Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis - ideals

Expand Messages
  • Clive Elwell
    Dear Musaddique Thank you for entering this dialogue with me. It may be that some members of the group feel it is not relevant to education, but to me this
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Dear Musaddique

       

      Thank you for entering this dialogue with me. It may be that some members of the group feel it is not relevant to education, but to me this enquiry into the nature of the self is the very essence of education, and if educators are not concerned with this, one wonders why they are in education at all.  Because the mere passing on of factual information, necessary as it may be, is clearly not solving the increasing human problems, either personally or globally.

       

      Some comments below, interspersed in your mail, in this font.

       

      Dear Clive,

      Thank you for your email.

       

      You mentioned "surely we do indeed need to very sceptical of the mind itself. Sceptical in the sense of questioning it, doubting, not accepting anything it says or does."

       

      I absolutely agree. However, isn't scepticism a function of the mind?

       

      Interesting question. Perhaps it begins that way. But is there a doubting, a questioning, that is beyond the mind, beyond thought?

       

       One of the striking qualities of the human mind is its ability to introspect and critique its own functioning, to question previously held notions and explore new areas, and then to question the new conclusions all over again! But is every mind capable of, or willing to take up such introspection and self-critique? Clearly not, as is evident from the kind of society we live in.

       

      But as I say above, we need educators who are capable of this, and can share their enquiry with the young, developing mind.

       

      Minds therefore are complex, and can function in a variety of different ways. While the history of the human race is filled with many wars, it also has fountains of mercy and compassion and stories of struggles and triumphs against ignorance and superstition.

      I think you will agree that some of the ways in which the mind can function are more desirable than others.

       

      I would say that certain actions have different social consequences, yes. But I would question if these different consequences help to bring about a fundamental revolution in human consciousness.  And I do not know that one has to “struggle and triumph” against ignorance and superstition – surely one just has to put it aside. To drop them. Which happens when they are seen as false.

       

      Undoubtedly, the mind has limitations. But to dismiss the mind completely as problematic is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath-water!

       

      It is not a matter of “dismissing” the mind. It is a matter of finding its right place, is it not?  I suggest that right place is on the drawing board, in the laboratory, in the technical world. There it is necessary. Where it is not necessary, where it is a definite evil in fact, is in human relationship. And in religion – by which I mean the search for what is true.

       

      After all, what is the mind? Is it not mere memory, experience, the result of registration in the brain cells? That registration has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years. And as Satish has pointed out, it has been accompanied by identification – he as a Muslim, the other as a Hindu; he as a communist, the other as a capitalist, and so on. This has bought about endless division, conflict, and so immeasurable suffering to the human race.

       

      Satish mentioned "By teaching Ideals, Good, Evil etc., we are burdening ourselves and the children. True Freedom is to be able to act without any of these burdens and in the NOW."

       

      Satish, why do you feel that all burdens are necessarily undesirable?

       

      This seems a strange question. Why should the mind be burdened? Burden means the weight of the past, problems, conflict, suffering. Should the mind not be free of all that?

       

      If Good and Evil are subjective, surely you are not suggesting that a mind that's insensitive about the world, but without any "burdens" could be concerned a healthy mind at all? For instance, to quote Clive, its a "terrible society, that has brought about the environmental destruction, that has never solved the simple problems of inequality, lack of food, of water, of sanitation, of proper health care for much of the human race." This is a very categorical affirmation of  what Clive considers to be undesirable (or evil).

       

      It is the critical mind, empowered by freedom ….

       

      Can there be freedom when there is burden?

       

      ….. and humbled by an understanding of its own limitations

       

      Yes, it is essential that the mind sees its own limitations. Perhaps then true intelligence can act.

       

      that needs to be nurtured. Such a mind would not dismiss anything, be it human relationships or organized religion, as inherently false and faulty!

       

      Although I hold certain things to be true,

       

      Perhaps you would tell us what you “hold to be true”, so we could examine that?

      Because there has been immense conflict in the world between people who hold different things to be true.

       

      by no means do I consider them to be beyond being valid subjects of human scrutiny and critical analyses, and if required revision.

       

      To suggest that its impossible to arrive at any truth as an objective reality outside ourselves is to fall into nihilism. Indeed such a position is often like a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, if one does not expend any efforts to find any truth, one is presumably less likely to find it!

       

      I am not at all sure this is true. Can one search for truth? Does it come from effort? And how will you recognise it if you “find” it? What you recognise is what you already know, is it not?

       

       

      Warm Regards,

      Musaddique

       

      and from Clive



      Satish Natarajan <satish_en@...> wrote:
      Clive, Thanks for the reply, I would not have written
      better. Not been able to get much tim e to reply. To
      add to this,

      Good and Evil, Right and Wrong always means it is
      either past or future. You may ask how?? Good or
      Evil is only a comparison to something that has
      already happened. Which means any transaction or
      ideal is Good only with reference to something. Any
      act by itself is neither Good or Evil. Ideal is
      always only in the mind. It is memory, which has
      already become past. When an act happens in the NOW
      with no connection to the past or with no anxiety
      about its result, then there is no burden. By
      teaching Ideals, Good, Evil etc., we are burdening
      ourselves and the children. True Freedom is to be
      able to act without any of these burdens and in the
      NOW.

      Regards
      Satish

      --- Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@ virgin.net> wrote:

      > Dear Musaddique
      >
      > I might comment on your letter to Satish - surely
      > we do indeed need to very sceptical of the mind
      > itself. Sceptical in the sense of questioning it,
      > doubting, not accepting anything it says or does.
      >
      > After all it is the human mind, is it not, that has
      > produced this terrible society, that has brought
      > about the environmental destruction, that has never
      > solved the simple problems of inequality, lack of
      > food, of water, of sanitation, of proper health care
      > for much of the human race. The mind has bought
      > about innumerable wars. It has never solved the
      > problem of human sorrow.
      >
      > The virtues that you mention may well be
      > acknowledged generally as "good", but this is mostly
      > theoretical, an idea, is it not? For the most part
      > they remain as concepts, as ideals that perhaps one
      > day might be achieved - but never now.
      >
      > Surely you cannot seriously claim that human beings
      > - the human mind - have created societies based on
      > generosity? Surely it cannot be said that
      > advertising, politics, organised religions, and
      > human relationship in general is based on
      > truthfulness? Would you say our economic system,
      > business, is founded in honesty? Surely not - more
      > on selfishness, greed, compulsion, reward and
      > punishment?
      >
      > As for this matter of living by ideals, yes, of
      > course, one can have ideals of anything at all,
      > ideals of freedom, ideals of "non-ideals" . But do
      > ideals bring about fundamental change in human
      > beings? We have been attached to them for thousands
      > of years - what have they actually brought about?
      > Self deception. Hypocrisy. Double standards. A great
      > deal of oppression and violence. The terrorist has
      > very high ideals indeed.
      >
      > The education system tries to change the behaviour
      > of children by putting high ideals in front of them
      > - while at the same time actually teaching them to
      > be ambitious, greedy, concerned for themselves. It
      > is clear what actually affects children, and it is
      > certainly not the ideal.
      >
      > Regards
      >
      > Clive
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Musaddique Thange
      > To: alt-ed-india@ yahoogroups. com
      > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:48 AM
      > Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis
      >
      >
      > Hello Satish,
      >
      > If ideals stuck in the mind are susceptible to
      > violence, we would have to be very skeptical about
      > the mind itself and everything that it produces.
      > Virtues such as truthfulness, honesty and generosity
      > that are universally acknowledged as "good" would be
      > shorn of their desirability while evils (which is a
      > term that has been used on this forum) such as
      > oppression, would be openly espoused.
      >
      > My observation is that proponents of an absolute
      > freedom have their own definition of good and evil.
      > My guess is that they have used their minds to
      > arrive at an ideal of an "ideals-free" world. What
      > do you think?
      >
      > Regards,
      > Musaddique
      >
      > Satish Natarajan <satish_en@yahoo. com> wrote:
      > Yes, very true. Also lo ok at what the so called
      > Democracy champions (aka US of A) are doing
      > throughout the world, like in Iraq now. Bringing
      > democracy to Iraq has killed nearly 700,000
      > Iraqis.
      > All ideals which are stuck in the mind are
      > violent, no
      > matter what peace they may promote.
      >
      > --- Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@ gmail.com> wrote:
      >
      > > "And what is more, doesn't your post about not
      > > having a system to free the mind itself sound
      > > suspiciously like the recommendation of YOUR
      > system
      > > "
      > >
      > > I was expecting this comment :-). But no, I
      > have
      > > advocated no system to free the mind. But in
      > seeing
      > > - I mean truly seeing, not just playing with
      > ideas -
      > > that no system, no method, no orgationisation,
      > no
      > > guru-following will free the mind; in seeing
      > that,
      > > then the mind is freed enormously. Then it no
      > longer
      > > wastes its energy on false pursuits.
      > >
      > > This seeing can never be turned into a system,
      > into
      > > something mechanical. Seeing is not
      > mechanical.
      > >
      > > But I feel it is important to draw a
      > distinction
      > > here. Of course systems are necessary in the
      > > technical and scientific fields - to program a
      > > computer, to organise a transport system, to
      > send a
      > > vehicle to the moon.
      > >
      > > But imposing a system on the mind makes it
      > dull and
      > > lazy, does it not? Which is just what schools
      > do -
      > > they try to turn education into a mechanical
      > system,
      > > destroying all creativity, initiative in
      > children.
      > > And also when systems in the form of ideology
      > are
      > > enforced on the human mind, that implies
      > tremendous
      > > violence, brutality - just look at the
      > communist
      > > so-called revolutions in Russia, China,
      > Cambodia,
      > > North Korea.
      > >
      > > Clive
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: Kanti Ratna
      > > To: alt-ed-india@ yahoogroups. com
      > > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:15 PM
      > > Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis
      > >
      > >
      > > Dear Clive,
      > >
      > > I agree wholeheartedly with you - no system
      > can
      > > free the mind. However about systems, let me
      > quote 2
      > > passages from the pdf document i gave a link
      > to in
      > > my earlier post.
      > >
      > > Page 3 talks about the NEED of a system or a
      > map:
      > >
      > > "What is the point of using this Integral Map
      > or
      > > Model? First, whether you are
      > > working in business, medicine, psychotherapy,
      > law,
      > > ecology, or simply everyday
      > > living and learning, the Integral Map helps
      > make
      > > sure that you are "touching all the bases." If
      > you
      > > are trying to fly over the Rocky Mountains,
      > the more
      > > accurate a
      > > map you have, the less likely you will crash.
      > An
      > > Integral Approach insures that
      > > you are utilizing the full range of resources
      > for
      > > any situation, with the greater
      > > likelihood of success."
      > >
      > > Page 39 tells you how not to confuse the map
      > with
      > > what is being mapped:
      > >
      > > "Of course, IOS is just a map, nothing more.
      > It is
      > > not the territory. But, as far
      > > as we can tell, it is the most comprehensive
      > map
      > > that we possess at this time.
      > > Moreover-and this is important-the Integral
      > Map
      > > itself insists that we go to the
      > > real territory and not get caught in mere
      > words,
      >
      === message truncated ===

      ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
      Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
      http://farechase. yahoo.com/


      Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.


      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1039 - Release Date: 29/09/2007 21:46
    • Clive Elwell
      It seems the more knowledge the mind accumulates, the more difficult it is for it to question. Yes, knowledge is that burden . Of course one is not talking if
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        It seems the more knowledge the mind accumulates, the more difficult it is for it to question. Yes, knowledge is that "burden".
         
        Of course one is not talking if necessary technical knowledge.
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:36 AM
        Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis - ideals

        Dear Musaddique, 

        Thankyou for your wonderful reply.
        You make a very good observation about the mind.  This clearly shows that Mind is apart from one self.  Mind is just a tool that should be used properly. Unfortunately, we become identified with the Mind and that is where the trouble starts.  The mind has become a mere storage and the its ability to introspect and critique has diminished considerably.  Since we so much identify with the mind, our thoughts and actions happen through the filter of these memories.  It is this mind we want to throw out.
        By burden I meant the memory, the mere filling of information.  Here the mind is only trained to use the information and act.  But the sharpening of the intellect to be critical of itself does not seem to happen, because one identifies so much with the mind that to break free of this identity is to lose one's identity.  The fear of losing the identity prevents one from being critical of ones knowledge and thinking.  This is where the mob mentality starts.  The ideals have become a burden to function freely.  Then we start carrying the guilt of not acting according to our conscience.  Evil is nothing but the mind not doing its true function properly, as you had mentioned earlier about how the mind should function (to introspect and critique its own functioning, to question previously held notions and explore new areas, and then to question the new conclusions all over again!).  As Clive had mentioned earlier we live in a terrible society..., which means we have failed to act and this inability to act has encompassed all our lives and is reflected in the world we live. 
        Like you have mentioned in your last paragraphs, if we all use this wonderful instrument with all its abilities, then the mind will be able to free itself of identities  and function in a more saner way.

        Regards
        Satish 


        Musaddique Thange <mthange@...> wrote:
        Dear Clive,
        Thank you for your email.
         
        You mentioned "surely we do indeed need to very sceptical of the mind itself. Sceptical in the sense of questioning it, doubting, not accepting anything it says or does."
         
        I absolutely agree. However, isn't scepticism a function of the mind? One of the striking qualities of the human mind is its ability to introspect and critique its own functioning, to question previously held notions and explore new areas, and then to question the new conclusions all over again! But is every mind capable of, or willing to take up such introspection and self-critique? Clearly not, as is evident from the kind of society we live in.
         
        Minds therefore are complex, and can function in a variety of different ways. While the history of the human race is filled with many wars, it also has fountains of mercy and compassion and stories of struggles and triumphs against ignorance and superstition.
        I think you will agree that some of the ways in which the mind can function are more desirable than others.
         
        Undoubtedly, the mind has limitations. But to dismiss the mind completely as problematic is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath-water!
         
        Satish mentioned "By teaching Ideals, Good, Evil etc., we are burdening ourselves and the children. True Freedom is to be able to act without any of these burdens and in the NOW."
         
        Satish, why do you feel that all burdens are necessarily undesirable?
         
        If Good and Evil are subjective, surely you are not suggesting that a mind that's insensitive about the world, but without any "burdens" could be concerned a healthy mind at all? For instance, to quote Clive, its a "terrible society, that has brought about the environmental destruction, that has never solved the simple problems of inequality, lack of food, of water, of sanitation, of proper health care for much of the human race." This is a very categorical affirmation of  what Clive considers to be undesirable (or evil).
         
        It is the critical mind, empowered by freedom and humbled by an understanding of its own limitations that needs to be nurtured. Such a mind would not dismiss anything, be it human relationships or organized religion, as inherently false and faulty!
         
        Although I hold certain things to be true, by no means do I consider them to be beyond being valid subjects of human scrutiny and critical analyses, and if required revision.
         
        To suggest that its impossible to arrive at any truth as an objective reality outside ourselves is to fall into nihilism. Indeed such a position is often like a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, if one does not expend any efforts to find any truth, one is presumably less likely to find it!
         
         
        Warm Regards,
        Musaddique


        Satish Natarajan <satish_en@...> wrote:
        Clive, Thanks for the reply, I would not have written
        better. Not been able to get much time to reply. To
        add to this,

        Good and Evil, Right and Wrong always means it is
        either past or future. You may ask how?? Good or
        Evil is only a comparison to something that has
        already happened. Which means any transaction or
        ideal is Good only with reference to something. Any
        act by itself is neither Good or Evil. Ideal is
        always only in the mind. It is memory, which has
        already become past. When an act happens in the NOW
        with no connection to the past or with no anxiety
        about its result, then there is no burden. By
        teaching Ideals, Good, Evil etc., we are burdening
        ourselves and the children. True Freedom is to be
        able to act without any of these burdens and in the
        NOW.

        Regards
        Satish

        --- Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@ virgin.net> wrote:

        > Dear Musaddique
        >
        > I might comment on your letter to Satish - surely
        > we do indeed need to very sceptical of the mind
        > itself. Sceptical in the sense of questioning it,
        > doubting, not accepting anything it says or does.
        >
        > After all it is the human mind, is it not, that has
        > produced this terrible society, that has brought
        > about the environmental destruction, that has never
        > solved the simple problems of inequality, lack of
        > food, of water, of sanitation, of proper health care
        > for much of the human race. The mind has bought
        > about innumerable wars. It has never solved the
        > problem of human sorrow.
        >
        > The virtues that you mention may well be
        > acknowledged generally as "good", but this is mostly
        > theoretical, an idea, is it not? For the most part
        > they remain as concepts, as ideals that perhaps one
        > day might be achieved - but never now.
        >
        > Surely you cannot seriously claim that human beings
        > - the human mind - have created societies based on
        > generosity? Surely it cannot be said that
        > advertising, politics, organised religions, and
        > human relationship in general is based on
        > truthfulness? Would you say our economic system,
        > business, is founded in honesty? Surely not - more
        > on selfishness, greed, compulsion, reward and
        > punishment?
        >
        > As for this matter of living by ideals, yes, of
        > course, one can have ideals of anything at all,
        > ideals of freedom, ideals of "non-ideals" . But do
        > ideals bring about fundamental change in human
        > beings? We have been attached to them for thousands
        > of years - what have they actually brought about?
        > Self deception. Hypocrisy. Double standards. A great
        > deal of oppression and violence. The terrorist has
        > very high ideals indeed.
        >
        > The education system tries to change the behaviour
        > of children by putting high ideals in front of them
        > - while at the same time actually teaching them to
        > be ambitious, greedy, concerned for themselves. It
        > is clear what actually affects children, and it is
        > certainly not the ideal.
        >
        > Regards
        >
        > Clive
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Musaddique Thange
        > To: alt-ed-india@ yahoogroups. com
        > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:48 AM
        > Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis
        >
        >
        > Hello Satish,
        >
        > If ideals stuck in the mind are susceptible to
        > violence, we would have to be very skeptical about
        > the mind itself and everything that it produces.
        > Virtues such as truthfulness, honesty and generosity
        > that are universally acknowledged as "good" would be
        > shorn of their desirability while evils (which is a
        > term that has been used on this forum) such as
        > oppression, would be openly espoused.
        >
        > My observation is that proponents of an absolute
        > freedom have their own definition of good and evil.
        > My guess is that they have used their minds to
        > arrive at an ideal of an "ideals-free" world. What
        > do you think?
        >
        > Regards,
        > Musaddique
        >
        > Satish Natarajan <satish_en@yahoo. com> wrote:
        > Yes, very true. Also lo ok at what the so called
        > Democracy champions (aka US of A) are doing
        > throughout the world, like in Iraq now. Bringing
        > democracy to Iraq has killed nearly 700,000
        > Iraqis.
        > All ideals which are stuck in the mind are
        > violent, no
        > matter what peace they may promote.
        >
        > --- Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@ gmail.com> wrote:
        >
        > > "And what is more, doesn't your post about not
        > > having a system to free the mind itself sound
        > > suspiciously like the recommendation of YOUR
        > system
        > > "
        > >
        > > I was expecting this comment :-). But no, I
        > have
        > > advocated no system to free the mind. But in
        > seeing
        > > - I mean truly seeing, not just playing with
        > ideas -
        > > that no system, no method, no orgationisation,
        > no
        > > guru-following will free the mind; in seeing
        > that,
        > > then the mind is freed enormously. Then it no
        > longer
        > > wastes its energy on false pursuits.
        > >
        > > This seeing can never be turned into a system,
        > into
        > > something mechanical. Seeing is not
        > mechanical.
        > >
        > > But I feel it is important to draw a
        > distinction
        > > here. Of course systems are necessary in the
        > > technical and scientific fields - to program a
        > > computer, to organise a transport system, to
        > send a
        > > vehicle to the moon.
        > >
        > > But imposing a system on the mind makes it
        > dull and
        > > lazy, does it not? Which is just what schools
        > do -
        > > they try to turn education into a mechanical
        > system,
        > > destroying all creativity, initiative in
        > children.
        > > And also when systems in the form of ideology
        > are
        > > enforced on the human mind, that implies
        > tremendous
        > > violence, brutality - just look at the
        > communist
        > > so-called revolutions in Russia, China,
        > Cambodia,
        > > North Korea.
        > >
        > > Clive
        > >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: Kanti Ratna
        > > To: alt-ed-india@ yahoogroups. com
        > > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:15 PM
        > > Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis
        > >
        > >
        > > Dear Clive,
        > >
        > > I agree wholeheartedly with you - no system
        > can
        > > free the mind. However about systems, let me
        > quote 2
        > > passages from the pdf document i gave a link
        > to in
        > > my earlier post.
        > >
        > > Page 3 talks about the NEED of a system or a
        > map:
        > >
        > > "What is the point of using this Integral Map
        > or
        > > Model? First, whether you are
        > > working in business, medicine, psychotherapy,
        > law,
        > > ecology, or simply everyday
        > > living and learning, the Integral Map helps
        > make
        > > sure that you are "touching all the bases." If
        > you
        > > are trying to fly over the Rocky Mountains,
        > the more
        > > accurate a
        > > map you have, the less likely you will crash.
        > An
        > > Integral Approach insures that
        > > you are utilizing the full range of resources
        > for
        > > any situation, with the greater
        > > likelihood of success."
        > >
        > > Page 39 tells you how not to confuse the map
        > with
        > > what is being mapped:
        > >
        > > "Of course, IOS is just a map, nothing more.
        > It is
        > > not the territory. But, as far
        > > as we can tell, it is the most comprehensive
        > map
        > > that we possess at this time.
        > > Moreover-and this is important-the Integral
        > Map
        > > itself insists that we go to the
        > > real territory and not get caught in mere
        > words,
        >
        === message truncated ===

        ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
        Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
        http://farechase. yahoo.com/


        Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.


        Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
        Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.


        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1039 - Release Date: 29/09/2007 21:46
      • Musaddique Thange
        Dear Clive, Perhaps I could begin by asking you for a clarification. In an earlier email you stated: Surely you cannot seriously claim that human beings - the
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Clive,
          Perhaps I could begin by asking you for a clarification. In an earlier email you stated:
           
          "Surely you cannot seriously claim that human beings - the human mind - have created societies based on generosity? ? Surely it cannot be said that advertising, politics, organised religions, and human relationship in general is based on truthfulness..."
           
          Why "surely"?? Whether I agree or disagree or partially agree with these statements is besides the point. It appears however that you are stating the following:
           
          1. That advertising, politics, organised religions, and human relationship in general are not based on truthfulness.
          2. The "truthfulness" of Statement 1 is so obvious to you, that you feel it should be plain and obvious to everybody else. In fact, you seem to wonder how anyone could possibly think differently or arrive at a different conclusion.
           
          In the last email however you seem to ask whether one can search for truth at all. So should we then be content with what appears obvious to us? You also seem to question if truth can be recognized as truth at all, since it is based on what we already know.
           
          Do you feel that its ok to hold several mutually contradicting positions? In that case, I respectfully disagree and we can leave it at that.
           
          Warm Regards,
          Musaddique
           
           
           
           


          Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@...> wrote:
          Dear Musaddique
          Thank you for entering this dialogue with me. It may be that some members of the group feel it is not relevant to education, but to me this enquiry into the nature of the self is the very essence of education, and if educators are not concerned with this, one wonders why they are in education at all.  Because the mere passing on of factual information, necessary as it may be, is clearly not solving the increasing human problems, either personally or globally.
           
          Some comments below, interspersed in your mail, in this font.
          Dear Clive,
          Thank you for your email.
          You mentioned "surely we do indeed need to very sceptical of the mind itself. Sceptical in the sense of questioning it, doubting, not accepting anything it says or does."
          I absolutely agree. However, isn't scepticism a function of the mind?
          Interesting question. Perhaps it begins that way. But is there a doubting, a questioning, that is beyond the mind, beyond thought?
           One of the striking qualities of the human mind is its ability to introspect and critique its own functioning, to question previously held notions and explore new areas, and then to question the new conclusions all over again! But is every mind capable of, or willing to take up such introspection and self-critique? Clearly not, as is evident from the kind of society we live in.
          But as I say above, we need educators who are capable of this, and can share their enquiry with the young, developing mind.
          Minds therefore are complex, and can function in a variety of different ways. While the history of the human race is filled with many wars, it also has fountains of mercy and compassion and stories of struggles and triumphs against ignorance and superstition.
          I think you will agree that some of the ways in which the mind can function are more desirable than others.
          I would say that certain actions have different social consequences, yes. But I would question if these different consequences help to bring about a fundamental revolution in human consciousness.  And I do not know that one has to “struggle and triumph” against ignorance and superstition – surely one just has to put it aside. To drop them. Which happens when they are seen as false.
          Undoubtedly, the mind has limitations. But to dismiss the mind completely as problematic is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath-water!
          It is not a matter of “dismissing” the mind. It is a matter of finding its right place, is it not?  I suggest that right place is on the drawing board, in the laboratory, in the technical world. There it is necessary. Where it is not necessary, where it is a definite evil in fact, is in human relationship. And in religion – by which I mean the search for what is true.
          After all, what is the mind? Is it not mere memory, experience, the result of registration in the brain cells? That registration has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years. And as Satish has pointed out, it has been accompanied by identification – he as a Muslim, the other as a Hindu; he as a communist, the other as a capitalist, and so on. This has bought about endless division, conflict, and so immeasurable suffering to the human race.
          Satish mentioned "By teaching Ideals, Good, Evil etc., we are burdening ourselves and the children. True Freedom is to be able to act without any of these burdens and in the NOW."
          Satish, why do you feel that all burdens are necessarily undesirable?
          This seems a strange question. Why should the mind be burdened? Burden means the weight of the past, problems, conflict, suffering. Should the mind not be free of all that?
          If Good and Evil are subjective, surely you are not suggesting that a mind that's insensitive about the world, but without any "burdens" could be concerned a healthy mind at all? For instance, to quote Clive, its a "terrible society, that has brought about the environmental destruction, that has never solved the simple problems of inequality, lack of food, of water, of sanitation, of proper health care for much of the human race." This is a very categorical affirmation of  what Clive considers to be undesirable (or evil).
          It is the critical mind, empowered by freedom ….
          Can there be freedom when there is burden?
          ….. and humbled by an understanding of its own limitations
          Yes, it is essential that the mind sees its own limitations. Perhaps then true intelligence can act.
          that needs to be nurtured. Such a mind would not dismiss anything, be it human relationships or organized religion, as inherently false and faulty!
          Although I hold certain things to be true,
          Perhaps you would tell us what you “hold to be true”, so we could examine that?
          Because there has been immense conflict in the world between people who hold different things to be true.
          by no means do I consider them to be beyond being valid subjects of human scrutiny and critical analyses, and if required revision.
          To suggest that its impossible to arrive at any truth as an objective reality outside ourselves is to fall into nihilism. Indeed such a position is often like a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, if one does not expend any efforts to find any truth, one is presumably less likely to find it!
          I am not at all sure this is true. Can one search for truth? Does it come from effort? And how will you recognise it if you “find” it? What you recognise is what you already know, is it not?
          Warm Regards,
          Musaddique
          and from Clive


          Satish Natarajan <satish_en@yahoo. com> wrote:
          Clive, Thanks for the reply, I would not have written
          better. Not been able to get much tim e to reply. To
          add to this,

          Good and Evil, Right and Wrong always means it is
          either past or future. You may ask how?? Good or
          Evil is only a comparison to something that has
          already happened. Which means any transaction or
          ideal is Good only with reference to something. Any
          act by itself is neither Good or Evil. Ideal is
          always only in the mind. It is memory, which has
          already become past. When an act happens in the NOW
          with no connection to the past or with no anxiety
          about its result, then there is no burden. By
          teaching Ideals, Good, Evil etc., we are burdening
          ourselves and the children. True Freedom is to be
          able to act without any of these burdens and in the
          NOW.

          Regards
          Satish

          --- Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@ virgin.net> wrote:

          > Dear Musaddique
          >
          > I might comment on your letter to Satish - surely
          > we do indeed need to very sceptical of the mind
          > itself. Sceptical in the sense of questioning it,
          > doubting, not accepting anything it says or does.
          >
          > After all it is the human mind, is it not, that has
          > produced this terrible society, that has brought
          > about the environmental destruction, that has never
          > solved the simple problems of inequality, lack of
          > food, of water, of sanitation, of proper health care
          > for much of the human race. The mind has bought
          > about innumerable wars. It has never solved the
          > problem of human sorrow.
          >
          > The virtues that you mention may well be
          > acknowledged generally as "good", but this is mostly
          > theoretical, an idea, is it not? For the most part
          > they remain as concepts, as ideals that perhaps one
          > day might be achieved - but never now.
          >
          > Surely you cannot seriously claim that human beings
          > - the human mind - have created societies based on
          > generosity? Surely it cannot be said that
          > advertising, politics, organised religions, and
          > human relationship in general is based on
          > truthfulness? Would you say our economic system,
          > business, is founded in honesty? Surely not - more
          > on selfishness, greed, compulsion, reward and
          > punishment?
          >
          > As for this matter of living by ideals, yes, of
          > course, one can have ideals of anything at all,
          > ideals of freedom, ideals of "non-ideals" . But do
          > ideals bring about fundamental change in human
          > beings? We have been attached to them for thousands
          > of years - what have they actually brought about?
          > Self deception. Hypocrisy. Double standards. A great
          > deal of oppression and violence. The terrorist has
          > very high ideals indeed.
          >
          > The education system tries to change the behaviour
          > of children by putting high ideals in front of them
          > - while at the same time actually teaching them to
          > be ambitious, greedy, concerned for themselves. It
          > is clear what actually affects children, and it is
          > certainly not the ideal.
          >
          > Regards
          >
          > Clive
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Musaddique Thange
          > To: alt-ed-india@ yahoogroups. com
          > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:48 AM
          > Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis
          >
          >
          > Hello Satish,
          >
          > If ideals stuck in the mind are susceptible to
          > violence, we would have to be very skeptical about
          > the mind itself and everything that it produces.
          > Virtues such as truthfulness, honesty and generosity
          > that are universally acknowledged as "good" would be
          > shorn of their desirability while evils (which is a
          > term that has been used on this forum) such as
          > oppression, would be openly espoused.
          >
          > My observation is that proponents of an absolute
          > freedom have their own definition of good and evil.
          > My guess is that they have used their minds to
          > arrive at an ideal of an "ideals-free" world. What
          > do you think?
          >
          > Regards,
          > Musaddique
          >
          > Satish Natarajan <satish_en@yahoo. com> wrote:
          > Yes, very true. Also lo ok at what the so called
          > Democracy champions (aka US of A) are doing
          > throughout the world, like in Iraq now. Bringing
          > democracy to Iraq has killed nearly 700,000
          > Iraqis.
          > All ideals which are stuck in the mind are
          > violent, no
          > matter what peace they may promote.
          >
          > --- Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@ gmail.com> wrote:
          >
          > > "And what is more, doesn't your post about not
          > > having a system to free the mind itself sound
          > > suspiciously like the recommendation of YOUR
          > system
          > > "
          > >
          > > I was expecting this comment :-). But no, I
          > have
          > > advocated no system to free the mind. But in
          > seeing
          > > - I mean truly seeing, not just playing with
          > ideas -
          > > that no system, no method, no orgationisation,
          > no
          > > guru-following will free the mind; in seeing
          > that,
          > > then the mind is freed enormously. Then it no
          > longer
          > > wastes its energy on false pursuits.
          > >
          > > This seeing can never be turned into a system,
          > into
          > > something mechanical. Seeing is not
          > mechanical.
          > >
          > > But I feel it is important to draw a
          > distinction
          > > here. Of course systems are necessary in the
          > > technical and scientific fields - to program a
          > > computer, to organise a transport system, to
          > send a
          > > vehicle to the moon.
          > >
          > > But imposing a system on the mind makes it
          > dull and
          > > lazy, does it not? Which is just what schools
          > do -
          > > they try to turn education into a mechanical
          > system,
          > > destroying all creativity, initiative in
          > children.
          > > And also when systems in the form of ideology
          > are
          > > enforced on the human mind, that implies
          > tremendous
          > > violence, brutality - just look at the
          > communist
          > > so-called revolutions in Russia, China,
          > Cambodia,
          > > North Korea.
          > >
          > > Clive
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: Kanti Ratna
          > > To: alt-ed-india@ yahoogroups. com
          > > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:15 PM
          > > Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis
          > >
          > >
          > > Dear Clive,
          > >
          > > I agree wholeheartedly with you - no system
          > can
          > > free the mind. However about systems, let me
          > quote 2
          > > passages from the pdf document i gave a link
          > to in
          > > my earlier post.
          > >
          > > Page 3 talks about the NEED of a system or a
          > map:
          > >
          > > "What is the point of using this Integral Map
          > or
          > > Model? First, whether you are
          > > working in business, medicine, psychotherapy,
          > law,
          > > ecology, or simply everyday
          > > living and learning, the Integral Map helps
          > make
          > > sure that you are "touching all the bases." If
          > you
          > > are trying to fly over the Rocky Mountains,
          > the more
          > > accurate a
          > > map you have, the less likely you will crash.
          > An
          > > Integral Approach insures that
          > > you are utilizing the full range of resources
          > for
          > > any situation, with the greater
          > > likelihood of success."
          > >
          > > Page 39 tells you how not to confuse the map
          > with
          > > what is being mapped:
          > >
          > > "Of course, IOS is just a map, nothing more.
          > It is
          > > not the territory. But, as far
          > > as we can tell, it is the most comprehensive
          > map
          > > that we possess at this time.
          > > Moreover-and this is important-the Integral
          > Map
          > > itself insists that we go to the
          > > real territory and not get caught in mere
          > words,
          >
          === message truncated ===

          ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
          Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
          http://farechase. yahoo.com/


          Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.

          No virus found in this incoming message.
          Checked by AVG Free Edition.
          Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1039 - Release Date: 29/09/2007 21:46


          Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
          Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

        • Clive Elwell
          Dear Mussadique, I am afraid that thought IS contradictory. I am not defending that at all, but I do find that it is a fact. Ok, better that I say I find
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Mussadique,
             
            I am afraid that thought IS contradictory. I am not defending that at all, but I do find that it is a fact. Ok, better that I say "I find thought is contradictory". That is why it has built a world (society) with so much contradiction; conflict
             
            Anything I say is open to question [even if it does not sound like it :-) ] I certainly question myself. Yes, what is important is to enquire into things, and to that it seems that one cannot hold on to what might have appeared as true in the past. There is no room for holding on to any position if one is really enquiring.
             
             And yes, agreement or disagreement  does not have much significance, being mere opinion. 
             
            Yes, I asked if one can search for truth. That is a genuine question. One can enquire into the nature of truth, but that is a different matter, is it not? If you feel one can, please explain "how". However, please note that one is not advocating being content with anything. And I did not say that truth was based on what we know, I was trying to say the process of recognition is always based on what we know. Is that not so?
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:02 PM
            Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis - ideals

            Dear Clive,
            Perhaps I could begin by asking you for a clarification. In an earlier email you stated:
             
            "Surely you cannot seriously claim that human beings - the human mind - have created societies based on generosity? ? Surely it cannot be said that advertising, politics, organised religions, and human relationship in general is based on truthfulness. .."
             
            Why "surely"?? Whether I agree or disagree or partially agree with these statements is besides the point. It appears however that you are stating the following:
             
            1. That advertising, politics, organised religions, and human relationship in general are not based on truthfulness.
            2. The "truthfulness" of Statement 1 is so obvious to you, that you feel it should be plain and obvious to everybody else. In fact, you seem to wonder how anyone could possibly think differently or arrive at a different conclusion.
             
            In the last email however you seem to ask whether one can search for truth at all. So should we then be content with what appears obvious to us? You also seem to question if truth can be recognized as truth at all, since it is based on what we already know.
             
            Do you feel that its ok to hold several mutually contradicting positions? In that case, I respectfully disagree and we can leave it at that.
             
            Warm Regards,
            Musaddique
             
             
             
             


            Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@ virgin.net> wrote:
            Dear Musaddique
            Thank you for entering this dialogue with me. It may be that some members of the group feel it is not relevant to education, but to me this enquiry into the nature of the self is the very essence of education, and if educators are not concerned with this, one wonders why they are in education at all.  Because the mere passing on of factual information, necessary as it may be, is clearly not solving the increasing human problems, either personally or globally.
             
            Some comments below, interspersed in your mail, in this font.
            Dear Clive,
            Thank you for your email.
            You mentioned "surely we do indeed need to very sceptical of the mind itself. Sceptical in the sense of questioning it, doubting, not accepting anything it says or does."
            I absolutely agree. However, isn't scepticism a function of the mind?
            Interesting question. Perhaps it begins that way. But is there a doubting, a questioning, that is beyond the mind, beyond thought?
             One of the striking qualities of the human mind is its ability to introspect and critique its own functioning, to question previously held notions and explore new areas, and then to question the new conclusions all over again! But is every mind capable of, or willing to take up such introspection and self-critique? Clearly not, as is evident from the kind of society we live in.
            But as I say above, we need educators who are capable of this, and can share their enquiry with the young, developing mind.
            Minds therefore are complex, and can function in a variety of different ways. While the history of the human race is filled with many wars, it also has fountains of mercy and compassion and stories of struggles and triumphs against ignorance and superstition.
            I think you will agree that some of the ways in which the mind can function are more desirable than others.
            I would say that certain actions have different social consequences, yes. But I would question if these different consequences help to bring about a fundamental revolution in human consciousness.  And I do not know that one has to “struggle and triumph” against ignorance and superstition – surely one just has to put it aside. To drop them. Which happens when they are seen as false.
            Undoubtedly, the mind has limitations. But to dismiss the mind completely as problematic is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath-water!
            It is not a matter of “dismissing” the mind. It is a matter of finding its right place, is it not?  I suggest that right place is on the drawing board, in the laboratory, in the technical world. There it is necessary. Where it is not necessary, where it is a definite evil in fact, is in human relationship. And in religion – by which I mean the search for what is true.
            After all, what is the mind? Is it not mere memory, experience, the result of registration in the brain cells? That registration has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years. And as Satish has pointed out, it has been accompanied by identification – he as a Muslim, the other as a Hindu; he as a communist, the other as a capitalist, and so on. This has bought about endless division, conflict, and so immeasurable suffering to the human race.
            Satish mentioned "By teaching Ideals, Good, Evil etc., we are burdening ourselves and the children. True Freedom is to be able to act without any of these burdens and in the NOW."
            Satish, why do you feel that all burdens are necessarily undesirable?
            This seems a strange question. Why should the mind be burdened? Burden means the weight of the past, problems, conflict, suffering. Should the mind not be free of all that?
            If Good and Evil are subjective, surely you are not suggesting that a mind that's insensitive about the world, but without any "burdens" could be concerned a healthy mind at all? For instance, to quote Clive, its a "terrible society, that has brought about the environmental destruction, that has never solved the simple problems of inequality, lack of food, of water, of sanitation, of proper health care for much of the human race." This is a very categorical affirmation of  what Clive considers to be undesirable (or evil).
            It is the critical mind, empowered by freedom ….
            Can there be freedom when there is burden?
            ….. and humbled by an understanding of its own limitations
            Yes, it is essential that the mind sees its own limitations. Perhaps then true intelligence can act.
            that needs to be nurtured. Such a mind would not dismiss anything, be it human relationships or organized religion, as inherently false and faulty!
            Although I hold certain things to be true,
            Perhaps you would tell us what you “hold to be true”, so we could examine that?
            Because there has been immense conflict in the world between people who hold different things to be true.
            by no means do I consider them to be beyond being valid subjects of human scrutiny and critical analyses, and if required revision.
            To suggest that its impossible to arrive at any truth as an objective reality outside ourselves is to fall into nihilism. Indeed such a position is often like a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, if one does not expend any efforts to find any truth, one is presumably less likely to find it!
            I am not at all sure this is true. Can one search for truth? Does it come from effort? And how will you recognise it if you “find” it? What you recognise is what you already know, is it not?
            Warm Regards,
            Musaddique
            and from Clive


            Satish Natarajan <satish_en@yahoo. com> wrote:
            Clive, Thanks for the reply, I would not have written
            better. Not been able to get much tim e to reply. To
            add to this,

            Good and Evil, Right and Wrong always means it is
            either past or future. You may ask how?? Good or
            Evil is only a comparison to something that has
            already happened. Which means any transaction or
            ideal is Good only with reference to something. Any
            act by itself is neither Good or Evil. Ideal is
            always only in the mind. It is memory, which has
            already become past. When an act happens in the NOW
            with no connection to the past or with no anxiety
            about its result, then there is no burden. By
            teaching Ideals, Good, Evil etc., we are burdening
            ourselves and the children. True Freedom is to be
            able to act without any of these burdens and in the
            NOW.

            Regards
            Satish

            --- Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@ virgin.net> wrote:

            > Dear Musaddique
            >
            > I might comment on your letter to Satish - surely
            > we do indeed need to very sceptical of the mind
            > itself. Sceptical in the sense of questioning it,
            > doubting, not accepting anything it says or does.
            >
            > After all it is the human mind, is it not, that has
            > produced this terrible society, that has brought
            > about the environmental destruction, that has never
            > solved the simple problems of inequality, lack of
            > food, of water, of sanitation, of proper health care
            > for much of the human race. The mind has bought
            > about innumerable wars. It has never solved the
            > problem of human sorrow.
            >
            > The virtues that you mention may well be
            > acknowledged generally as "good", but this is mostly
            > theoretical, an idea, is it not? For the most part
            > they remain as concepts, as ideals that perhaps one
            > day might be achieved - but never now.
            >
            > Surely you cannot seriously claim that human beings
            > - the human mind - have created societies based on
            > generosity? Surely it cannot be said that
            > advertising, politics, organised religions, and
            > human relationship in general is based on
            > truthfulness? Would you say our economic system,
            > business, is founded in honesty? Surely not - more
            > on selfishness, greed, compulsion, reward and
            > punishment?
            >
            > As for this matter of living by ideals, yes, of
            > course, one can have ideals of anything at all,
            > ideals of freedom, ideals of "non-ideals" . But do
            > ideals bring about fundamental change in human
            > beings? We have been attached to them for thousands
            > of years - what have they actually brought about?
            > Self deception. Hypocrisy. Double standards. A great
            > deal of oppression and violence. The terrorist has
            > very high ideals indeed.
            >
            > The education system tries to change the behaviour
            > of children by putting high ideals in front of them
            > - while at the same time actually teaching them to
            > be ambitious, greedy, concerned for themselves. It
            > is clear what actually affects children, and it is
            > certainly not the ideal.
            >
            > Regards
            >
            > Clive
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: Musaddique Thange
            > To: alt-ed-india@ yahoogroups. com
            > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:48 AM
            > Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis
            >
            >
            > Hello Satish,
            >
            > If ideals stuck in the mind are susceptible to
            > violence, we would have to be very skeptical about
            > the mind itself and everything that it produces.
            > Virtues such as truthfulness, honesty and generosity
            > that are universally acknowledged as "good" would be
            > shorn of their desirability while evils (which is a
            > term that has been used on this forum) such as
            > oppression, would be openly espoused.
            >
            > My observation is that proponents of an absolute
            > freedom have their own definition of good and evil.
            > My guess is that they have used their minds to
            > arrive at an ideal of an "ideals-free" world. What
            > do you think?
            >
            > Regards,
            > Musaddique
            >
            > Satish Natarajan <satish_en@yahoo. com> wrote:
            > Yes, very true. Also lo ok at what the so called
            > Democracy champions (aka US of A) are doing
            > throughout the world, like in Iraq now. Bringing
            > democracy to Iraq has killed nearly 700,000
            > Iraqis.
            > All ideals which are stuck in the mind are
            > violent, no
            > matter what peace they may promote.
            >
            > --- Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@ gmail.com> wrote:
            >
            > > "And what is more, doesn't your post about not
            > > having a system to free the mind itself sound
            > > suspiciously like the recommendation of YOUR
            > system
            > > "
            > >
            > > I was expecting this comment :-). But no, I
            > have
            > > advocated no system to free the mind. But in
            > seeing
            > > - I mean truly seeing, not just playing with
            > ideas -
            > > that no system, no method, no orgationisation,
            > no
            > > guru-following will free the mind; in seeing
            > that,
            > > then the mind is freed enormously. Then it no
            > longer
            > > wastes its energy on false pursuits.
            > >
            > > This seeing can never be turned into a system,
            > into
            > > something mechanical. Seeing is not
            > mechanical.
            > >
            > > But I feel it is important to draw a
            > distinction
            > > here. Of course systems are necessary in the
            > > technical and scientific fields - to program a
            > > computer, to organise a transport system, to
            > send a
            > > vehicle to the moon.
            > >
            > > But imposing a system on the mind makes it
            > dull and
            > > lazy, does it not? Which is just what schools
            > do -
            > > they try to turn education into a mechanical
            > system,
            > > destroying all creativity, initiative in
            > children.
            > > And also when systems in the form of ideology
            > are
            > > enforced on the human mind, that implies
            > tremendous
            > > violence, brutality - just look at the
            > communist
            > > so-called revolutions in Russia, China,
            > Cambodia,
            > > North Korea.
            > >
            > > Clive
            > >
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: Kanti Ratna
            > > To: alt-ed-india@ yahoogroups. com
            > > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:15 PM
            > > Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis
            > >
            > >
            > > Dear Clive,
            > >
            > > I agree wholeheartedly with you - no system
            > can
            > > free the mind. However about systems, let me
            > quote 2
            > > passages from the pdf document i gave a link
            > to in
            > > my earlier post.
            > >
            > > Page 3 talks about the NEED of a system or a
            > map:
            > >
            > > "What is the point of using this Integral Map
            > or
            > > Model? First, whether you are
            > > working in business, medicine, psychotherapy,
            > law,
            > > ecology, or simply everyday
            > > living and learning, the Integral Map helps
            > make
            > > sure that you are "touching all the bases." If
            > you
            > > are trying to fly over the Rocky Mountains,
            > the more
            > > accurate a
            > > map you have, the less likely you will crash.
            > An
            > > Integral Approach insures that
            > > you are utilizing the full range of resources
            > for
            > > any situation, with the greater
            > > likelihood of success."
            > >
            > > Page 39 tells you how not to confuse the map
            > with
            > > what is being mapped:
            > >
            > > "Of course, IOS is just a map, nothing more.
            > It is
            > > not the territory. But, as far
            > > as we can tell, it is the most comprehensive
            > map
            > > that we possess at this time.
            > > Moreover-and this is important-the Integral
            > Map
            > > itself insists that we go to the
            > > real territory and not get caught in mere
            > words,
            >
            === message truncated ===

            ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
            Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
            http://farechase. yahoo.com/


            Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.

            No virus found in this incoming message.
            Checked by AVG Free Edition.
            Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1039 - Release Date: 29/09/2007 21:46


            Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
            Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

          • Musaddique Thange
            Dear Clive, Although prefixing a polite I find before your pronouncement is better, it still does not explain how you, Clive Elwell, arrived at the
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 3, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Clive,
               
              Although prefixing a polite "I find" before your pronouncement is better, it still does not explain how you, Clive Elwell, arrived at the conclusions you have, about *all* human relationships (not just that you have direct experience of), *all* organized religions (not just those you have studied), and so on, especially since you are so careful about the notion of truth itself, and are not sure if one can search for truth (or what one thinks is the truth, which is the same as conclusions). Could it be that you read about these things in a book and the ideas simply appealed to you? 
               
              It was this central contradiction to which I wished to draw your attention. By responding with your belief that thought (in general) is contradictory, you are essentially stating the following:
               
              "You are not sure if one can search for truth and you believe one can enquire into the nature of truth. However you feel that this need not be a hindrance in you declaring (or believing in) the falsehood of what many others hold to be true. If this appears contradictory, that is because you have arrived at the "truth", of all thoughts (not just those that occur to you) being contradictory."
               
              As I said in my earlier email, I respectfully disagree, and we can leave it at that.
               
              Regards,
              Musaddique

              Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@...> wrote:
              Dear Mussadique,
               
              I am afraid that thought IS contradictory. I am not defending that at all, but I do find that it is a fact. Ok, better that I say "I find thought is contradictory" . That is why it has built a world (society) with so much contradiction; conflict
               
              Anything I say is open to question [even if it does not sound like it :-) ] I certainly question myself. Yes, what is important is to enquire into things, and to that it seems that one cannot hold on to what might have appeared as true in the past. There is no room for holding on to any position if one is really enquiring.
               
               And yes, agreement or disagreement  does not have much significance, being mere opinion. 
               
              Yes, I asked if one can search for truth. That is a genuine question. One can enquire into the nature of truth, but that is a different matter, is it not? If you feel one can, please explain "how". However, please note that one is not advocating being content with anything. And I did not say that truth was based on what we know, I was trying to say the process of recognition is always based on what we know. Is that not so?
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:02 PM
              Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis - ideals

              Dear Clive,
              Perhaps I could begin by asking you for a clarification. In an earlier email you stated:
               
              "Surely you cannot seriously claim that human beings - the human mind - have created societies based on generosity? ? Surely it cannot be said that advertising, politics, organised religions, and human relationship in general is based on truthfulness. .."
               
              Why "surely"?? Whether I agree or disagree or partially agree with these statements is besides the point. It appears however that you are stating the following:
               
              1. That advertising, politics, organised religions, and human relationship in general are not based on truthfulness.
              2. The "truthfulness" of Statement 1 is so obvious to you, that you feel it should be plain and obvious to everybody else. In fact, you seem to wonder how anyone could possibly think differently or arrive at a different conclusion.
               
              In the last email however you seem to ask whether one can search for truth at all. So should we then be content with what appears obvious to us? You also seem to question if truth can be recognized as truth at all, since it is based on what we already know.
               
              Do you feel that its ok to hold several mutually contradicting positions? In that case, I respectfully disagree and we can leave it at that.
               
              Warm Regards,
              Musaddique
               
               
               
               


              Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@ virgin.net> wrote:
              Dear Musaddique
              Thank you for entering this dialogue with me. It may be that some members of the group feel it is not relevant to education, but to me this enquiry into the nature of the self is the very essence of education, and if educators are not concerned with this, one wonders why they are in education at all.  Because the mere passing on of factual information, necessary as it may be, is clearly not solving the increasing human problems, either personally or globally.
               
              Some comments below, interspersed in your mail, in this font.
              Dear Clive,
              Thank you for your email.
              You mentioned "surely we do indeed need to very sceptical of the mind itself. Sceptical in the sense of questioning it, doubting, not accepting anything it says or does."
              I absolutely agree. However, isn't scepticism a function of the mind?
              Interesting question. Perhaps it begins that way. But is there a doubting, a questioning, that is beyond the mind, beyond thought?
               One of the striking qualities of the human mind is its ability to introspect and critique its own functioning, to question previously held notions and explore new areas, and then to question the new conclusions all over again! But is every mind capable of, or willing to take up such introspection and self-critique? Clearly not, as is evident from the kind of society we live in.
              But as I say above, we need educators who are capable of this, and can share their enquiry with the young, developing mind.
              Minds therefore are complex, and can function in a variety of different ways. While the history of the human race is filled with many wars, it also has fountains of mercy and compassion and stories of struggles and triumphs against ignorance and superstition.
              I think you will agree that some of the ways in which the mind can function are more desirable than others.
              I would say that certain actions have different social consequences, yes. But I would question if these different consequences help to bring about a fundamental revolution in human consciousness.  And I do not know that one has to “struggle and triumph” against ignorance and superstition – surely one just has to put it aside. To drop them. Which happens when they are seen as false.
              Undoubtedly, the mind has limitations. But to dismiss the mind completely as problematic is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath-water!
              It is not a matter of “dismissing” the mind. It is a matter of finding its right place, is it not?  I suggest that right place is on the drawing board, in the laboratory, in the technical world. There it is necessary. Where it is not necessary, where it is a definite evil in fact, is in human relationship. And in religion – by which I mean the search for what is true.
              After all, what is the mind? Is it not mere memory, experience, the result of registration in the brain cells? That registration has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years. And as Satish has pointed out, it has been accompanied by identification – he as a Muslim, the other as a Hindu; he as a communist, the other as a capitalist, and so on. This has bought about endless division, conflict, and so immeasurable suffering to the human race.
              Satish mentioned "By teaching Ideals, Good, Evil etc., we are burdening ourselves and the children. True Freedom is to be able to act without any of these burdens and in the NOW."
              Satish, why do you feel that all burdens are necessarily undesirable?
              This seems a strange question. Why should the mind be burdened? Burden means the weight of the past, problems, conflict, suffering. Should the mind not be free of all that?
              If Good and Evil are subjective, surely you are not suggesting that a mind that's insensitive about the world, but without any "burdens" could be concerned a healthy mind at all? For instance, to quote Clive, its a "terrible society, that has brought about the environmental destruction, that has never solved the simple problems of inequality, lack of food, of water, of sanitation, of proper health care for much of the human race." This is a very categorical affirmation of  what Clive considers to be undesirable (or evil).
              It is the critical mind, empowered by freedom ….
              Can there be freedom when there is burden?
              ….. and humbled by an understanding of its own limitations
              Yes, it is essential that the mind sees its own limitations. Perhaps then true intelligence can act.
              that needs to be nurtured. Such a mind would not dismiss anything, be it human relationships or organized religion, as inherently false and faulty!
              Although I hold certain things to be true,
              Perhaps you would tell us what you “hold to be true”, so we could examine that?
              Because there has been immense conflict in the world between people who hold different things to be true.
              by no means do I consider them to be beyond being valid subjects of human scrutiny and critical analyses, and if required revision.
              To suggest that its impossible to arrive at any truth as an objective reality outside ourselves is to fall into nihilism. Indeed such a position is often like a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, if one does not expend any efforts to find any truth, one is presumably less likely to find it!
              I am not at all sure this is true. Can one search for truth? Does it come from effort? And how will you recognise it if you “find” it? What you recognise is what you already know, is it not?
              Warm Regards,
              Musaddique
              and from Clive


              Satish Natarajan <satish_en@yahoo. com> wrote:
              Clive, Thanks for the reply, I would not have written
              better. Not been able to get much tim e to reply. To
              add to this,

              Good and Evil, Right and Wrong always means it is
              either past or future. You may ask how?? Good or
              Evil is only a comparison to something that has
              already happened. Which means any transaction or
              ideal is Good only with reference to something. Any
              act by itself is neither Good or Evil. Ideal is
              always only in the mind. It is memory, which has
              already become past. When an act happens in the NOW
              with no connection to the past or with no anxiety
              about its result, then there is no burden. By
              teaching Ideals, Good, Evil etc., we are burdening
              ourselves and the children. True Freedom is to be
              able to act without any of these burdens and in the
              NOW.

              Regards
              Satish

              --- Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@ virgin.net> wrote:

              > Dear Musaddique
              >
              > I might comment on your letter to Satish - surely
              > we do indeed need to very sceptical of the mind
              > itself. Sceptical in the sense of questioning it,
              > doubting, not accepting anything it says or does.
              >
              > After all it is the human mind, is it not, that has
              > produced this terrible society, that has brought
              > about the environmental destruction, that has never
              > solved the simple problems of inequality, lack of
              > food, of water, of sanitation, of proper health care
              > for much of the human race. The mind has bought
              > about innumerable wars. It has never solved the
              > problem of human sorrow.
              >
              > The virtues that you mention may well be
              > acknowledged generally as "good", but this is mostly
              > theoretical, an idea, is it not? For the most part
              > they remain as concepts, as ideals that perhaps one
              > day might be achieved - but never now.
              >
              > Surely you cannot seriously claim that human beings
              > - the human mind - have created societies based on
              > generosity? Surely it cannot be said that
              > advertising, politics, organised religions, and
              > human relationship in general is based on
              > truthfulness? Would you say our economic system,
              > business, is founded in honesty? Surely not - more
              > on selfishness, greed, compulsion, reward and
              > punishment?
              >
              > As for this matter of living by ideals, yes, of
              > course, one can have ideals of anything at all,
              > ideals of freedom, ideals of "non-ideals" . But do
              > ideals bring about fundamental change in human
              > beings? We have been attached to them for thousands
              > of years - what have they actually brought about?
              > Self deception. Hypocrisy. Double standards. A great
              > deal of oppression and violence. The terrorist has
              > very high ideals indeed.
              >
              > The education system tries to change the behaviour
              > of children by putting high ideals in front of them
              > - while at the same time actually teaching them to
              > be ambitious, greedy, concerned for themselves. It
              > is clear what actually affects children, and it is
              > certainly not the ideal.
              >
              > Regards
              >
              > Clive
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: Musaddique Thange
              > To: alt-ed-india@ yahoogroups. com
              > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:48 AM
              > Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis
              >
              >
              > Hello Satish,
              >
              > If ideals stuck in the mind are susceptible to
              > violence, we would have to be very skeptical about
              > the mind itself and everything that it produces.
              > Virtues such as truthfulness, honesty and generosity
              > that are universally acknowledged as "good" would be
              > shorn of their desirability while evils (which is a
              > term that has been used on this forum) such as
              > oppression, would be openly espoused.
              >
              > My observation is that proponents of an absolute
              > freedom have their own definition of good and evil.
              > My guess is that they have used their minds to
              > arrive at an ideal of an "ideals-free" world. What
              > do you think?
              >
              > Regards,
              > Musaddique
              >
              > Satish Natarajan <satish_en@yahoo. com> wrote:
              > Yes, very true. Also lo ok at what the so called
              > Democracy champions (aka US of A) are doing
              > throughout the world, like in Iraq now. Bringing
              > democracy to Iraq has killed nearly 700,000
              > Iraqis.
              > All ideals which are stuck in the mind are
              > violent, no
              > matter what peace they may promote.
              >
              > --- Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@ gmail.com> wrote:
              >
              > > "And what is more, doesn't your post about not
              > > having a system to free the mind itself sound
              > > suspiciously like the recommendation of YOUR
              > system
              > > "
              > >
              > > I was expecting this comment :-). But no, I
              > have
              > > advocated no system to free the mind. But in
              > seeing
              > > - I mean truly seeing, not just playing with
              > ideas -
              > > that no system, no method, no orgationisation,
              > no
              > > guru-following will free the mind; in seeing
              > that,
              > > then the mind is freed enormously. Then it no
              > longer
              > > wastes its energy on false pursuits.
              > >
              > > This seeing can never be turned into a system,
              > into
              > > something mechanical. Seeing is not
              > mechanical.
              > >
              > > But I feel it is important to draw a
              > distinction
              > > here. Of course systems are necessary in the
              > > technical and scientific fields - to program a
              > > computer, to organise a transport system, to
              > send a
              > > vehicle to the moon.
              > >
              > > But imposing a system on the mind makes it
              > dull and
              > > lazy, does it not? Which is just what schools
              > do -
              > > they try to turn education into a mechanical
              > system,
              > > destroying all creativity, initiative in
              > children.
              > > And also when systems in the form of ideology
              > are
              > > enforced on the human mind, that implies
              > tremendous
              > > violence, brutality - just look at the
              > communist
              > > so-called revolutions in Russia, China,
              > Cambodia,
              > > North Korea.
              > >
              > > Clive
              > >
              > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > From: Kanti Ratna
              > > To: alt-ed-india@ yahoogroups. com
              > > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:15 PM
              > > Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis
              > >
              > >
              > > Dear Clive,
              > >
              > > I agree wholeheartedly with you - no system
              > can
              > > free the mind. However about systems, let me
              > quote 2
              > > passages from the pdf document i gave a link
              > to in
              > > my earlier post.
              > >
              > > Page 3 talks about the NEED of a system or a
              > map:
              > >
              > > "What is the point of using this Integral Map
              > or
              > > Model? First, whether you are
              > > working in business, medicine, psychotherapy,
              > law,
              > > ecology, or simply everyday
              > > living and learning, the Integral Map helps
              > make
              > > sure that you are "touching all the bases." If
              > you
              > > are trying to fly over the Rocky Mountains,
              > the more
              > > accurate a
              > > map you have, the less likely you will crash.
              > An
              > > Integral Approach insures that
              > > you are utilizing the full range of resources
              > for
              > > any situation, with the greater
              > > likelihood of success."
              > >
              > > Page 39 tells you how not to confuse the map
              > with
              > > what is being mapped:
              > >
              > > "Of course, IOS is just a map, nothing more.
              > It is
              > > not the territory. But, as far
              > > as we can tell, it is the most comprehensive
              > map
              > > that we possess at this time.
              > > Moreover-and this is important-the Integral
              > Map
              > > itself insists that we go to the
              > > real territory and not get caught in mere
              > words,
              >
              === message truncated ===

              ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
              Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
              http://farechase. yahoo.com/


              Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.

              No virus found in this incoming message.
              Checked by AVG Free Edition.
              Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1039 - Release Date: 29/09/2007 21:46


              Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
              Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.


              Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
              Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.

            • Clive Elwell
              Dear Musaddique, I really do not feel I have any conclusions. What has been arrived at in previous correspondence can be put aside, and one can look anew. One
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 4, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Musaddique,
                 
                I really do not feel I have any conclusions. What has been arrived at in previous correspondence can be put aside, and one can look anew. One may or may not arrive at the same observations (I will not use the word truth)
                 
                Let us look at this question "is thought contradictory or not?" To me it appears so. This statement is a result of  much observation. Firstly observing thought in myself - which I have done for many years. I assume that it is the basically the same for others. I have discussed this with many people, as the opportunity has arisen. However, I may be wrong. I cannot see HOW I am wrong, in the face of all my observation, but if you can demonstrate to me that thought is NOT intrinsically contradictory, please do so - we can examine it together.
                 
                One wants something, but also one wants not to want it, or one wants contradictory things. Or one gets what one wants, and discovers one doesn't want it anymore. One acts a certain way, but also feels one shouldn't act that way. One is angry, but feels one shouldn't be angry. one is a certain way, but feels one shouldn't be that way. Is this not so? Does not thought behave this way?
                 
                Second, it is thought that has produced the human world, is it not? Has not thought produced all human societies? Is not thought responsible for politics, for economics, for the legal systems, and - this is more controversial - all of the world's religions? Surely it cannot be denied that there is contradiction - ie conflict - between nations, between political theories, economic systems, different nations? Of course these are broad generalisations, but are they not much more true than not true, when one looks at history and the current state of the world?
                 
                I should make it clear this is not a blanket condemnation on the thought process. Thought has produced the most incredible things. The wonderful old architecture of India. The amazing means of communication, the marvels of medicine, the nuclear bomb, submarines. Thought has put people on the moon, and sent space craft around the solar system - technically it is incredible. But it has never succeeded in producing a just, equal society, in going beyond sorrow, in bringing about a peaceful world.
                 
                Adding something else to the above now, after some reflection. Because  what I said about the limitation of thought was really inadequate.
                 
                It is not thought per se which is limited. Thought is as great a marvel, a miracle, as anything else this universe has created. But the problem is it has been taken over by the "I" consciousness, the "me", the self. It is this process that has imposed the contradictions on thought. It has shattered thought into millions of pieces, each piece believing itself to the very centre, the be-all and end-all of existence. And so each self more or less in contradiction, in strife, with other selves.
                 
                Regards
                 
                Clive
                 
                 
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:44 AM
                Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis - ideals

                Dear Clive,
                 
                Although prefixing a polite "I find" before your pronouncement is better, it still does not explain how you, Clive Elwell, arrived at the conclusions you have, about *all* human relationships (not just that you have direct experience of), *all* organized religions (not just those you have studied), and so on, especially since you are so careful about the notion of truth itself, and are not sure if one can search for truth (or what one thinks is the truth, which is the same as conclusions) . Could it be that you read about these things in a book and the ideas simply appealed to you? 
                 
                It was this central contradiction to which I wished to draw your attention. By responding with your belief that thought (in general) is contradictory, you are essentially stating the following:
                 
                "You are not sure if one can search for truth and you believe one can enquire into the nature of truth. However you feel that this need not be a hindrance in you declaring (or believing in) the falsehood of what many others hold to be true. If this appears contradictory, that is because you have arrived at the "truth", of all thoughts (not just those that occur to you) being contradictory. "
                 
                As I said in my earlier email, I respectfully disagree, and we can leave it at that.
                 
                Regards,
                Musaddique

                Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@ virgin.net> wrote:
                Dear Mussadique,
                 
                I am afraid that thought IS contradictory. I am not defending that at all, but I do find that it is a fact. Ok, better that I say "I find thought is contradictory" . That is why it has built a world (society) with so much contradiction; conflict
                 
                Anything I say is open to question [even if it does not sound like it :-) ] I certainly question myself. Yes, what is important is to enquire into things, and to that it seems that one cannot hold on to what might have appeared as true in the past. There is no room for holding on to any position if one is really enquiring.
                 
                 And yes, agreement or disagreement  does not have much significance, being mere opinion. 
                 
                Yes, I asked if one can search for truth. That is a genuine question. One can enquire into the nature of truth, but that is a different matter, is it not? If you feel one can, please explain "how". However, please note that one is not advocating being content with anything. And I did not say that truth was based on what we know, I was trying to say the process of recognition is always based on what we know. Is that not so?
                 
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:02 PM
                Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis - ideals

                Dear Clive,
                Perhaps I could begin by asking you for a clarification. In an earlier email you stated:
                 
                "Surely you cannot seriously claim that human beings - the human mind - have created societies based on generosity? ? Surely it cannot be said that advertising, politics, organised religions, and human relationship in general is based on truthfulness. .."
                 
                Why "surely"?? Whether I agree or disagree or partially agree with these statements is besides the point. It appears however that you are stating the following:
                 
                1. That advertising, politics, organised religions, and human relationship in general are not based on truthfulness.
                2. The "truthfulness" of Statement 1 is so obvious to you, that you feel it should be plain and obvious to everybody else. In fact, you seem to wonder how anyone could possibly think differently or arrive at a different conclusion.
                 
                In the last email however you seem to ask whether one can search for truth at all. So should we then be content with what appears obvious to us? You also seem to question if truth can be recognized as truth at all, since it is based on what we already know.
                 
                Do you feel that its ok to hold several mutually contradicting positions? In that case, I respectfully disagree and we can leave it at that.
                 
                Warm Regards,
                Musaddique
                 
                 
                 
                 


                Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@ virgin.net> wrote:
                Dear Musaddique
                Thank you for entering this dialogue with me. It may be that some members of the group feel it is not relevant to education, but to me this enquiry into the nature of the self is the very essence of education, and if educators are not concerned with this, one wonders why they are in education at all.  Because the mere passing on of factual information, necessary as it may be, is clearly not solving the increasing human problems, either personally or globally.
                 
                Some comments below, interspersed in your mail, in this font.
                Dear Clive,
                Thank you for your email.
                You mentioned "surely we do indeed need to very sceptical of the mind itself. Sceptical in the sense of questioning it, doubting, not accepting anything it says or does."
                I absolutely agree. However, isn't scepticism a function of the mind?
                Interesting question. Perhaps it begins that way. But is there a doubting, a questioning, that is beyond the mind, beyond thought?
                 One of the striking qualities of the human mind is its ability to introspect and critique its own functioning, to question previously held notions and explore new areas, and then to question the new conclusions all over again! But is every mind capable of, or willing to take up such introspection and self-critique? Clearly not, as is evident from the kind of society we live in.
                But as I say above, we need educators who are capable of this, and can share their enquiry with the young, developing mind.
                Minds therefore are complex, and can function in a variety of different ways. While the history of the human race is filled with many wars, it also has fountains of mercy and compassion and stories of struggles and triumphs against ignorance and superstition.
                I think you will agree that some of the ways in which the mind can function are more desirable than others.
                I would say that certain actions have different social consequences, yes. But I would question if these different consequences help to bring about a fundamental revolution in human consciousness.  And I do not know that one has to “struggle and triumph” against ignorance and superstition – surely one just has to put it aside. To drop them. Which happens when they are seen as false.
                Undoubtedly, the mind has limitations. But to dismiss the mind completely as problematic is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath-water!
                It is not a matter of “dismissing” the mind. It is a matter of finding its right place, is it not?  I suggest that right place is on the drawing board, in the laboratory, in the technical world. There it is necessary. Where it is not necessary, where it is a definite evil in fact, is in human relationship. And in religion – by which I mean the search for what is true.
                After all, what is the mind? Is it not mere memory, experience, the result of registration in the brain cells? That registration has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years. And as Satish has pointed out, it has been accompanied by identification – he as a Muslim, the other as a Hindu; he as a communist, the other as a capitalist, and so on. This has bought about endless division, conflict, and so immeasurable suffering to the human race.
                Satish mentioned "By teaching Ideals, Good, Evil etc., we are burdening ourselves and the children. True Freedom is to be able to act without any of these burdens and in the NOW."
                Satish, why do you feel that all burdens are necessarily undesirable?
                This seems a strange question. Why should the mind be burdened? Burden means the weight of the past, problems, conflict, suffering. Should the mind not be free of all that?
                If Good and Evil are subjective, surely you are not suggesting that a mind that's insensitive about the world, but without any "burdens" could be concerned a healthy mind at all? For instance, to quote Clive, its a "terrible society, that has brought about the environmental destruction, that has never solved the simple problems of inequality, lack of food, of water, of sanitation, of proper health care for much of the human race." This is a very categorical affirmation of  what Clive considers to be undesirable (or evil).
                It is the critical mind, empowered by freedom ….
                Can there be freedom when there is burden?
                ….. and humbled by an understanding of its own limitations
                Yes, it is essential that the mind sees its own limitations. Perhaps then true intelligence can act.
                that needs to be nurtured. Such a mind would not dismiss anything, be it human relationships or organized religion, as inherently false and faulty!
                Although I hold certain things to be true,
                Perhaps you would tell us what you “hold to be true”, so we could examine that?
                Because there has been immense conflict in the world between people who hold different things to be true.
                by no means do I consider them to be beyond being valid subjects of human scrutiny and critical analyses, and if required revision.
                To suggest that its impossible to arrive at any truth as an objective reality outside ourselves is to fall into nihilism. Indeed such a position is often like a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, if one does not expend any efforts to find any truth, one is presumably less likely to find it!
                I am not at all sure this is true. Can one search for truth? Does it come from effort? And how will you recognise it if you “find” it? What you recognise is what you already know, is it not?
                Warm Regards,
                Musaddique
                and from Clive


                Satish Natarajan <satish_en@yahoo. com> wrote:
                Clive, Thanks for the reply, I would not have written
                better. Not been able to get much tim e to reply. To
                add to this,

                Good and Evil, Right and Wrong always means it is
                either past or future. You may ask how?? Good or
                Evil is only a comparison to something that has
                already happened. Which means any transaction or
                ideal is Good only with reference to something. Any
                act by itself is neither Good or Evil. Ideal is
                always only in the mind. It is memory, which has
                already become past. When an act happens in the NOW
                with no connection to the past or with no anxiety
                about its result, then there is no burden. By
                teaching Ideals, Good, Evil etc., we are burdening
                ourselves and the children. True Freedom is to be
                able to act without any of these burdens and in the
                NOW.

                Regards
                Satish

                --- Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@ virgin.net> wrote:

                > Dear Musaddique
                >
                > I might comment on your letter to Satish - surely
                > we do indeed need to very sceptical of the mind
                > itself. Sceptical in the sense of questioning it,
                > doubting, not accepting anything it says or does.
                >
                > After all it is the human mind, is it not, that has
                > produced this terrible society, that has brought
                > about the environmental destruction, that has never
                > solved the simple problems of inequality, lack of
                > food, of water, of sanitation, of proper health care
                > for much of the human race. The mind has bought
                > about innumerable wars. It has never solved the
                > problem of human sorrow.
                >
                > The virtues that you mention may well be
                > acknowledged generally as "good", but this is mostly
                > theoretical, an idea, is it not? For the most part
                > they remain as concepts, as ideals that perhaps one
                > day might be achieved - but never now.
                >
                > Surely you cannot seriously claim that human beings
                > - the human mind - have created societies based on
                > generosity? Surely it cannot be said that
                > advertising, politics, organised religions, and
                > human relationship in general is based on
                > truthfulness? Would you say our economic system,
                > business, is founded in honesty? Surely not - more
                > on selfishness, greed, compulsion, reward and
                > punishment?
                >
                > As for this matter of living by ideals, yes, of
                > course, one can have ideals of anything at all,
                > ideals of freedom, ideals of "non-ideals" . But do
                > ideals bring about fundamental change in human
                > beings? We have been attached to them for thousands
                > of years - what have they actually brought about?
                > Self deception. Hypocrisy. Double standards. A great
                > deal of oppression and violence. The terrorist has
                > very high ideals indeed.
                >
                > The education system tries to change the behaviour
                > of children by putting high ideals in front of them
                > - while at the same time actually teaching them to
                > be ambitious, greedy, concerned for themselves. It
                > is clear what actually affects children, and it is
                > certainly not the ideal.
                >
                > Regards
                >
                > Clive
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: Musaddique Thange
                > To: alt-ed-india@ yahoogroups. com
                > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:48 AM
                > Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis
                >
                >
                > Hello Satish,
                >
                > If ideals stuck in the mind are susceptible to
                > violence, we would have to be very skeptical about
                > the mind itself and everything that it produces.
                > Virtues such as truthfulness, honesty and generosity
                > that are universally acknowledged as "good" would be
                > shorn of their desirability while evils (which is a
                > term that has been used on this forum) such as
                > oppression, would be openly espoused.
                >
                > My observation is that proponents of an absolute
                > freedom have their own definition of good and evil.
                > My guess is that they have used their minds to
                > arrive at an ideal of an "ideals-free" world. What
                > do you think?
                >
                > Regards,
                > Musaddique
                >
                > Satish Natarajan <satish_en@yahoo. com> wrote:
                > Yes, very true. Also lo ok at what the so called
                > Democracy champions (aka US of A) are doing
                > throughout the world, like in Iraq now. Bringing
                > democracy to Iraq has killed nearly 700,000
                > Iraqis.
                > All ideals which are stuck in the mind are
                > violent, no
                > matter what peace they may promote.
                >
                > --- Clive Elwell <clive.elwell@ gmail.com> wrote:
                >
                > > "And what is more, doesn't your post about not
                > > having a system to free the mind itself sound
                > > suspiciously like the recommendation of YOUR
                > system
                > > "
                > >
                > > I was expecting this comment :-). But no, I
                > have
                > > advocated no system to free the mind. But in
                > seeing
                > > - I mean truly seeing, not just playing with
                > ideas -
                > > that no system, no method, no orgationisation,
                > no
                > > guru-following will free the mind; in seeing
                > that,
                > > then the mind is freed enormously. Then it no
                > longer
                > > wastes its energy on false pursuits.
                > >
                > > This seeing can never be turned into a system,
                > into
                > > something mechanical. Seeing is not
                > mechanical.
                > >
                > > But I feel it is important to draw a
                > distinction
                > > here. Of course systems are necessary in the
                > > technical and scientific fields - to program a
                > > computer, to organise a transport system, to
                > send a
                > > vehicle to the moon.
                > >
                > > But imposing a system on the mind makes it
                > dull and
                > > lazy, does it not? Which is just what schools
                > do -
                > > they try to turn education into a mechanical
                > system,
                > > destroying all creativity, initiative in
                > children.
                > > And also when systems in the form of ideology
                > are
                > > enforced on the human mind, that implies
                > tremendous
                > > violence, brutality - just look at the
                > communist
                > > so-called revolutions in Russia, China,
                > Cambodia,
                > > North Korea.
                > >
                > > Clive
                > >
                > > ----- Original Message -----
                > > From: Kanti Ratna
                > > To: alt-ed-india@ yahoogroups. com
                > > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:15 PM
                > > Subject: Re: [alt-ed-india] The world crisis
                > >
                > >
                > > Dear Clive,
                > >
                > > I agree wholeheartedly with you - no system
                > can
                > > free the mind. However about systems, let me
                > quote 2
                > > passages from the pdf document i gave a link
                > to in
                > > my earlier post.
                > >
                > > Page 3 talks about the NEED of a system or a
                > map:
                > >
                > > "What is the point of using this Integral Map
                > or
                > > Model? First, whether you are
                > > working in business, medicine, psychotherapy,
                > law,
                > > ecology, or simply everyday
                > > living and learning, the Integral Map helps
                > make
                > > sure that you are "touching all the bases." If
                > you
                > > are trying to fly over the Rocky Mountains,
                > the more
                > > accurate a
                > > map you have, the less likely you will crash.
                > An
                > > Integral Approach insures that
                > > you are utilizing the full range of resources
                > for
                > > any situation, with the greater
                > > likelihood of success."
                > >
                > > Page 39 tells you how not to confuse the map
                > with
                > > what is being mapped:
                > >
                > > "Of course, IOS is just a map, nothing more.
                > It is
                > > not the territory. But, as far
                > > as we can tell, it is the most comprehensive
                > map
                > > that we possess at this time.
                > > Moreover-and this is important-the Integral
                > Map
                > > itself insists that we go to the
                > > real territory and not get caught in mere
                > words,
                >
                === message truncated ===

                ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
                http://farechase. yahoo.com/


                Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.

                No virus found in this incoming message.
                Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1039 - Release Date: 29/09/2007 21:46


                Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
                Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.


                Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
                Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.

              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.