A Possible Republican future

Nick_A

Interfaith Forums
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
2
Points
0
I don't believe Jeff Schreiber would mind copying his latest article here since I link it to his site

America's Right

It really hits the nail on the head and much food for thought for anyone on this site with Republican conservative leanings. He is right. We need the Apollo Creed influence to get back to basics. Who will they be? Sarah Palin is of course one but there's gotta be more.


Saturday, November 8, 2008

In Search of Apollo Creed


The days of chasing chickens are over.

In the days since winning the election, Barack Obama has established www.change.gov, the first-ever Web site dedicated to providing information regarding the transition between one presidential administration and another. This effort is only the latest step to use technology to inform, involve and motivate his supporters, and is reminiscent of several ways Obama revolutionized the ground game in presidential politics.

Last night, for example, I was looking at a friend's iPhone and, fooling around with the various applications available for instantaneous and free download, I stumbled across an application entitled "Obama '08," which allows the iPhone owner to organize telephone contacts used to spread the word about Obama's campaign. Similarly, Obama supporters who preferred to use a laptop or desktop PC could download software which literally turned their home computer and home telephone into a campaign phone bank. For liberals interested in advancing Obama's socialist policies, gone were the days of driving to the local campaign headquarters, parking their hippie butts into a folding chair, and working the phones for six hours or more.

Barack Obama, like him or not, completely transformed the traditional approaches taken by presidential campaigns in rallying and mobilizing the vote.

It dawned on me a few minutes ago that Barack Obama is like Clubber Lang, the mysterious new fighter on the scene with an inexplicable stranglehold on the media, while the Republican Party is more like Rocky Balboa -- morally and substantively superior but much slower, much more encumbered by tradition, and equally upset and motivated after the new heavyweight caused, in an embarrassingly easy victory, the demise of the stodgy old man at the heart of the party's corner.

Four years from now, the GOP will once again have to go toe-to-toe with Barack Obama. The defending champ will be ready, but unless things change between now and then, the GOP will not.

We need Apollo Creed.

At the beginning of the third installment of the Rocky franchise, Rocky Balboa was fat and happy, having successfully defended his heavyweight belt against a bunch of nobodies. He took for granted the hard work and sacrifice, the blood, bruises and sweat he originally put forth to get the belt in the first place, and was surprised by upstart Lang, who effortlessly got the better of the slower, more traditional, more distracted veteran in their first match. For the re-match, Balboa needed help, and he got that help from a longtime rival, Apollo Creed.

The days of chasing Mickey's chickens to gain speed were over. Creed--The Master of Disaster! The King of Sting! The Dancing Destroyer! The Count of Monte Fisto!--taught a reluctant Rocky the merits of balance and footwork and did so the old-fashioned way, through hard work, sacrifice, and the need to step outside the comfort zone.

It wasn't easy. Rocky couldn't move like Creed, he couldn't dance his way around the ring. In the past, he had relied solely on his power, his stubbornness and his high threshold for pain, but in order to have even a remote chance of beating Clubber Lang in the rematch, he needed more. Creed spent hours working Rocky over in the gym, jumping rope and hopping around in various ways. They ran on the beach, with Creed easily out-sprinting Balboa at first. Finally, after the musical training montage was almost over, Rocky beat Creed in the slow-motion footrace and the two shared a Barney Frank-type moment in the frothy surf.

If Barack Obama was able to be so efficient this time around, if he was able to mobilize the youth vote in such an unprecedented fashion, if he was able to foster turnout so effectively, what can we expect out of him in four years? As the incumbent, as the one wearing the heavyweight belt, he'll likely be better. His ground game will likely improve. And, unless the good guys can do the same, they won't stand a chance.

We need Apollo Creed.

We need to get younger. We need to get sleeker. We need to get faster, smoother, more efficient. We need to get quicker, smarter, more punishing, and less apt to retreat into our corner.

We need to stick to conservative principles, package those principles and sell them to the American public. It starts with the tenets of fiscal conservatism, stressing the end of big government, of higher taxes, of growth-stifling regulation. Create jobs by fostering economic growth, protect wealth by reducing taxes. Let America know that government has no business in the auto business, in our hospitals, in our homes. Talk to your kids, to your neighbors, to your co-workers, to people you meet in the supermarket. Challenge them to footraces, if necessary.

Regardless, the Ward Cleaver perception of conservatism must be replaced by concrete, practically-applicable examples of situations and institutions where conservative principles work. States and municipalities must lead the way, the private sector must do their job as well. The new media must do the job that the old media will not, and consistently report on the successes of conservatism alongside the failures of the Obama administration.

Republican Party leadership in Washington, D.C. must be gutted as well. Over the past two dozen years, we've seen that conservative republicans win elections, while moderate republicans do not. The tenure of the big government, spend-happy wing of the GOP must end. Young, forceful, vibrant leaders in the conservative movement must be supported and given exposure. Jindal. Palin. Ryan. Cantor. Sanford. DeMint. Huckabee. Romney. Bachman. Pence. When the dust settles in the weeks and months following Tuesday's election, we're going to see signs of one of two things from our party -- either we'll see the down-in-the-mouth, lazy fighter who refuses to adhere to the basic principles of hard work and sacrifice, or a lean, mean, fighting machine ready to take down the reigning champion in 2012. If it's the former, we're doomed; if it's the latter, we'll surely win.

So, who is our Apollo Creed? Certainly, the people behind Ron Paul's unlikely success know a thing or two about getting the word out. Certainly, the tech-savvy crowd do not all vote democrat. Let's take a free-market approach to redefining the Republican Party in the conservative mold. Let's reward those with new, viable ideas about public relations and voter outreach with positions in the party. Let's put out an all-points-bulletin for young people who know the merits of conservatism as well as they know how to articulate them across various channels to a wide-ranging group of people. Let's foster grassroots programs and organizations in our higher education institutions, and reward them with support from party leaders.

News of the death of conservatism has indeed been widely misreported. The beating we took on Tuesday will serve to make us--and America as a whole--stronger if and when we choose to learn from it, if and when we choose to once again recommit ourselves to doing the right thing and taking the right approach not because it is easy but because it is hard.

A leaner, meaner, more efficient Republican Party, strengthened by a core rooted in conservative values, will not lose in four years. Rocky Balboa did it. He surprised everyone with how much sleeker he was, with how much more efficient he was, with how much faster he was, with his mastery of the ring. Apollo Creed got him there with a simple, principled approach to training -- hard work, balance, core strength, footwork, blood, sweat and tears.

When the final bell had rung on the rematch, it was Clubber Lang who lay in a heap, beaten, broken, bloodied, and still surprised by the quickness and effectiveness of the older, wiser Balboa. The people were stunned. The commentators were stunned. When it was all over, Rocky reclaimed the belt he had lost due to apathy, and was a better fighter for it.
 
It really hits the nail on the head and much food for thought for anyone on this site with Republican conservative leanings. He is right. We need the Apollo Creed influence to get back to basics. Who will they be? Sarah Palin is of course one but there's gotta be more.
The conservative movement will be completely rinsed out of our political scene unless they decide to change their tune.

ie Sarah Palin. If they are going to stand up on a zero abortion platform, on creationism taught in schools, they will be gone forever.

If they decide to wake up and smell the roses, that the earth was not created in seven days and this occurred less than 10,000 years ago and instant canyonification and all the psuedo science utilized to defend the undefendable, its over, down for the count, ain't no comeback on any national title fight again.

However, if they become conservative, conserving the constitution, conserving human rights, conserving the environment...

Now if they continue to act like the big government, uncontrolled spending that the past years of power the Republican congress...they don't have a chance.

If they continue advancing socialist agendas like the 700 billion dollar bush bailout plan...they don't have a chance.

In the past years the Republicans in power have done exactly what they've accused the Democrats of for years. Wanna see a change? Start listening to Newt again.
 
Will

I do agree with you as far as the constitution and fiscal responsibility but also know that it must also become the party of meaningful intelligent moral principles as well.

Sarah Palin is not a Creationist but rather believes that Intelligent Design has a place in teaching about evolution. I agree. Einstein and Simone Weil also agree. I feel I'm in good company and should be an issue a conservative would be proud to defend.

Abortion allowable under specified conditions is another issue a conservative should be proud to defend. It raises the obvious question of respect for life and when we have the right to kill.

I believe most young women feel the value of a fetus. They are being conditioned not to by modern society but I still think they would welcome anyone that could explain and allow them to experience the value of keeping their legs together. The trouble is that conservatism has become so shallow and dogmatic that it is a turn off. New blood is needed to clarify this ancient question and I sincerely believe this new blood would be welcomed and respected by young people that secretly crave "meaning" and are currently being starved of it.

Jeff is right. We need the Apollo Creed influence to kick some butt and clean house so that conservatism can again serve its legitimate purpose in society.
 
"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."
She doesn't say intelligent design.

imo ID is just part of the slippery slope as the mythology is lost a desperate attempt to grasp at straws.
 
She doesn't say intelligent design.

imo ID is just part of the slippery slope as the mythology is lost a desperate attempt to grasp at straws.

Well then Einstein and Simone are grasping at straws. I'm quite sure that Sarah palin would understand and appreciate what they think and would support it as I do as essential for raising the collective human perspective that supports a free society by respecting something greater than itself. As a conservative I will glady support and defend such depth of thought.

Einstein's thoughts on spirituality

Albert Einstein Quotes on Spirituality

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists' religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

I believe that one identical thought is to be found--expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality-- in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil....Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

Cruel political attempts to keep students ignorant of profound thought in favor of pushing superficial mechanical evolution as explaining the origin of man is another example of how low educational agendas can go to further egoistic self justification.

Conservtism must grab thjis issue by the horns. The young need it and will be drawn to it simply because it is innate human knowledge that when presented rightly they will begin to psychologically remember.
 
Albert is like the bible.

You can prove whatever you want if you wish to pull out one or two quotes...

here are a few more, see if you can find him on intelligent design. Appears an agnostic he was, not denying and not supporting and on record as both not being a theist and not being an atheist and supporting if any religion...Buddhism, a philosophy...without reference to G!d.
 
Albert is like the bible.

You can prove whatever you want if you wish to pull out one or two quotes...

here are a few more, see if you can find him on intelligent design. Appears an agnostic he was, not denying and not supporting and on record as both not being a theist and not being an atheist and supporting if any religion...Buddhism, a philosophy...without reference to G!d.

Intelligent design asserts intelligent design. It asserts that the universe is not chaos but is based on laws that cannot occur mechanically so therefore have an intelligent design. See it for what it is and don't confuse it with any personal gods.

Intelligent design is such an easy concept to defend and obvious to all but those with political agendas. Fortunately the young have not had the time to become so crippled and can open to the obvious. Conservatism must save the psychs of these young ones and not allow them to be closed prematurely as is normal for agenda based education
 
Well then Einstein and Simone are grasping at straws. I'm quite sure that Sarah palin would understand and appreciate what they think and would support it as I do as essential for raising the collective human perspective that supports a free society by respecting something greater than itself. As a conservative I will glady support and defend such depth of thought.

Einstein's thoughts on spirituality

Albert Einstein Quotes on Spirituality


don't quote Einstein out of context..that's disrespectful of such a person.

He also said

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
“No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this,” he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.


Interestingly, in this same letter, Einstein declined the presidency of Israel.

“For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions,” he said.

“And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people.”

And he added: “As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.”

Einstein was a man of PURE science, meaning a man of skepticism. He had an unbridled fascination with the workings of the universe and often couched his expressions of such in religious terms because he felt that in the sense that his wonderment matched that of a religious person he identified himself as similar..but not the same.
 
don't quote Einstein out of context..that's disrespectful of such a person.

He also said

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
“No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this,” he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.


Interestingly, in this same letter, Einstein declined the presidency of Israel.

“For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions,” he said.

“And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people.”

And he added: “As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.”

Einstein was a man of PURE science, meaning a man of skepticism. He had an unbridled fascination with the workings of the universe and often couched his expressions of such in religious terms because he felt that in the sense that his wonderment matched that of a religious person he identified himself as similar..but not the same.

Einstein is differentiating between man made conceptions of a personal God as in secular Judaism and Christendom and the God outside of time in space that is nameless in Christianity and Ein Sof in Judaism.

Both Einstein and Simone Weil amongst others had both the spiritual sensitivity and intellect to grasp the reality that most are ignorant of. Conservatism has the responsibility to expose and preserve the natural healthy relationship between science and religion for the good of the next generation.
 
True pure science doesn't deny the }>possibility<{ of God. Never has. The questioning and thought STRUCTURE of each discipline contain similarities...The structure of action is where they diverge.


The problem with trying to further blur the lines between the two is you CANNOT believe or have faith in science. Because science is a discipline of action. It is nothing more than the meticulous gathering of physical data. for the interpretation of the data to be acceptable science it MUST BE BASED ON ONLY THE PHYSICAL DATA.



and besides...Einstein wasn't the only scientist to ever have lived..


"For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory we must turn to those kinds of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like the Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence."

~Niels Bohr, 'Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge'


"The great scientific contribution in theoretical physics that has come from Japn since the last war may be an indication between philosophical ideas in the tradition of the Far East and the philosophical substance of quantum theory."

~Werner Heisenberg, 'Physics and Philosophy'

What do you make of these two quotes?

Einstein's scientific discipline was centered on the cosmic scale. The respective gentlemen above were the pioneers of quantum mechanics...a disciple mutually exclusive to einstein's. Makes an interesting comparison with Einstein...who swore up and down that Bohr's theory was false...


and to call upon the words of a lecher like Einstein to champion the moral stance you take honestly has me rolling on the floor laughing my arse off..


Ps...the ONLY place where the line blurs between pure science and the scientific philosophy that is structurally akin to religious thought modes is in the theoretical field of physics.
 
and for the eff of it another Einstein quote.

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

There IS a distinction between pure science and scientific philosophy. Please stop confusing them.
 
They are being conditioned not to by modern society but I still think they would welcome anyone that could explain and allow them to experience the value of keeping their legs together.

Glad to see you're still ignoring the statistics on who is getting an abortion and why. It fits with the right wing ideology to criminalize women making difficult decisions. Nice, too, how it only harms women and completely ignores that another person- a man- was necessary for the fetus. But he's totally out of the picture. He's neither harmed by the criminalization of abortion nor is he directly responsible for carrying the baby to term and ensuring it finds an adoptive home- something that is in short supply (and growing shorter as states decide unmarried couples can't be suitable parents).

That's the plan- criminalize abortion and simultaneously make adoption harder. That'll help!

The trouble is that conservatism has become so shallow and dogmatic that it is a turn off.

Indeed. There was a day when conservativism actually meant conserving things: like natural resources (i.e., maybe we shouldn't "drill baby, drill") and money and even one's own lifestyle (but oh noes, that would be anti-consumerist, and Bush told us we should shop in order to be patriotic!).

New blood is needed to clarify this ancient question and I sincerely believe this new blood would be welcomed and respected by young people that secretly crave "meaning" and are currently being starved of it.

True. This is why young people overwhelmingly voted for Obama.

Change is inevitable in this country, not because of Obama, but because of a shift in our generations. Young people, as a whole, do not care if gay people get married. We don't want to criminalize abortion, we want to facilitate adoption. We want to end poverty so that women and men can be parents without undue financial stress (one of the leading reasons for abortion). We want to provide better education to youth and in so doing, give them hope and reasons to be more careful about their choice of sexual partners, their choice in life decisions (so they lead healthy, purposeful lives and avoid untimed pregnancy to begin with), and a realistic choice in contraception (which Palin opposes despite the obvious result in her own family). Most of us don't care about drugs as long as there is not violence- we want things legalized so it can be taxed and pay for treatment programs. Overall, I guess we're just more tolerant of difference, and less tolerant of violence. Many of us don't want guns in our society. We want war to be a last option, not a first option. We don't want the state to kill people.

Maybe somehow we'll morph into neo-cons and right-wingers later. But considering the number of 30 and even 40 somethings I know who retained their idealism and radicalism... I have hope. And before the GOP thinks ushering in a young-ish person like Palin works to get the young vote, consider that most young people I knew who were considering McCain went for Obama after she came on board.

We're not idiots. We're not just looking for sleek and hip. We're looking for different. We are not traditional, and we're sick of fear-based tactics and punitive government, of corporate-run America and of the poverty and downward economic spiral we see around us. Saying we'd vote for Palin because she's young was like the GOP's less-than-brilliant idea that women would vote for her because she has breasts. The presence of breasts was not fooling us into thinking she cares about women's issues, and it was obvious she was not a feminist and nothing like Clinton.

So long as the GOP treat voters like we are total morons and wish to buy into negative sound-bites and fear, they will meet increasing resistence from youth. We already don't trust the government and are wary of authority. This is why we tend to network independently to make choices via the internet. There's a reason my grandparents go to the doctor when they are ill and I head to WebMD first. We're more fond of thinking through the information ourselves. This is because we've seen how the government lies to us, betrays us, steals our tax money and provides it to corporations like Wal-Mart, manipulates us, and ignores us. We've seen how the government has been used to harm people and to deny equal rights. We don't like it, and more and more of us are intending to change it.

During the Civil and Women's Rights movements, the establishment folks nay-sayed and said it would doom society. People said it was unnatural. It was un Christian, un American, yadda yadda. Oh no! We can't have equal rights for people! We can't have black and white people marrying legally! We can't have women working and getting uppity about wage equality! We can't have premarital sex and contraception! Ack!

And here we are, with a higher divorce rate, yes. But a lower adultery rate (betcha didn't know that!) than 1950. Somehow, we survived and we have, for the most part, tolerance for people with other ethnicities. We all shared the bus and it was OK.

I imagine we'll get more and more split as a nation and heated about the push-button issues and we'll get more people saying they're moving to Canada or where ever right wing people would go, since all the wealthy nations tend to be socialist except for us. Then, eventually, it will stabilize and it will be normal- normal for us to teach sex ed and contraception, normal to have churches teach creation and science to teach evolution and led kids decide how to muddle through the data, normal for gay people to have equal rights, normal for us to treat social problems like abortion and drug addiction with compassion and not criminalization.

I'm hoping I live to see the day. Until then, I'll continue to work against the establishment.
 
Last edited:
Celeritas

True pure science doesn't deny the }>possibility<{ of God. Never has. The questioning and thought STRUCTURE of each discipline contain similarities...The structure of action is where they diverge.

I agree. there is no friction between science and religion. Friction is caused by "experts" on both sides along with political agendas.

The problem with trying to further blur the lines between the two is you CANNOT believe or have faith in science. Because science is a discipline of action. It is nothing more than the meticulous gathering of physical data. for the interpretation of the data to be acceptable science it MUST BE BASED ON ONLY THE PHYSICAL DATA.

Of course you can have faith in science to find a solution. However as far as Christianity is concerned what is needed is the faith OF Christ so as to put science into a more human perspective. Now if a person having faith IN science acquires the faith OF Christ, he is quite rare and definitely on the right track..

What do you make of these two quotes?

They seem quite sensible to me.

and to call upon the words of a lecher like Einstein to champion the moral stance you take honestly has me rolling on the floor laughing my arse off..
What does it matter if a guy is latching on to some extra rump as it pertains to the unity of science and religion? I'm sorry that you may lose your arse as a result of something meaningless.

Ps...the ONLY place where the line blurs between pure science and the scientific philosophy that is structurally akin to religious thought modes is in the theoretical field of physics..

Quite true. this is why Basarb Nicolescu is so far ahead of his time. It will be at least fifty years before culture begins to accept the axiom of the Included middle as complimentary with the normal axiom in logic of the Excluded middle.

There IS a distinction between pure science and scientific philosophy. Please stop confusing them.

It is you who are confusing them I made the distinction quite clear that ID is not about a personal God:

Einstein is differentiating between man made conceptions of a personal God as in secular Judaism and Christendom and the God outside of time in space that is nameless in Christianity and Ein Sof in Judaism.

It will be up to brilliant conservatives to battle for the rights of the young to be exposed to ID in universities and defy the liberal Atheist domination of those like Richard Dawkins who seek to deprive the young of this pioneering experience of the gradual unification of science and religion.
 
LOL- so now you confuse Dawkins-style militant atheism with liberalism and shove the universities under that umbrella?

I've been in the university system for 10 years. I'm not an atheist. I know a lot of people who are atheists, and a lot more people who aren't. We aren't dominated by Dawkins. Many of us gave Dawkins bad reviews.

I'm just loving the stereotypes. They are so far off the mark. I've taught biological anthro for several years, including human evolution. I'm paid for my expertise in anthropology, not religion or philosophy. Students are free to take religion or philosophy in order to obtain information about those perspectives and ways of knowing. But it's ridiculous to lump the scientific method in with philosophy and call it the same thing. Neither is better, but they are most certainly different. In my classes, students are told from the beginning that I cover human evolution. They can leave if that offends them. I explain they do not need to change their beliefs but they do need to understand what they don't believe in, because that's part of the course material. I fail to see how my peddling of philosophy and religion, even stuff I believe in personally, fits into my job description of educating people in anthropology. They're paying me for my PhD in anthro, not my religious beliefs.

I guess we could always say we have to teach creationism in schools and therefore churches must preach about evolution. That's fair. Pointless and disregarding of people's education in their respective fields, but egalitarian.

Not all of us are against teaching ID or creationism in science because we don't believe in it. Some of us are against it because it makes no sense to do so.

As an aside, the closest I get to teaching ID/creationism in class is when we look at the details of Darwin's work. He was an ID guy. Funny how he's so demonized now.
 
Looking to glamourised, legalised violence from a naff piece of Hollywood fiction. Spot on indeed.

s.
 
If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want to learn something, go to a library. -- Frank Zappa

Path

I can say sincerely that if not for discovering my path, this modern educational mindset would have killed me. I sensed something wrong with it but never had anyone that could be helpful, It was only after being free of it did I finally learn that there were a minority of people that truly understood what education should be.

When contemplating these deep questions it is always good to see if Simone had said anything since she'll get past the educational BS. So I found this gem.

[SIZE=-1]
[SIZE=-1]Weil lamented that education had become no more than "an instrument manipulated by teachers for manufacturing more teachers, who in their turn will manufacture more teachers." rather than a guide to getting out of the cave.[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]

As usual she sums it up without any cutsey pooh BS and alludes to the biggest spirit killer of the day that totally permeates our educational system called"fragmentation" or "specialization." In short it is the glorification of details without any concept of the value of human perspective that reconciles fragmentation.

LOL- so now you confuse Dawkins-style militant atheism with liberalism and shove the universities under that umbrella?

I've been in the university system for 10 years. I'm not an atheist. I know a lot of people who are atheists, and a lot more people who aren't. We aren't dominated by Dawkins. Many of us gave Dawkins bad reviews.


As I said it is people LIKE Dawkins and not all liberals or atheists. There is a misguided mindset out there glorifying fragmentation having an agenda that unknowingly leads to spirit killing in the young.

But it's ridiculous to lump the scientific method in with philosophy and call it the same thing. Neither is better, but they are most certainly different. In my classes, students are told from the beginning that I cover human evolution. They can leave if that offends them. I explain they do not need to change their beliefs but they do need to understand what they don't believe in, because that's part of the course material. I fail to see how my peddling of philosophy and religion, even stuff I believe in personally, fits into my job description of educating people in anthropology. They're paying me for my PhD in anthro, not my religious beliefs.
Somehow or other we went from teaching anthropology to teaching evolution. The trouble is that fragmentation cannot comprehend human evolution. Even trying to find someone that has suffered the psychological results of glorified fragmentation and yet somehow has come to distinguish between evolution and adaptation is a rarity. Yet we openly inflict this spirit killing on the young because we become puffed up from possessing a degree in some specialized field. But a degree doesn't imply "understanding." A student should know that a thermometer has a lot of degrees and we know what we can do with that. Some kids with the potential for understanding will be conditioned into adopting a mindset to pass a course and appear intellectual. Eech! They will be forced to deny Eros in favor of fitting in. The death of the spirit. How people with a straight face can teach evolution and particularly human evolution without knowing what it is or even distinguishing it from involution is beyond me. Yet encouraging the mind to be open to such questions while studying science as normal to unify science and religion. is taboo. Education closes the mind to it and effectively killing the spirit.

Of course there are a minority of educators like Jacob Needleman that understand full well the effect of this mindset but as a whole, education is infested with spirit killers.

Conversations.org: Interviews With Social Artists

I recovered quite well, but I had to find a few other people who shared my hunger. It is the hunger you're speaking of. That is what Plato called Eros---a word that's come down to us which has taken on a sexual association. But for Plato it had to do, in part, with a striving that is innate in us, a striving to participate with one's mind, one's consciousness, in something greater than oneself. A love of wisdom, if you like, a love of being.
Eros is depicted in Plato's text, The Symposium, as half man, half god, a kind of intermediate force between the gods and mortals. It is a very interesting idea. Eros is what gives birth to philosophy. Modern philosophy [??] often translates the word, "wonder" merely as "curiosity," the desire to figure things out, or to intellectually solve problems rather than confronting the depth of these questions, pondering, reflecting, being humbled by them. In this way, philosophy becomes an exercise in meaningless ingenuity.
I did learn to play that game, and then to avoid it.
My students at State were very hungry for what most of us, down deeply, really want from philosophy. When we honor those unanswerable questions and open them and deepen them, students are very happy about it, very interested in a deep quiet way.
RW: It is really very hard to find that, I believe.
JN: Some years ago I had a chance to teach a course in philosophy in high school. I got ten or twelve very gifted kids at this wonderful school, San Francisco University High School. In that first class I said, "Now just imagine, as if this was a fairy tale, imagine you are in front of the wisest person in the world, not me, but the wisest person there is and you can only ask one question. What would you ask?" At first they giggled and then they saw that I was very serious. So then they started writing. What came back was astonishing to me. I couldn't understand it at first. About half of the things that came back had little handwriting at the bottom or the sides of the paper in the margin. Questions like, Why do we live? Why do we die? What is the brain for? Questions of the heart. But they were written in the margins as though they were saying, do we really have permission to express these questions? We're not going to be laughed at? It was as though this was something that had been repressed.
RW: Fascinating.
JN: It's what I call, metaphysical repression. It's in our culture and It's much worse than sexual repression. It represses eros and I think that maybe that's where art can be of help sometimes. Some art.

The denial of the mind opening possibility of ID in the context of science is being pursued by modern education leading to metaphysical repression. What better for a conservative to conserve then respecting eros and its ability to put science into perspective. We can learn about details of a process we label as evolution which is not to suggest we either understand or are teaching evolution. We've become so fragmented that we cannot even see the folly of it.

Typical definitions of evolution:

any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

There is no distinction between adaptation and evolution making these definitions worthless
 
I've actually studied evolution, and yes, there is a difference in definitions between adaptation and evolution... a difference that is taught in every introductory biology and biological anthropology course.

Bio anthro includes human evolution because that is what the field includes. It has always been so-- bio anthro looks at the biology of human beings, and that includes genetics and what we know about all those ancestors that were sort of like us modern folks but sort of different.

As for specialization... you're way off the mark, if you don't mind my saying. We are not slaves to fragmentation- far from it. I work on interdisciplinary teams, and sometimes we teach interdisciplinary courses. The university is an environment that draws together in one place people from all different areas of expertise.

That said, the reality today is that there are too many different methdologies and too many different areas of information for anyone to know them all at a college/graduate level. For the same reason that you go to a lawyer for legal advice, and to a doctor for medical advice, and to your mechanic for advice about your car... you go to a biologist for information about biology, to a philosopher for philosophy, and so forth. This is not anything new, but it's certainly accelerated in the last 100 years. Why? Because we know more information than we used to, and so out of necessity we have to specialize more. Academics regularly discuss with one another, and we often do work together. But we recognize the impossibility of all of us doing all the same thing.

Students are not killed by this specialization because they are able to take a wide variety of classes in the university. In fact, most students I've taught find it exhilerating to try a much wider scope of topics than they had in public school, with professors that are passionate and intensely knowledgeable in their field. That's the whole point of going to college. If there is any spirit killing aspect, it's that students are pressured by the capitalist economy to forego self-actualization and exploration in order to hurry up and get a degree (since educational expenses have risen 4:1 compared to wages in Bush's term). It's the pressure on students to grab a degree and run out and make money that causes them to forego valuable classes- particularly in the humanities (religion, philosophy included)- because they can't afford it.

I'm always astounded at how some people are just so sure about how the university works and what professors do, when they haven't a clue. It's like all the people who think we make oodles of cash, when we are paid not much more than elementary school teachers. We do this because we love it- because we're passionate about our field of inquiry and we love to open students' minds. You can see it as killing students' spirits if you wish. But my student evaluations say otherwise. I think any time we force people to teach a certain way, rather than allow them to share their enthusiasm for their field, it's killing the learning process. The university is a shared environment. It's about the researchers, the professors, the scientists as much as it is about students and teaching. That's the beauty of it-- the students get to engage with people who are actively doing things in their respective fields in an environment where everyone can interact and integrate the fields. Specialization is only bad when it is not accompanied by interaction with others.

As for Simone et al.-- you seem to take a select few people's works as truth, and ignore all others. I take my own experience and observations as truth, and integrate others. Chalk it up to being a scientist. I wasn't "manufactured into a teacher." I entered the university with some clear ideas about social justice and environmental sustainability that I wanted to pursue, along with a heaping dose of wishing to learn about other cultures and religions. 10 years later, I am first a worker for these causes. I am second a teacher to others on methods that work for working toward these causes, along with a teacher of information about the diversity of humanity. The university didn't change me or manufacture me into anything. It just gave me the time and tools to professionally do what I always wanted to do. Students are not automatons. Give people a bit of credit.

As for Zappa- what you get out of college is, like the library, dependent on your goals. Unlike the library, college has actual people who can assist in growing your toolkit of methods of inquiry and have a dialogue with you about your interests and research. And unlike many libraries, we're up to date. I'm all for self-education and many areas of interest in my life have been enhanced through this process.

However, I don't pretend that my self-education in theoretical physics makes me equivalent in knowledge and method to a physicist. Picking up a few books here and there isn't the same as studying in a particular discipline full-time for a decade or more.

Case in point-- would you want a doctor who was self-educated at the library?
 
Path

I've actually studied evolution, and yes, there is a difference in definitions between adaptation and evolution... a difference that is taught in every introductory biology and biological anthropology course.

What is this basic difference?

As for specialization... you're way off the mark, if you don't mind my saying. We are not slaves to fragmentation- far from it. I work on interdisciplinary teams, and sometimes we teach interdisciplinary courses. The university is an environment that draws together in one place people from all different areas of expertise.
You are a slave but unaware of it. Fortunately there are men like Dr. Nicolescu who are aware of the problem and offer an alternative. granted only a minority will be open to it, but it is the alternative for anyone not wishing to sell their soul to Fragmentation:

Review Essay on Nicolescu's *Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity*

Nicolescu’s raison d’être is to help develop people’s consciousness by means of showing them how to approach things in terms of what he calls “transdisciplinarity.” He seeks to address head on the problem of fragmentation that plagues contemporary life. Nicolescu maintains that binary logic, the logic underlying most all of our social, economic, and political institutions, is not sufficient to encompass or address all human situations. His thinking aids in the unification of the scientific culture and the sacred, something which increasing numbers of persons, will find to be an enormous help, among them wholistic health practitioners seeking to promote the understanding of illness as something arising from the interwoven fabric—body, plus mind, plus spirit—that constitutes the whole human being, and academics frustrated by the increasing pressure to produce only so-called “value-free” material.

Transdisciplinarity “concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all discipline,” and its aim is the unity of knowledge together with the unity of our being: “Its goal is the understanding of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge.” (44) Nicolescu points out the danger of self-destruction caused by modernism and increased technologization and offers alternative ways of approaching them, using a transdisciplinary approach that propels us beyond the either/or thinking that gave rise to the antagonisms that produced the problems in the first place. The logic of the included middle permits “this duality [to be] transgressed by the open unity that encompasses both the universe and the human being.” (56). Thus, approaching problems in a transdisciplinary way enables one to move beyond dichotomized thinking, into the space that lies beyond.

Nicolescu calls on us to rethink everything in terms of what quantum physics has shown us about the nature of the universe. Besides offering an alternative to thinking exclusively in terms of binary logic, and showing how the idea of the logic of the included middle can afford hitherto unimagined possibilities, he also introduces us to the idea that Reality is not something that exists on only one level, but on many, and maintains that only transdisciplinarity can deal with the dynamics engendered by the action of several levels of Reality at once. It is for this reason that transdisciplinarity is radically distinct from multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, although it is often confused with both. Moreover, because of the fact that reality has more than a single level, binary logic, the logic that one uses to cross a street and avoid being hit by a truck, cannot possibly be applied to all of the levels. It simply does not work. Nicolescu explains it is only the logic of the included middle that can be adequate for complex situations, like those we must confront in the educational, political, social, religious and cultural arenas. As he writes, “The transdisciplinary viewpoint allows us to consider a multidimensional Reality, structured by multiple levels replacing the single-level, one-dimensional reality of classical thought.” (49)
Your interest is in interdisciplinary courses that introduce and share knowledge. Preserving human perspective in the era of science requires a transdisciplinary approach that strives to reveal and allow one to experience the human perspective that reconciles them as facets of a greater whole our human perspective should be based on but has instead been starved out of the young through secular educational intimidation.

Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Science is blind without taken in the context of a quality of human perspective that is being starved out of the young by the emphasis on fragmentation and the absence of idea as described by Prof. Needleman in his book "The American Soul"

Our world, so we see and hear on all sides, is drowning in materialism, commercialism, consumerism. But the problem is not really there. What we ordinarily speak of as materialism is a result, not a cause. The root of materialism is a poverty of ideas about the inner and outer world. Less and less does our contemporary culture have, or even seek, commerce with great ideas, and it is the lack that is weakening the human spirit. This is the essence of materialism. Materialism is a disease of the mind starved for ideas.

Throughout history ideas of a certain kind have been disseminated into the life of humanity in order to help human beings understand and feel the possibility of the deep inner change that would enable them to serve the purpose for which they were created, namely, to act in the world as conscious,individual instruments of God, and the ultimate principle of reality and value. Ideas of this kind are formulated in order to have a specific range of action on the human psych: to touch the heart as well as the intellect; to shock us into questioning our present understanding; to point us to the greatness around us in nature and the universe, and the potential greatness slumbering within ourselves; to open our eyes to the real needs of our neighbor; to confront us with our own profound ignorance and our criminal fears and egoism; to show us that we are not here for ourselves alone, but as necessary particles of divine love.

These are the contours of the ancient wisdom, considered as ideas embodied in religious and philosophical doctrines, works of sacred art,literature and music and, in a very fundamental way, an indication of practical methods by which a man or woman can work, as is said, to become what he or she really is. Without feeling the full range of such ideas, or sensing even a modest, but pure, trace of them, we are bound to turn for meaning.
Secular education and its dominant attitudes concerning fragmentation and meaning cannot result in anything but spirit killing. As a conservative, I do believe that conserving the means towards obtaining and preserving human perspective is well worth conserving. Hopefully those like Dr. Needleman and Dr. Nicolescu will awaken a sufficient minority that will deter human destruction inevitable for the loss of the quality of human perspective secular education must lead to.
 
Path



What is this basic difference?

Adaptation can be done by individuals and refers to biological changes in individuals that allow them to better survive and reproduce in their environments. Evolution can only occur in populations and refers to change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Sufficient changes to allele frequencies can cause speciation, but species boundaries are, at times, "fuzzy."

You are a slave but unaware of it.

Thanks for letting me know. :rolleyes:



Your interest is in interdisciplinary courses that introduce and share knowledge.

Thanks for telling me your assumptions about my interests.

Actually, my interest in interdisciplinary courses is to teach students that the most valuable way (generally speaking) of problem-solving is through multiple perspectives and cooperative effort. It is this belief that also undergirds my commitment to interdisciplinary research to solve environmental and social problems. My interests, therefore, are in perspective and not simply in knowledge sharing. My teaching philosophies are guided primarily by Paulo Friere and bell hooks- I believe in teaching people how to think critically and solve problems, to develop compassion for others and interest in the world around them, and to engage in manufacturing and critically analyzing knowledge, not simply memorizing or using it.

But I appreciate your faith in your ability to know all about the teaching philosophy of someone you only recently met on a forum. ;)

Preserving human perspective in the era of science requires a transdisciplinary approach that strives to reveal and allow one to experience the human perspective that reconciles them as facets of a greater whole our human perspective should be based on but has instead been starved out of the young through secular educational intimidation.

I think there is no one human perspective. There are human perspectives (plural). My work is, in part, dedicated to ensuring multiplicity of voice and representation. This doesn't negate the value of specialization in order to pursue depth of particular fields of knowledge. No one can do everything deeply. One can do everything in passing, or one can do a few things deeply. The beauty is that humans are diverse in their innate abilities and interests, so it isn't a problem... unless one person decides their own perspective and voice is the only one that should be heard and recognized, and therefore dominates others.

I fail to see how this perspective is intimidation. Or secular, for that matter. It is, for me, deeply spiritual and my commitment to teaching is similarly spiritual. Naturally, you might define spiritually in a way that allows you to dismiss my perspective, but then you are falling into the trap of which you speak.

Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I never said not to have religion. I said not to ignore the distinctive methods of inquiry that are unique to science and religion, and indeed, to all of the various disciplines. Critical analysis of modes of inquiry is not equivalent to dismissing modes of inquiry. To the contrary, it ensures that diverse ways of knowing are recognized as distinctive and valid, rather than allowing a mush of poorly designed research to overwhelm the valuable nuances in each of the disciplines.


Secular education and its dominant attitudes concerning fragmentation and meaning cannot result in anything but spirit killing.

Please back your assertion of "dominant attitudes" with statistics. Otherwise, it is simply conjecture.

Second, the issue of disciplinary "fragmentation" (or, as I would put it, diversity) is not unique to secular education. Indeed, it arose from religion institution-based education. The university did not begin as a uniquely secular phenomenon.

Third, you don't specify what you mean by "meaning" and so I can't respond as I have no idea what you mean.

As a conservative, I do believe that conserving the means towards obtaining and preserving human perspective is well worth conserving.

Your assertion that secular education "must" lead to this and that is mere conjecture and without proof. Secular education is diverse with very distinctive subcultures by nation, region, and university and so has differing effects on students.

I believe that conserving the diversity of human perspectives is worth conserving.
 
Path

Adaptation can be done by individuals and refers to biological changes in individuals that allow them to better survive and reproduce in their environments. Evolution can only occur in populations and refers to change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Sufficient changes to allele frequencies can cause speciation, but species boundaries are, at times, "fuzzy."

We have different definitions of evolution and adaptation. For me involution is the flow of life force into creation or from wholeness into diversity and evolution is the return flow of "being" from diversity towards the source.of creation.

Evolution is not a greater amount of adaptation but the change of being: of "isness." A rock has a level of being and a plant has another, an animal still another. One cannot say plants have evolved because more have adapted to a climate change. Adoption is the process by which a particular level of being diversifies in accordance with its potentials. Evolution is the change in quality of being itself.

So in reality you not only want to introduce and share knowledge but to iinterpret it as well through linear critical thinking. This is precisely what conservatives must supply the alternative to. It must debate the validity of pragmatism.
Without understanding universal structure and the psychology of "being" all this critical thinking and wishful thinking leads to a faulty foundation that must fall.

PRAGMATISM AND DESIRE

We must therefore recognize that there is a great difference between the wish for knowledge and the wish to satisfy desire, which is the basis of pragmatism. And that knowledge in the service of our ordinary desires may produce a very different picture of the universe than knowledge which is connected to other motives.

Pragmatism is the practical solution to problems. However, without an appreciation of universal structure and the psychology of being, short term solutions must crumble. They must crumble simply because secular pragmatism is ignorant of human "being" Even the most profound critical thinking and well wishes cannot deny the lawful results of human being.

I think there is no one human perspective. There are human perspectives (plural). My work is, in part, dedicated to ensuring multiplicity of voice and representation. This doesn't negate the value of specialization in order to pursue depth of particular fields of knowledge. No one can do everything deeply. One can do everything in passing, or one can do a few things deeply. The beauty is that humans are diverse in their innate abilities and interests, so it isn't a problem... unless one person decides their own perspective and voice is the only one that should be heard and recognized, and therefore dominates others.

No there is only one human perspective. However there are a myriad of devolved human perspectives. These devolved conditioned perspectives is what Plato called the "Beast" and Jesus called the "World."

Imagine a horizontal line that contains the diversity of devolved human conditioned perspectives. Form a triangle by drawing two vertical lines beginning at the two ends of the line that intersect at a point on a level above the horizontal line. This apex would be the conscious human perspectives within which all the devolved conditioned perspective are reconciled.

There is nothing wrong with increased secular knowledge from points along the horizontal line of knowledge. However putting knowledge into a higher reconciling perspective doesn't come from critical thought or wishful thinking but rather opening oneself to higher influences

An earthly perspective is created from two influences. The first is from living conditions on the earth itself and the second is involving conscious influences from above. They blend in our psych in accordance with our being producing what we call our vision of reality.

Secularism is Plato's Beast. We are getting our ethics from the diversity of the Beast. Unfortunately without help from above our being will turn ethics into its opposite. It is the nature of the Beast in spite of the platitudes. We need help from above to supply the foundation that can preserve a free society and to preserve the healthy balance between obligations and rights.

Simone Weil described a human being as a plant. One form of nourishment for our being comes from the earth and society. it is what feeds our roots. Like a plant we need the nutrition of the light which for us is grace. A healthy society creates an environment that helps its citizens to receive the light. a secular society denies the light and exists within it as imagination and only a source of platitudes. Secular society feeds our personalities while the healthy society feeds our souls as well.

I fail to see how this perspective is intimidation. Or secular, for that matter. It is, for me, deeply spiritual and my commitment to teaching is similarly spiritual. Naturally, you might define spiritually in a way that allows you to dismiss my perspective, but then you are falling into the trap of which you speak.

Secular intimidation is the process of denying the value of the conscious human perspective in favor of the conditioned perspectives that seek short term pragmatic solutions. There are a minority of students in educational institution that understand this and their educators often do their best to kill it so as to fixate on short term solutions ignorant of the necessary foundation for individual and societal growth. We are blessed to have those like Jacob Needleman that serve as the alternative to secularism in education by keeping the great ideas alive and expressed with the heart that allows students to be touched by the light they offer..

I never said not to have religion. I said not to ignore the distinctive methods of inquiry that are unique to science and religion, and indeed, to all of the various disciplines. Critical analysis of modes of inquiry is not equivalent to dismissing modes of inquiry. To the contrary, it ensures that diverse ways of knowing are recognized as distinctive and valid, rather than allowing a mush of poorly designed research to overwhelm the valuable nuances in each of the disciplines.
But if education denies the means to acquire religious understanding as opposed to religious secular imagination, it cannot happen. If I asked you what the essential means are for developing a higher conscious human perspective in the universities, would you know?

Please back your assertion of "dominant attitudes" with statistics. Otherwise, it is simply conjecture.
Give me an example of an educational institutions similar to what Dr. Nicolescu refers to and you will find it hard to do. It is so because the overwhelming educational institutions cater to secular pragmatic desires.

Third, you don't specify what you mean by "meaning" and so I can't respond as I have no idea what you mean.

Meaning exists on many levels from the superficial to the transcendent. At its height it is wisdom itself that existed before creation and is the conscious appreciation of universal laws.

From part one of "Sense of the Cosmos

Every great spiritual teaching speaks of itself in its own way as a mirror of cosmic reality. In the traditions of China the Tao is both the way to truth and the way things are. In Christianity the Word is both the teaching of Jesus Christ and the fundamental manifestation of God. In the Hindu tradition (including Buddhism) Dharma means both duty and the sustaining order of the universe. And in the Hebrew tradition Torah includes not only law in the sense of the teaching, but also law in the sense of the foundations of God's creation. A well-known passage in the book of Proverbs expresses this idea without ambiguity. Wisdom is speaking:
The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water...
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth... when he gave the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment; when he appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by him...
Now therefore harken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.
Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

(Proverbs 8:22-33)​

Perception of the UNIverse as ONE should be the goal of education that diversity can serve. We have sacrificed it to pragmatic and artificial desires that we dedicate problem solving to. The result is a growing hole in the heart of many who feel the emptiness of the Beast and its desires that dictate our pragmatic interests.
I just don't think that Republicans now are capable of revealing the downside of pragmatism. If such people can emerge from the woodwork, I just don't know. I hope so since we need a political party that can provide an alternative that allows people to feel that there is more than catering to the Beast.in us and stress the means necessary to open to it..
 
Back
Top