in his threads (he would, very rarely, deign to tell someone quoting scripture just how stupid they were and how their scriptural ignorance would damn them).


I must have missed those comments from Hollis. Darn, those must have been really funny. I don't remember Hollis ever responding to anyone, all I remember was his preachy posts.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 08:49 am
...yes of course..... Hollis Ray Mathis...

Here's his sermons in case anybody is missing their fix !

http://sermons.ontheinter.net/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/18/2022 at 08:40:12