Germans have human minds. No infant comes out of the womb with a brain of any particular nationality. They're potentially clever or slow, verbal or visual, have a facility for numbers or abstract ideas or arts. What happens next depends on the child's circumstances.
Whether a nation adopts the better or worse ideas of its clever citizens depends on the national aspirations at any given period. — Vera Mont

What part does culture play in our understanding of how to parent, and how to behave, and our values?
Coming from your arguments I will ask is there such a thing as a national culture and then subculturals? Is there anything Educators can do to influence the culture and subcultures?

How do we get our ideas of what we want to be and what we should be? This goes with what is the purpose of education.

Okay and who decides what the Educators know and value? — Athena

They each decide what they themselves value. The DoE imposes some conditions on the allocation of federal funds, but individual institutions of higher learning, administered by state agencies, have their curricula dictated by state policy and local boards of education choose and reject textbooks. This is what causes the disaster of teaching creationist doctrine in science class, climate change denial and high rates of illiteracy in the worst governed states. (I assume California is near the bottom because of its large immigrant population, but I haven't followed that up.)

What part does culture play in our understanding of how to parent, and how to behave, and our values? — Athena

A big one. And it changes over time.

Coming from your arguments I will ask is there such a thing as a national culture and then subculturals? — Athena

At any moment, regarding some nations, you can say so. As I already pointed out, that applies more to monoethnic societies than to diverse ones. Of course, with globalization, instant communication and large-scale migration, all cultures are increasingly influenced by other cultures. (I could swear this, too, has been mentioned before.) There are no static cultures, and haven't been any for a considerable time now, no matter how yearningly some people in just about every culture hark back to an earlier period they imagine to have been better.

Who determines the purpose of Education? — Athena

That seems to be a contentious question in the United States . Secretaries of Education have a lot to say in the matter. Some political appointees like Betsy DeVos clearly don't believe in public education at all and make every effort to tear it down, while others, like Ron DeSantis have their own ideological crusade , while some, like Miguel Cardona, have an optimistic vision

In the year ahead, the Department will be focused on achieving academic excellence and accelerating learning for all students; delivering a comprehensive and rigorous education for every student; eliminating the educator shortage for every school; investing in every student's mental health and well-being; providing every student with a pathway to multilingualism; and ensuring every student has pathways to college and a career.

Teachers are dependent on manufacturers for learning supplies. — Athena

No; textbook publishers depend on sales to school boards and libraries for their living.

Who determines what they say in the text and provide on the Internet? — Athena

State and local Boards decide what material will be supplied to classrooms.

They each decide what they themselves value. The DoE imposes some conditions on the allocation of federal funds, but individual institutions of higher learning, administered by state agencies, have their curricula dictated by state policy and local boards of education choose and reject textbooks. This is what causes the disaster of teaching creationist doctrine in science class, climate change denial and high rates of illiteracy in the worst governed states. (I assume California is near the bottom because of its large immigrant population, but I haven't followed that up.) — Vera Mont

My concern is the education of small children, not higher education. My argument is the priority for education was preparing the children to become self-governing adults. That is what liberal education. Education for technology is more concerned with test scores and international ratings, not the individual child. In the past teachers help a child discover his/her individual talents and interests. Today I think most of the children are denied the education they need as we focus on those going to college because that is what the federal government funds.

Preparing the young to be self-governing adults, is the first line of defense against social problems reducing crime and the need for public assistance, and this why I write. There are two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people- a police state and people controlled by fear of losing of their jobs. Culture is vital to our liberty and this does not mean the freedom to dye one's hair green or put a stud in one's nose.

OMG Oregon, where I live, is at the bottom of academic achievement! I just looked that up. California is close to the top and above Texas. Texas teachers took Texas to the Supreme Court to end forcing them to teach creationism as science, and the Supreme Court ruled creationism is not science. For political reasons, book manufacturers write different accounts of history for Texas than they write for California. That difference in education is the fuel for civil war. So yes, we do have a serious problem.

About the part culture plays you said.

A big one. And it changes over time. — Vera Mont

If we want our liberty and avoid the conditions of a police state and possibly another civil war, there are elements of culture that should not change. Do you want to argue against that? I am in agreement that we have culture change. The US is what we defended our democracy against, but is this a good thing? We have progressed in reducing racial of gender discrimination but I think some things have gotten worse, like reliance on authority.

My concern is the education of small children, — Athena

If they don't learn to read and count in the early grades, higher education is off the table before they can even think about whether they want it. Self-governing adults are not necessarily innumerate, hero-worshipping science-deniers.

Education for technology is more concerned with test scores and international ratings, not the individual child. — Athena

At 20 or fewer students per class, there is no reason you can't have both.
Just where did you get the idea that a rigorous academic program is inimical to individual development or good citizenship?

If we want our liberty and avoid the conditions of a police state and possibly another civil war, there are elements of culture that should not change. — Athena

Too late. They already have. Not that the old culture was set up to prevent civil war - it didn't. The police state is not a result of K-8 classroom practices.

The US is what we defended our democracy against, — Athena

I still don't think so. But you do, so that's that.

Some things got better over time, some things got worse; some things that had gotten better are getting worse again, and there are factions that want things back the way they were before the civil war, and some that want single-party rule unfettered by a constitution, and some that want to exile, imprison or shoot all the factions and ethnicities and occupations and religions and opinions they don't like. All these crises will have passed, one way of another, long before the primary school students of today have any say in the matter - though some of them already own their own guns.

What part does culture play in our understanding of how to parent, and how to behave, and our values?
— Athena
A big one. And it changes over time. — Vera Mont

I was rushed earlier and I missed saying how glad I am that we no longer beat the devil out of our children. I think some serious changes have followed such as knowing old ways were abusive and lead to social problems. We now know a strong and loving family results in children having better health physically and mentally. This seems to be bleeding over to workers demanding better treatment along with higher wages. I am not sure how this is going to work out but the positives and very encouraging. However, I am not sure that a failure to have a sense of family duty is a good thing? Research has indicated children with single parents are more at risk.

At any moment, regarding some nations, you can say so. As I already pointed out, that applies more to monoethnic societies than to diverse ones. Of course, with globalization, instant communication and large-scale migration, all cultures are increasingly influenced by other cultures. (I could swear this, too, has been mentioned before.) There are no static cultures, and haven't been any for a considerable time now, no matter how yearningly some people in just about every culture hark back to an earlier period they imagine to have been better. — Vera Mont

:grin: We are back on track. This is a mind-provoking comment "At any moment, regarding some nations, you can say so. As I already pointed out, that applies more to monoethnic societies than to diverse ones." I can think of a few things that divided us. Cattle ranchers didn't like sheep herders, slave and none slave states, of course, Industry versus agriculture, living in the city or the country, living by a seaport or far from the oceans. However, education should unite us with a fundamental understanding of democracy and what it means to be a good citizen because we can not defend our democracy without that knowledge. It is fine to be a Hippy :starstruck: or Asian or Native American or a person of color who wants to identify with people in a particular region, but as Americans we need some agreements about what means to live in a democracy.

Thanks to you, and looking for more information, and finding the explanation of California and Texas having different history textbooks, I am :broken: brokenhearted to know these states are controlled by politics and not the determination to know the truth and to be honest. We can not be united if we do not share the history and fundamental values.

Your explanation of who decides what children will learn is excellent! A professor who sits in the hot tub where I go, said I have the best chance of affecting policy if I personally know someone and if we continue this discussion, I may give up being a Senior Companion so I have the time and energy to focus on education. I am wondering if a hundred-dollar donation would encourage our Governor to have lunch with me and talk about the need for Oregon to law that we have civics education!

These arguments lead to finding important information that my old books don't have :lol: and also increase my awareness of what is important to bridge with others. Being alone with my books does not develop my thinking as I must do if I am going to be effective. :worry: If I had a teaching career I would naturally be more informed about what is happening today and who it is important for me to have lunch with. Even if I had a child in school that would help, but being an outsider and coming in with different ideas DOES NOT GO SO WELL!

If they don't learn to read and count in the early grades, higher education is off the table before they can even think about whether they want it. Self-governing adults are not necessarily innumerate, hero-worshipping science-deniers. — Vera Mont

Thank you for representing the million of people who do not see the importance of education for democracy and pulling out my thoughts about why a liberal education is so important! Children who do not have good character development are going to fail no matter what. Demanding they know New Math when their parents can not help them and there is no one to tutor a struggling child, only harms the child with the constant failure the child can not avoid. Especially if the child has bad parents and/or has a life of constant adversity, this can consume the child's awareness making it impossible for the child to learn. But there is a cure- anyone can be a good citizen with good forefathers and strong mothers if the schools teach this.

These are the characteristics that describe the ideals and procedures of democracy....

1. Respect for the dignity and worth of the individual human personality.

2. Open opportunity for the individual.

3. Economic and social security.

4. The search for truth.

5. Universal education.

6. The rule of the majority; the rights of the minority; the honest ballot.

8. Justice for the common man; trial by jury; and arbitration of disputes; orderly legal processes; freedom from search and seizure right to petition.

There are 4 more but I have to run. I would give anything including my life if this would be taught in all schools along with learning the virtues that make it possible for us to engage courageously with life and our fellow human beings. Then maybe the young people who go into debt to pay for college, will succeed in having the career they were educated to have. That education for technology is no good without the character to take advantage of it.

Thank you for representing the million of people who do not see the importance of education for democracy and pulling out my thoughts about why a liberal education is so important! — Athena

Nonsense! You have made no case whatever - in all these pages - for why sound knowledge and useful skills are incompatible with virtuous character and good citizenship.

I have some issues - or rather, did have, when I was more directly interested in the process - with how certain subjects are taught, and how classrooms and testing are organized, but I see no reason - no reason whatsoever - why a person can't have a good education as well as good values.

I've been trying and trying to tell you: You don't have to choose! A well organized, well staffed, well conducted system of public education can achieve all of those objectives: well-rounded, confident, literate, numerate, logical people who take control of their own governance, economy and jurisprudence.
Don't believe me; compare the democracy index with the academic standings.

But the political entities and their special-interest supporters don't desire a knowledgeable, sensible populace: they desire a rabble that's easily swayed and buys all the merchandising.
And now, I'm weary of repeating it.

Don't believe me; compare the democracy index with the academic standings. — Vera Mont

:100: :up:

As this thread amply shows, I'm afraid Athena is extremely allergic to contrary evidence or apples to apples comparisons of "the human development / cultural data of rich nations".

Nonsense! You have made no case whatever - in all these pages - for why sound knowledge and useful skills are incompatible with virtuous character and good citizenship.

I have some issues - or rather, did have, when I was more directly interested in the process - with how certain subjects are taught, and how classrooms and testing are organized, but I see no reason - no reason whatsoever - why a person can't have a good education as well as good values.

I've been trying and trying to tell you: You don't have to choose! A well organized, well staffed, well conducted system of public education can achieve all of those objectives: well-rounded, confident, literate, numerate, logical people who take control of their own governance, economy and jurisprudence.
Don't believe me; compare the democracy index with the academic standings.

But the political entities and their special-interest supporters don't desire a knowledgeable, sensible populace: they desire a rabble that's easily swayed and buys all the merchandising.
And now, I'm weary of repeating it. — Vera Mont

:lol: Lets see if I can do as well as Socrates. He gave his life for democracy even though he thought poorly of the decisions that were made. What did Socrates believe people needed to know to make good decisions? How were they to gain that knowledge?

What does this quote mean?
“Unless we’re motivated by principle in our voting, we walk into a mirrored echo chamber, where there’s no coherence,” Kucinich

“Unless we’re motivated by principle in our voting, we walk into a mirrored echo chamber, where there’s no coherence,” Kucinich — Athena

It's about the partisanship of US politics, I assume. He has a degree in communication, which is fine for a career politician. Seems like a nice guy, might make a good president - with a Dem-dominated Congress - but he can never be elected to that office: short, intelligent and vegan are a deadly combination in the USA.
And yet once more again: Why do you think someone who understands evolution and electricity can't have principles?

It's about the partisanship of US politics, I assume. He has a degree in communication, which is fine for a career politician. Seems like a nice guy, might a good president, but he can never be elected to that office: short, intelligent and vegan are a deadly combination in the USA. — Vera Mont

He lost the election to Bush Junior and if he had won, the neocons would not have been able to take us to war as they were intent on doing at least since Bill Clinton was in office. His response to 911 and Bush invading Iraq on trumped-up charges, was that we missed a golden moment to grieve and to be supported by the world that saw us as victims and not the victimized. The global reality would be totally different than it is today. I think your opinion of the US would be totally different if Kucinich had won that election.

I will try another question. Kucinich mentioned being motivated by principals. What principals? How do people learn about principals?

Something that drives my thinking is this explanation of fast and slow thinking.

We used to use the Conceptual Method of teaching children how to think. This was replaced with the Behaviorist Method which is also used for training dogs. Dogs do not vote but humans who may know a lot about one thing like how to get to the moon, may be no better prepared for thinking than a dog. As William James said "The German universities are proud of the number of young specialists whom they turn out every year,- not necessarily men of any original force of intellect, but men so trained to research that when their professor gives them an historical or philoogical thesis to prepare, or a bit of laboratory work to do, with a general indication as to the best method, they can go off by themselves and use apparatus and consult sources in such a way as to grind out in the requisite number of months some little pepper-corn of new truth worthy of being added to the store of extant human information on that subject. Little else is recognized in Germany as a man's title to academic advancement than his ability thus to show himself an efficient instrument of research."

What do you think he thought of how a German was prepared to think?

What might be the ramifications of changing how we teach children how to think? What is the moral of evolution or getting a spaceship to the moon that will help us be better voters?

I think William James is a tad out of date. In the 20th century, I guess the US was eager enough to collect as many of those German research morons as they could.

He lost the election to Bush Junior — Athena

Kucinich never got within ballistic missile distance of losing to Bush. He didn't carry a single state in the Democratic primaries for 2004 and dropped out of the race for the 2008 candidacy. Unelectable.

We used to use the Conceptual Method of teaching children how to think. — Athena

This one? When was it used? Where? How?

Schools in the 1950s had a strict curriculum and teaching methods, with little room for creativity or deviation from the norm. The focus was on traditional subjects such as math, science, and literature, and most instruction was done through lectures and rote memorization. In contrast, today's schools are more flexible and teachers have more autonomy to use different teaching methods and approaches that best fit their students' needs. This includes the use of project-based learning, group work, and other modern teaching methods that are designed to engage students and promote critical thinking skills.

This was replaced with the Behaviorist Method which is also used for training dogs. — Athena

I assume you mean positive reinforcement: praising them when they figure out the right answer, instead of hitting them across the knuckles with a ruler if they don't. I'm actually okay with this change.

What might be the ramifications of changing how we teach children how to think? — Athena

They already know how to think; they come complete with all the necessary equipment. The trouble begins when parents and community, government, church and school all compete for the right to decide what they should think.

What is the moral of evolution or getting a spaceship to the moon that will help us be better voters? — Athena

OTOH, why do you think not knowing those things makes a good voter or a moral person? As Texas and Florida illustrate, restricting what students may hear and learn, limiting the children's scope to the parents', makes them more compliant to authority - I thought you didn't approve of that! - but it sure doesn't make them more responsible citizens!

Schools in the 1950s had a strict curriculum and teaching methods, with little room for creativity or deviation from the norm. The focus was on traditional subjects such as math, science, and literature, and most instruction was done through lectures and rote memorization. In contrast, today's schools are more flexible and teachers have more autonomy to use different teaching methods and approaches that best fit their students' needs. This includes the use of project-based learning, group work, and other modern teaching methods that are designed to engage students and promote critical thinking skills.

I am glad you want information on the subject. When we entered WWII teachers who had taught for many years could no longer teach unless they went to college and got the newly required education to be teachers. My grandmother was one of these women. She began her day with the children by having everyone sing. You might like to know why Plato and Aristotle thought music was perhaps the most important t part of education and you can that information from their books.

The following is taken from the book "America's World Backgrounds" a grade school textbook by George Earl Freeland, copyright 1942.....

"The central purpose of this book is to make citizens better equipped to face realities. At every step the readers are made to see their relationship to everything that surrounds them. The role of people in every historical movement is made prominent so that the reader will understand his place and his importance in modern society, and accept his own personal obligation to be an intelligent and responsible citizen.

We suggest that the teacher remember the fundamental purpose of developing socially minded citizens. The plan is the selection of the subject matter on every page and in the lists of books, problems, and activities at the close of each unit is directed towards what A Charter for the Social Sciences calls the supreme purpose of the Social Sciences; "To create rich and many-sided personalities are informed about a wide range of affairs both immediate and remote. They are aware of personal and social responsibilities; they know that the environment can be changed within limits by individual and social action.

A Charter for the Social Sciences then enumerates very specifically the elements that make a good citizen, with a "rich and many-sided personality". In addition to a body of information about the modern world and the elements that form its background, the "Charter" suggests certain skills that must be acquired to give power; habits that should be formed such as cleanness, industry, courtesy, accuracy, and effective co-operation; attitudes, such as tolerance, open-mindedness, social-mindedness, and loyalty to America's domestic ideals that must be set up; courage and will power that should be developed by citation of noble examples of leadership in the struggle of mankind towards a richer and better life for all; constructive imagination that should be fostered; and finally, aesthetic appreciation that can inspire the pupils' minds with zeal for the finest products of genius."
There is more but I want to provide another source as well.

This next book is dated 1924 Reading and Living by Howard Copeland Hill and Rollo LaVerne Lyman

"Whether at home or at school, at work or at play, we spend most of our waking time with other people. Our pleasures and achievements depend largely upon our success in getting along with our companions; our problems and difficulties usually come from human associations. Indeed, a successful and happy life is chiefly the result of living well with other folk.

Great writers have been fascinated by human relationships. The poem, stories, essays, and novels usually deal with people living and working together. Literature is a mirror of life, reflecting those human interests and problems that grow out of our contact with one another; one of its chief values is to enable us to understand and to to appreciate life.

Selections have been chosen because they illustrate or illumine the art of living and working together...."

Maybe in the morning, I can find the book advising teachers to not fuss over whether a child remembers names and dates but pay attention to the child's understanding of the concepts. I have a lot of books to pull from but understanding why this education is important and what it has to do with democracy, is better understood by knowing what Plato and Aristotle thought of education. We are not the united and cooperative nation we were and coincidentally that domestic education was replaced with education for technology in 1958. Hum, I should quote the math book as well, as it explains the value of being math literate, in solving everyday problems and the book I have about math literacy explains how that can make us better voters. The past conceptual and domestic education did not leave people ignorant but 8th grade dropouts were capable of starting their own businesses. We were prepared to be independent and not have to rely on authority or the government. We prepared our young for life. Plato and Aristotle would approve as democracy is about each of us self-actualizing and developing the good. That is a cultural difference.

So... all the sources I cited are wrong, while all your anecdotes are right, and schoolchildren stopped reading nice stories in 1958. People disagree, because we fail to grasp that, if only the US returned to the 1920's, or maybe 400BCE, and began the day with song, all its grade 8 graduates would be prepared to start businesses in the depression, when Americans were peacable, fair, tolerant and co-operative.
Good luck promoting that.

:clap: :smirk:

You are correct that Christianity is bad for education. But don't you see this is intentional? Smart, logical, and well-educated people, who avoid logical fallacies, would immediately realized the Christian mythic stories are false, would reject the religion to become agnostic, or Taoist or something, or atheist.

All life forms want to survive. Organizations are conscious life forms (see hive mind, see my posts on super-conscious beings). We unite in a common identity and birth a higher order of intelligence that we are linked to, and it wants to grow and survive, and will manipulate its "parts" (the humans that comprise its body, who unite under that identity) to defend itself from death. Christianity -- the organization's consciousness -- is deliberately sabotaging the educational system to keep people dumb enough to still embrace that religion. It must to survive. It dominates our politics (since most politicians identify as Christian) enough to basically have carte blanche over our educational system.

Ken

Organizations are conscious life forms — ken2esq

So is Celtic, Jew, Spartan, Roman, Hun, American, European, Black, White, Male, Female, Intersex, baby, bird, fish etc merely ways to 'organise' lifeforms, or do you see each as 'separate forms of consciousness,' which are merely parts of a greater whole?
Are all notions or categorisations of separate 'cultures,' also organisations in your mind, that you also see as separate manifestations of:

conscious life forms — ken2esq

?
Are organisations like NATO or the 6 retail shops owned by the family of a friend of mine, also 'conscious life forms?'
Your line of argument here, and on the other threads you have posted on TPF, just seem so akin to mere 'flights of personal fantasy,' to me.
You are using the natural tendency of chaos to order back to chaos via entropy, to make quite bizarre claims about human conscience, to deliver an unfounded posit about the existence of a single overall conscience that in your view, either has always existed or is emergent.
Imo, what you offer is mainly theosophist woo woo nonsense.

Christianity -- the organization's consciousness -- is deliberately sabotaging the educational system to keep people dumb enough to still embrace that religion. — ken2esq

Does that mean each Christian denomination has a separate consciousness because each has a separate organizational hierarchy? And does that account for all the warfare between Protestants and Catholics for the domination of Europe? And since both Christianity and Islam arose from Judaism, does that make them both patricides and fratricides? Are all organizational entities natural born killers?

It's possible, I suppose, since all these organizations are based on human ideas and consist of human members. A herd of elephants is not naturally murderous toward other elephant herds, nor is a hive of bees inimical to other bees, but chimpanzee troops can be. I guess that is where human begins: with a mob consciousness that craves violent conflict among kin.

You are correct that Christianity is bad for education. But don't you see this is intentional? Smart, logical, and well-educated people, who avoid logical fallacies, would immediately realized the Christian mythic stories are false, would reject the religion to become agnostic, or Taoist or something, or atheist.

All life forms want to survive. Organizations are conscious life forms (see hive mind, see my posts on super-conscious beings). We unite in a common identity and birth a higher order of intelligence that we are linked to, and it wants to grow and survive, and will manipulate its "parts" (the humans that comprise its body, who unite under that identity) to defend itself from death. Christianity -- the organization's consciousness -- is deliberately sabotaging the educational system to keep people dumb enough to still embrace that religion. It must to survive. It dominates our politics (since most politicians identify as Christian) enough to basically have carte blanche over our educational system. — ken2esq

Yes, group identity gives us an immortality and many have died to maintain the conscious life form. For me, that group organization is democracy. Not the US but democracy as a concept coming out of Athens but also observed in tribal units around the world. It is just that Athens gave us a lot of philosophy that shapes our democracy.

Lately, the TV programs I watch have been about group identity and injustices done to the different racial groups. This search for a separate identity is curious to me. In grade school, a teacher told us of our migration from Europe and she told us to ask our parents what country we came from. When I asked my mother what we are she got indignant and said we are Hnienz 57 varieties. That is the melting pot of the US. I have no idea where my family came from and I don't care! I rather define who I am with virtues, morals, and philosophy bonded together with a notion of democracy. If anyone was discriminated against it was women! I remember when if women worked, they did low-paying jobs. Teachers were paid so poorly, my teacher grandmother was put in the welfare part of a nursing home and these people were fed last.

We are so far from a shared history, as each group has its own sad story. :cry: What about human history that includes everyone? When did humans not compete for land and resources? Figuring out how to trade and prosper is also part of that history. I do not mean to be disrespectful but I wonder about a shared consciousness that includes everyone. Is that possible?

It seems to me, in my lifetime, our shared consciousness has changed a lot! I think we are in the resurrection with archeologists, anthropologists, and related sciences bringing the past into the present and it is our task to rethink everything and develop a new consciousness of the New Age.

Are organisations like NATO or the 6 retail shops owned by the family of a friend of mine, also 'conscious life forms?' — universeness

I would say so. My family is an organization and I am the matriarch. :lol: Oh my goodness one thought leads to another. My X was in a hurry to prove he was a man by having a son. I have heard something about survival of the fittest involving males competing for females so their superior gene line is the one that is reproduced. However, animals don't conceptualize their behavior and I think a conceptual form needs concepts.

My goodness, I am amazed by all the concepts involved. In part, this is also about notions of superiority.
Who deserves to survive and who can we eliminate and who gets to judge? Is it important to save all languages and therefore all tribal concepts of human life and is it a tragedy if a tribe dies with no recorded memory? In the TV shows I watch, there are people who take such matters very seriously.

What is cool about your musings (your posts), Athena, is that you demonstrate that you still need and want to muse so much. It is such a big part of who you are, imo. We all need to do the same.
In that lies the truth, that we are each, always learning. Arrogance and 'me,' 'me' me!' are part of the problem, that we all must fight against, in secular and humanist ways.
As I have stated many times, it's your legacy that will endure, in ways you can never know.
Cultural legacy in that sense, is indeed, critical, imo.
BUT, not the classics, they must make room for the new enlightenments to come.

BUT, not the classics, they must make room for the new enlightenments to come. — universeness

Oh my dear, I think I have to argue against that notion, but then I am afraid I will have to argue against myself when I criticize the warrior mentality. :lol: Wow am I confused at the moment! I think this is going to take a lot of work. Socrates might appreciate my dilemma. He was very concerned about the stories we tell and their effect.

On the other hand, I am very excited about how much our consciousness has changed and the direction it is going. I am fully expecting a New Age where our consciousness will be so changed people can no longer relate to our past.

For sure it is past my bed time and I have obligations tomorrow. It is nice to be sure of some things and not completely lost in unknowns. Good night.

Oh my dear, I think I have to argue against that notion — Athena

Of course you do, and I am glad of it, in a democracy, people need alternate views to choose from.

I am fully expecting a New Age where our consciousness will be so changed people can no longer relate to our past. — Athena

Don't get me wrong Athena in that I am very aware of the truth of 'those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.' I am not saying that the thoughts and fables of the ancients have no value, but I am saying that they are not good enough to form the basis of our moral codes or human rights or global constitution or prime directives, in our spacefaring future as one united species.

I am not saying that the thoughts and fables of the ancients have no value, but I am saying that they are not good enough to form the basis of our moral codes or human rights or global constitution or prime directives, in our spacefaring future as one united species. — universeness

:up: :up:

:up:

as one united species.
incorrigible:
(of a person or their behaviour) not able to be changed or reformed.

I suppose we all hold some views, very strongly.

as one united species — universeness

'A counterfactual ideal projection' for which, like "God" or utopia/paradise, there aren't – never have been – any compelling grounds to believe or expect. 'Your Roddenberryesque fantasy' is, my friend, "incorrigible" – even, I'm sad to say, religious. You seem to forget: we are primates, not ants or angels. :mask:

I hope even primates can evolve out of their savage ways, if the way is shown, not by chimpanzees but mountain gorillas like Ishmael ... but then, isn't he the Stranger of the '90's?
The big question is: will there be time enough? I doubt it.

Don't get me wrong Athena in that I am very aware of the truth of 'those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.' I am not saying that the thoughts and fables of the ancients have no value, but I am saying that they are not good enough to form the basis of our moral codes or human rights or global constitution or prime directives, in our spacefaring future as one united species. — universeness

Now that I have to argue against and it goes with the subject of this thread. Who makes war, individuals or the whole bloody civilization? :rofl: so after deleting my very long argument, I am wondering how to shorten it. :grimace: I think I need to start a thread for war. I am totally fascinated by war.

I do not believe there are any Spartan-like nations today, even though modern nations are organized Military Industrial Complexs. In general, I think secular populations are opposed to war unless attacked. I have to clarify secular because the religious folks can so easily be convinced that God wants them to fight against evil. I think their war god is behind the centuries of war they have had. I am not convinced that this hateful behavior is because Adam and Eve and all their offspring are the evil. The Mongols may have wrongfully killed a lot of people and wrongfully enslaved those they did not kill. but can that history be repeated today? A huge concern in the past was that civilized people would become soft and weak and easy to conquer. If it were not for their religious justifications for war, I don't think these people would favor war unless they had no choice but to defend themselves and their allies.

I see the internet as a way to end wars. If the mothers around the world could communicate with each other, I think they would be as opposed to war as the women of Sparta. When we can all know each other as well as we know our neighbors we will be in a New Age that can not relate to the history we have had. Today we have the history of Germany, the first Military Industrial Complex to make better decisions, we just ignore that history unless an individual has a reason to know why we adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education.

Yipes out of time- It is possible to know more today than we ever could and I honestly believe if we survive global warming there will be a New Age where ignorance will not lead to war.

:up: