Internet Forum: a catalyst for change

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.

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!

Re: Internet Forum: a catalyst for change


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.

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.



What are you trying to solve exactly?

What is required is that a small % of the population becomes self-learners. The US has a population of 300 million people. I estimate that 150 million are older than 25. I would like to see 2 in one thousand become self-learners. This would mean that in equilibrium we would have 300,000 individuals with a substantial comprehension of a broad spectrum of knowledge beyond that which now exists. For the sake of explanation I will call these individuals September Scholars.

I would expect that with this group almost any important question would have a substantial number who would be prepared to enter into dialogue for the purpose of providing to the nation advice that would be scholarly and reasonably unbiased. For example such a group would offer their judgment regarding stem cell research or global warming or globalization.

The group that I speak of would be constantly engaged, not in a professional manner, but in a form of wise council that the nation would grow to trust. These people would carry on in their chosen profession and would offer their advice as would a wise Dutch uncle (one who admonishes sternly and wisely).

If today ten individuals, who comprehend this idea, began their self-learning effort while simultaneously, via the Internet, they began trying to convince others to do likewise how long would it take to reach our goal of 300,000 individuals. Assume that each person managed in twelve months to convince ten people; after the first year there would be 100 self-learners. The second year, if we maintained this factor of ten, there would be 1,000. The third year would be 10,000, the forth would be 100,000; thus within 5 years we would have more than the 300,000.

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.

Following is a short essay on my idea of September Scholar. A longer essay can be found at www.septemberscholar.com.


I am a retired engineer with a good bit of formal education and twenty five years of self-learning. I began the self-learning experience while in my mid-forties. I had no goal in mind; I was just following my intellectual curiosity in whatever direction it led me. This hobby, self-learning, has become very important to me. I have bounced around from one hobby to another but have always been enticed back by the excitement I have discovered in this learning process. Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; "Understanding is a kind of ecstasy."

I label myself as a September Scholar because I began the process at mid-life and because my quest is disinterested knowledge.

Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ?'disinterested knowledge' as similar to ?'pure research', as compared to ?'applied research'. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to ?'see' and then to ?'grasp' through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the September Scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.

We often use the metaphors of ?'seeing' for knowing and ?'grasping' for understanding. I think these metaphors significantly illuminate the difference between these two forms of intellection. We see much but grasp little. It takes great force to impel us to go beyond seeing to the point of grasping. The force driving us is the strong personal involvement we have to the question that guides our quest. I think it is this inclusion of self-fulfillment, as associated with the question, that makes self-learning so important.

The self-learner of disinterested knowledge is engaged in a single-minded search for understanding. The goal, grasping the ?'truth', is generally of insignificant consequence in comparison to the single-minded search. Others must judge the value of the ?'truth' discovered by the autodidactic. I suggest that truth, should it be of any universal value, will evolve in a biological fashion when a significant number of pursuers of disinterested knowledge engage in dialogue.

I want to talk about learning. But not the lifeless, sterile, futile, quickly forgotten stuff that is crammed in to the mind of the poor helpless individual tied into his seat by ironclad bonds of conformity! I am talking about LEARNING - the insatiable curiosity that drives the adolescent boy to absorb everything he can see or hear or read about gasoline engines in order to improve the efficiency and speed of his 'cruiser'. I am talking about the student who says, "I am discovering, drawing in from the outside, and making that which is drawn in a real part of me." I am talking about any learning in which the experience of the learner progresses along this line: "No, no, that's not what I want"; "Wait! This is closer to what I am interested in, what I need"; "Ah, here it is! Now I'm grasping and comprehending what I need and what I want to know!"
Carl Rogers 1983: 18-19

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?

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.

coberst wrote



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".

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.

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.

http://www.septemberscholar.com/

Ah, self-promotion . . . that's a wonderful thing.

Can someone tell me when dialogue became a verb?

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.

Wow, Hollis Mathis. There's a name I haven't seen in a long time.

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.

what, may i ask, is the meaning of disinterested knowledge?

im pretty sure i know what it means but better safe than stupid.

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.

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.

...yes of course..... Hollis Ray Mathis...

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

http://sermons.ontheinter.net/