However, the issue is education, and not why the points I am about to relate to are not [so far] seen or raised in general.
The first point to observe in the field of education in general as it seems to me at the times we are living in is of a person’s ability to tell which of the views he imagines to be his own are actually so. – We are living in a time in which the intellect is greatly considered. I have related to it just above. – Wisdom, at the same time, with the utmost ease escapes procedural and formal tests and exams and could not be detected with measures the objectivity of would considerably rely on the question of whether they [the measures] would be verifiable by all – regardless of their own abilities as individuals. The practical situation is that many view themselves according to their intellectual-abilities, and here too, not much is demanded. (In most cases) – Depth of character, - liveliness of thought, anything that goes beyond the mere abilities which as-a-matter-of-principle could practically be those of an outstanding child of seven, - are underestimated and due to their-own-absence the ability to appreciate them is lost too.
– In this situation, - the ability to be able to tell what of a person’s overall view is truly of his own creation and of his own critical-filtering and what – on the other hand, - is absorbed off the society he (or she) lives in – is diminished and to a great extent lost with-regard-to-partial-points within his (or hers) world picture held by the person.
There are other situations too where other factors – of a rough character alternatively in many cases, - or an unclean mentality, - would lead to that result.
Unlike what people seem to believe in general, rendering their mind rational as a mathematical equation, practically human views held are sometimes absorbed, at some level, off what is common to believe around them. Depth of consciousness may very well be the main question here. And of course, many – particularly of shallow minds and a self esteem which does not correspond, - would not enjoy the comment regarding the issue and would react with typical insincerity attacking the commentator.
Consider Nazi Germany, now it is quite easy to see where the views generally held at the time originated, to a great degree. – But supposed you were at the time there, or that you were able to go there, - could you point and clarify that to a person at the time? – Quite obviously you might have preferred not to try. There may be rare individuals who might have the eye to glimpse your truth, but in most cases, - it seems, - failure is close to being guaranteed. – The situation is not identical. It is not merely about making individuals notice they are blindly absorbing issues off society and their surroundings but also, it is true, - about pointing to some emptiness or wrongness of views in themselves. – But thinking of the issue makes it easier to notice the phenomenon I-am-trying-to-relate-to today too.
With young children it might be easier. – Perhaps around the ages of 5 to 12. Children do have a lot of views or opinions or thoughts which they of course never have deeply considered. – They have been told this and they have been told that. Some may be right and some may be wrong. – Due to this situation it may be easier for them to come to notice the fact that they do not really know (many times) why they actually really think what they do. – With age the situation changes. Around 15 the situation would be different and again around 18 or 21. But anyway, - relating to the point at an early age would create consciousness of the related phenomenon in itself which would still exist at a later age too. – It is of course not wrong as-a-matter-of-principle to accept authority. Are we aware that we do? Are we aware of the reasoning? This is of course a different matter. – Very young children would of course believe everything their parents tell them is true. – This situation is not changed at once but gradually. As for adults, - when they live in a society where the standard is not to examine the issue they would very well absorb this too if they are absorbing the surrounding-of-their-ideas in general as referred to earlier. – But talking about children – if you question them about several elementary issues it might be quite easy for you to show them that they are not really aware of why they believe this or that. – Further, - though for this at a too-young-age this might not be so, - you might be able to make them notice that at certain points what they imagine to be simply what-they-think quite independently they don’t really know (unless particularly thinking about it) any rational justification to but simply have been told.
A child who has come to notice it as a child, - even though the nature of the phenomenon changes with age, - having become familiar with it at a stage when it is so easy to see, - would hold the awareness of the possibility of the phenomenon basically throughout his life later. Of course it is not guaranteed. If it is merely pointed out one day in school he might forget it the next. – But if he does come to the simple awareness at this age it is an understanding which will hold.
The issue is not particularly important with children. It is important with adults. Mainly, I’d say, - perhaps – after their mid 20’s. It is merely considerably easier to deal with at a younger age. Advancing with age, until 28, a deeper attitude is (or may be) required in order to display it. – Since the phenomenon itself becomes accustomed to the development in one’s personality and is accordingly better hidden (or otherwise of course gone) and further complexed. – Trying to make it clear how to deal with it then would be far less easy. – However, - for example – we do know that in most cases those born in religious families remain religious and those born in secular families remain otherwise too. Does this make sense? Of course not. The religious are often not interested in rational examination due to feelings of guilt and the modern-common-materialists a lot of times possess common baseless confidence due to which they would underestimate it and imagine they have generally performed it [quite unconsciously] anyway. Even if you point to a religious person that the fact that he or she were born where they were does not conclude that the religious beliefs held there are correct, - it is very hard for them to accept this.
Hatred for others which is acquired through “education” at home is a lot similar. While beliefs considered to be enlightened in modern ages could be of the issue too. Uchiyama Roshi speaks of that very nicely in his commentary of Bendowa. Though he is not that explicit. He speaks of people stopping thinking – in the past, - when they heard the word “Buddha”, and later, correspondingly, - when hearing of the Emperor and later “Democracy”. But this might drift somewhat off my intended line here. I have not summed the subject but I will here leave it at that. – What I am saying is that it is important for people to be aware of when ideas they hold true are actually derived by their own mental-means through reason (including reasonable trust in others, this is not faulted) and when – conversely – they [the ideas] are merely the outcome of an unconscious habit they are unaware of since they see it generally everywhere around them. (– So to speak, - “everywhere” – considerably among others, that is to say)
And – that this would be the first point to relate to when coming to dedicate your thought to the issue of education.
Second, - would be the matter of being aware how far could one’s abilities exceed. To what extent could one rely on his (or hers) mental-abilities and where – conversely, - one should know that his (...) judgment would be insufficient and that he would practically better trust that of some others, - if possible.
This would of course somewhat contrast – though not just at 180° – with the first point brought here just above. – Some might say perhaps it would (somewhat) balance it. I don’t find these observations particularly important. What is important is to note reality as it is and notice the practical tools in need. Sometimes they might be at one direction and sometime they might be at another.
However, - while the first point is to be aware of when your views are actually your views, and you might say consequently making sure that they are, - since you would not naturally want to hold opinions which found their room in your mind simply as some matter of random appearance through what would not be valid as-for assuring their truthfulness and realism as a picture of what-ever-you-observe, - the second point is about when conversely you might imagine yourself capable of coming to conclusions as for some issue while actually the real picture is more complex or complicated or refined then your natural assumptions, - or while it requires some unique or special expertise relating to some connection you are somewhat-unaware-of. I don’t see a way to make things clear as for the second point like it seems to be possible for the first. – The second phenomenon originates with an unclear mind, underestimation of an issue due to somewhat of a rough sight, - as it seems. – I don’t think it could be pointed to [– as a concrete incident, - that is] as the first could. – The matter is not as easy, - it mainly requires a change in a person’s personality, as it seems. Still, - when relating to actual people facing one who wishes to relate to the matter, - ones who are also willing to listen, - things are a bit different. – Success is not guaranteed, but real people are not abstract ideas, - and observing them, - in case you understand the issue itself related-to here, - you might find what to grasp and/or hold on to in order to clarify the second-phenomenon-I-find-importance-with here.
That would mean of course somewhere relating to concrete examples, adapting yourself to the audience – and I could hardly expect success with a crowd of more than a few dozens, - but there are those whose abilities I could not easily estimate.
This could be explained to an actual person, and as I made clear it need not be one, - but giving an explanation here in a written blog that would do the trick just as well, - I could not see as possible. There are always those whose abilities exceed expectations, - but given that Buddha or Christ would not give it a try I do not see it as practical.
Some would of course see what I mean, I would be a fool to write this otherwise. – But generally speaking the ability to clarify the second point relies on the talent or the inner capabilities of a person. – The reason we are sunk in materialism is to a great extent this issue. I recall Steiner somewhere saying or writing that the rise of materialism has to do with the popularization of science. As long as it was in possession of few it found no conflict with faith. – I don’t see a direct issue of humility, though it may be my limited sight, - but many – particularly when so habited in society, - (see of course first issue) would easily miss the fact, - (supported by the fact that this missing is joyfully performed by many) that their mental abilities are insufficient for the determination of certain matters, simply accepting existing standards blindly and dryly (again this is somewhat of the first matter, but here it might hardly seem they could tell themselves) as for what-they-could-determine-themselves and what-they-would-need-to-accept-authority-as-for.
This is all.
I wrote this on May 26th, May 29th, and June 16th 2015.
I don’t know when I will come to publish it.
My blog is stuck due to the “Time” post I can not complete because of fucking matters I don’t know if I get to write about.