# Internet Forum: a catalyst for change

## Recommended Posts

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.

##### Share on other sites

are you basically saying that educational institutes just train people to have useful job-skills and don't focus enough on intelectual development, so we need some kind of intelectual schooling/development thing?

kinda like mensa for non-mensans?

"IQ of 99? come join the non-mensan society, and develop your intelect to it's full (average) potential"?

I kinda agree, but i think that too many people just don't care about being intelectual, same as the way most people don't do keep-fit. it's usually those who are naturally fitter than most who get into the whole fitness thing, to maximise their natural gift.

Not saying that's how it should be, just that that seems to be how it is.

##### Share on other sites

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.
Wow, do I dislike generalities!
Our technology has provided us with the capacity to easily slip into a condition that will end human life.
Please expand. You imply an inevitable truth.
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.
This seems to be a doomsday prophesy with yours as the only solution, yet there is no solution.
I see no other vehicle than the Internet discussion forums presently available to provide that catalyst for change.
It does seem to be a great medium for reaching much of the world.
If you find merit in this claim I would like to discuss it further.
Only people who agree with you are invited? I call compound mentality.
##### Share on other sites

are you basically saying that educational institutes just train people to have useful job-skills and don't focus enough on intelectual development, so we need some kind of intelectual schooling/development thing?

kinda like mensa for non-mensans?

"IQ of 99? come join the non-mensan society, and develop your intelect to it's full (average) potential"?

I kinda agree, but i think that too many people just don't care about being intelectual, same as the way most people don't do keep-fit. it's usually those who are naturally fitter than most who get into the whole fitness thing, to maximise their natural gift.

Not saying that's how it should be, just that that seems to be how it is.

Yes I claim that schooling is training for production and consumption.

I did not know that mensas had their own school.

I think that the need for change represents the first challenge.

In January of 1945 the world did not possess the technology that was capable of quickly destroying the human species. On August 6th 1945 the first atomic bomb exploded over the Japanese city of Hiroshima; the world witnessed the fact that we possessed the means to destroy the human species quickly. Our species has significantly broadened and extended that technical capacity since then.

To educate the younger generation to this fact should be a simple task provided that they see others firmly recognize thus fact.

##### Share on other sites

Wow, do I dislike generalities!

Please expand. You imply an inevitable truth.

This seems to be a doomsday prophesy with yours as the only solution, yet there is no solution.

It does seem to be a great medium for reaching much of the world.

Only people who agree with you are invited? I call compound mentality.

The first job will be to educate the young people as to the peril we have created with our technology.

Moving from the specific to the general is what learning is all about. It is called inductive reasoning.

##### Share on other sites

I think that the need for change represents the first challenge.

In January of 1945 the world did not possess the technology that was capable of quickly destroying the human species. On August 6th 1945 the first atomic bomb exploded over the Japanese city of Hiroshima; the world witnessed the fact that we possessed the means to destroy the human species quickly. Our species has significantly broadened and extended that technical capacity since then.

To educate the younger generation to this fact should be a simple task provided that they see others firmly recognize thus fact.

all I can glean from that is Youre an advocate of History being taught.

I dont disagree, nor would 99+% of the population.

and thus Im left feeling, Whats your Point?

Bold statements of the bleedin Obvious?

##### Share on other sites

Nah,I don't think it's just about history being taught.I think it's about not knowing but understanding, realising and learning from history.

To educate the younger generation to this fact should be a simple task provided that they see others firmly recognize thus fact.

And recognizing a fact(for me at least) doesn't mean just knowing it and using it to score in exam or just saying "ok,If you say so".It means realising the fact and understanding it's consequences.To educate someone about newtons laws doesn't mean making him able to know the statement and solve a few problems,it's about making that person see the beauty of newton's laws.

So,my guess is that when coberst says what he says,he means what I have just written:D

##### Share on other sites

even if thats correct, I Still cant see the point of ejaculating statements of the more than Obvious.

as if to proclaim its something profoundly new and revelatory.

##### Share on other sites

If he mean that we should understand and realise history,then I bet that it's not an obvious statement, for if it had been so obvious and easy to understand,then schools would have been doing that and humans would have learned from history and never would have repeated their mistakes.This may look obvious,but is not so obvious.

The point that I see of 'ejaculating statements of the more than Obvious.':D,is that the interactions may help us understand this obvious.

##### Share on other sites

kenshin

You are correct. It is the obvious upon which few ever focus their attention. As Einstein said fish cannot comprehend water. As you so well note, understanding is a rare quality.

##### Share on other sites

Yes I claim that schooling is training for production and consumption.
It's a vicious cycle but it's our economy. Abrupt change would be worse. Are you requesting a gradual change or do you need it NOW?
I think that the need for change represents the first challenge.
Recognizing a need and taking the *right* steps is why using generalities is always a bad idea.
In January of 1945 the world did not possess the technology that was capable of quickly destroying the human species. On August 6th 1945 the first atomic bomb exploded over the Japanese city of Hiroshima; the world witnessed the fact that we possessed the means to destroy the human species quickly. Our species has significantly broadened and extended that technical capacity since then.
The mere fact that we survived the Cold War, to me, says a lot about our capacity for learning and rational thinking. We're not out of the woods yet but mutually assured destruction seems to have a sobering effect on nuclear enthusiasm.
To educate the younger generation to this fact should be a simple task provided that they see others firmly recognize thus fact.
Why are you convinced this education isn't happening? I've heard 13-year-olds in my neighborhood talking about WWII and Nagasaki / Hiroshima. They seem pretty well informed about the futility of nuclear proliferation.
##### Share on other sites

Could somebody (prefereably Coburst) tell me how this relates to Psychology?

##### Share on other sites

It's a vicious cycle but it's our economy. Abrupt change would be worse. Are you requesting a gradual change or do you need it NOW?

Recognizing a need and taking the *right* steps is why using generalities is always a bad idea.

The mere fact that we survived the Cold War, to me, says a lot about our capacity for learning and rational thinking. We're not out of the woods yet but mutually assured destruction seems to have a sobering effect on nuclear enthusiasm.

Why are you convinced this education isn't happening? I've heard 13-year-olds in my neighborhood talking about WWII and Nagasaki / Hiroshima. They seem pretty well informed about the futility of nuclear proliferation.

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!

##### Share on other sites

Could somebody (prefereably Coburst) tell me how this relates to Psychology?

I think that psychology and psychoanalysis are the two sciences that each person needs to study as a means to understand the self and to understand others. Such understanding is necessary if we are to create a secular moral philosophy.

Fragmentation of knowledge is not helpful in developing an understanding of our complex world.

##### Share on other sites

I think that psychology and psychoanalysis are the two sciences that each person needs to study as a means to understand the self and to understand others.
I disagree. For a start, of the two, only Psychology is a science. To understand Psychology is simply to understand scientific method as applied to the study of human cognition and behaviour. Studying Psychology doesn't change a person in any significant way. It doesn't make a person not susceptible to psychological flaws, in the same way as studying medicine doesn't protect an individual from illness.

Psychoanalysis is an intervention, not a science. Undergoing psychoanalysis might help an individual understand themselves and others a bit more (or it might not), but studying it most likely would not, for the same reason as I have outlined above.

Such understanding is necessary if we are to create a secular moral philosophy.
In this case, I think the study of ethics would be more useful.
Fragmentation of knowledge is not helpful in developing an understanding of our complex world.
Define 'fragmentation of knowledge'. What does this mean? Do you mean 'specialisation'? If so, just say so. If you do mean specialisation, then I agree, it has its drawbacks (people learning more and more about less and less), but with the explosion of information over the last couple of hundred years, it is no longer possible for any one individual to know everything about everything.
##### Share on other sites

Glider

The study of psychology is the study of human nature.

I agree that the study of ethics is also of benefit when secular moral philosophy is a question.

Knowledge is like a jigsaw puzzle. We have created many puzzles in coping with reality and when we received a new piece (knowledge) that does not fit our present puzzles we forgetaboutit. However, if through disinterested knowledge we have created new puzzles we might find a place for this new fragment of knowledge to fit; thereby this fragment becomes our new knowledge.

Knowledge that fits within one of our puzzles is a part of a domain of knowledge that for me is coherent. Knowledge that does not fit within one of my puzzles is a fragment, it has no coherence for me.

Knowing psychology is a important aid in understanding the self and others. It is a very important means for ‘knowing thyself’. To know the self will cause a dramatic change from not knowing the self.

I think that your knowledge of psychology and psychoanalysis is perhaps on the fragmentary side.

##### Share on other sites

Glider

I think that your knowledge of psychology and psychoanalysis is perhaps on the fragmentary side.

Erm... are you Sure about That?

##### Share on other sites

i always thought psychology was the way the mind works.. a small part of which can be generalised as human nature.

coberst, in response to your first post,

who else can the institutions foster? the extremes?

you say the only vehicle for change is internet discussion.. i would like to agree that it is a catalyst but i see too big a flaw in that claim.

you have a tendancy for people who don't want to know not participating, and those who are concerned saying lots of very practical, useful things to deaf ears.

you're basically reiterating the difference between knowledge and wisdom and saying we need an institute to teach wisdom. which isn't possible under beurocracy.

i agree completely that technology has progressed so far that we can now end life with the press of a button, but you also need to consider why it hasn't happened already.

if you're concerned about the environment, don't say we need to act now, because the reality is, we should have started years ago. we don't need a wake up call, we've already got a few of those. what we need is for someone to dig up the forgotten internet discussions and other ideas and put them into practice. that requires money and work. it can only happen if you can make money off being environmentally friendly. australia is getting rid of the filament lamp in preference of a cheaper alternative and you can argue that it only happened because it's cheaper.

##### Share on other sites

Erm... are you Sure about That?

I am not completely sure of anything.

But when a person makes the statements about psychology and psychoanalysis that you have I can only conclude that your knowledge is fragmmentary or so specialized that you fail to comprehend the scope and meaning of these two sciences to those who seek to comprehend human nature.

I am using the duck test here.

##### Share on other sites

Rocket man

I think that humans have a complex biological nature combined with a complex psychological nature. It appears to me that the biological aspect is fairly simple to comprehend whereas the psychological is extremely difficult to comprehend.

You ask a good question. “How else can public institutions act except to support the status quo?” If the citizens in the democracy have keen critical thinking skills the institutions can support a rapidly evolving and dynamic consensus of what is best for the citizens. In a democracy like the US, where the citizens have few critical thinking skills, the status quo is king.

It seems to me that the Internet discussion forum is the best vehicle available. It has outstanding flaws but if you see something better please tell me.

Our technology has not destroyed us yet because we have had the bomb for only 62 years. I think we need to consider these matters in terms of hundreds and perhaps thousand of years and not in terms of years. Why should I care when I will be dead in a few years, is not an adequate attitude.

##### Share on other sites

Glider

The study of psychology is the study of human nature.

No, the study of Psychology (i.e. to study Psychology) is the study of scientific method as applied to the study of human behaviour and cognition. Psychology itself is the study of human behaviour and cognition from a number of perspectives, including, but not limited to: Developmental, social, personality, perceptual, emotional, biological, neurological and pathological.

Students of Psychology study Psychology. Psychologists study human behaviour and cognition.

I agree that the study of ethics is also of benefit when secular moral philosophy is a question.
I would have thought it was key, given that the study of morals and morality without recourse to religious philosophies is ethics.

Knowledge is like a jigsaw puzzle. We have created many puzzles in coping with reality and when we received a new piece (knowledge) that does not fit our present puzzles we forgetaboutit. However, if through disinterested knowledge we have created new puzzles we might find a place for this new fragment of knowledge to fit; thereby this fragment becomes our new knowledge.
This is not clear. I think if you were to provide a clear definition of 'disinterested knowledge' it might help.

Knowledge that fits within one of our puzzles is a part of a domain of knowledge that for me is coherent. Knowledge that does not fit within one of my puzzles is a fragment, it has no coherence for me.
This relates more to Epistemology than Psychology.

Knowing psychology is a important aid in understanding the self and others. It is a very important means for ‘knowing thyself’. To know the self will cause a dramatic change from not knowing the self.
No it isn't and yes it would. Psychology (the discipline) does not help a person 'know themselves'. One thing a Psychologist learns is that the scientific study of human behaviour is limited to the study of others. Attempting to study oneself is pointless as there is no way to objectify oneself from observations of one's thought processes and behaviour. So it's way too subjective.

That's why there are therapists and counsellors. They provide objective observations and interpretations that an individual can then attempt to integrate into their awareness.

Yes, a fuller understanding of one's self will bring about changes, though not necessarily dramatic. Most people are generally content the way they are, so a greater understanding of 'self' is unlikely to result in significant change, especially in the absence of an objective norm.

I think that your knowledge of psychology and psychoanalysis is perhaps on the fragmentary side.
I think yours is. We'll have to see what the evidence says.

I am not completely sure of anything.

But when a person makes the statements about psychology and psychoanalysis that you have I can only conclude that your knowledge is fragmmentary or so specialized that you fail to comprehend the scope and meaning of these two sciences to those who seek to comprehend human nature.

First, YT did not make the comments to which you refer. I did. Second, your conclusion is premature as it seems to be based solely upon the fact that my comments on Psychology and Psychoanalysis differ from your beliefs concerning them. We have yet to establish whether my comments or your beliefs are closer to the truth. Third, I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that your understanding of Psychology and Psychoanalysis is any greater than that of anyone else here. Fourth, Psychoanalysis is still an interventional approach and not a science.

I am using the duck test here.
Interesting. Did you know that a person who employs the duck test can also fail it? The duck test relies upon an understanding of the qualities that define a duck. If you do not have that knowledge, then when confronted by a duck, you will fail to recognise it.

By extension, the duck test as you have applied here it relies upon an understanding of the qualities that define Psychology and (therefore) Psychologists. If you don't have that knowledge, then, when confronted by a Psychologist, you are likely to fail your own test, aren't you?

##### Share on other sites

Glider

I think that understanding and disinterested knowledge are the two sides of the same coin. I am sure that people on occasion bother to understand a domain of knowledge for reasons other than a desire to understand. Every specialist probably learns to understand his or her specialty and they have been led to do it because it is an instrument serving a career purpose.

I think that a person strives to learn disinterested knowledge because they wish to understand that domain of knowledge. I do not think many people bother to study something that does not have a valuable payoff in money unless it is to understand. I would not learn to “do” calculus except that it is necessary to being an engineer. I would, however, study calculus if it helped me understand mathematics. Every engineer, when asked if s/he could “do” math would respond yes. Every engineer if asked do you understand math would answer quickly, are you kidding me.

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.

##### Share on other sites

the status quo is, by definition, the average. you can't teach the extremes without making specialist organisations.

if you're looking for a better vehicle to announce the problems we're facing, let the child burn it's finger on the hot plate.

the world is daft. to put it simply. we need to allow some things to happen before the people in power recognise it as an avenue to stay in power.

it's not enough to tell people what's going on, we need to have someone acting on what needs doing.

you can't force anyone to learn, people fail school which, in some places was fought for.

there is no means of informing the masses if they don't want to listen

## Create an account

Register a new account