Philosophy of education and educational psychology

[thorbiorn]

The understanding we have of the world we live, including what knowledge is, what existence and consciousness is, how the human mind functions, as well as views on what is right and wrong, and therefore what should be done and what not, has consequences for what we think of education, including what is considered worthwhile teaching to whom, when, where, how and even by whom or in an age of increasingly depersonalized teaching by what. These subjects are within the scope of the philosophy of education and educational psychology.

The motivation for beginning this thread was that there does not seem to be a thread with this angle, but also the subjects interests me, and it did not fit into any of these thread either: Homeschooling, home education, school education and the upbringing of children or Transcripts related to children. In this post there are excerpts from the Wiki and reference work. Questions will come later.

Education and educational. The Online Etymology Dictionary has

education (n.)
1530s, "child-rearing," also "the training of animals," from French education (14c.) and directly from Latin educationem (nominative educatio) "a rearing, training," noun of action from past-participle stem of educare (see educate). Originally of instruction in social codes and manners; meaning "systematic schooling and training for work" is from 1610s.




educate (v.)

mid-15c., educaten, "bring up (children), to train," from Latin educatus, past participle of educare "bring up, rear, educate" (source also of Italian educare, Spanish educar, French éduquer), which is a frequentative of or otherwise related to educere "bring out, lead forth," from ex- "out" (see ex-) + ducere "to lead," from PIE root *deuk- "to lead." Meaning "provide schooling" is first attested 1580s. Related: Educated; educating.

According to "Century Dictionary," educere, of a child, is "usually with reference to bodily nurture or support, while educare refers more frequently to the mind," and, "There is no authority for the common statement that the primary sense of education is to 'draw out or unfold the powers of the mind.'"

co-education (n.)

also coeducation, "joint education," specifically of young men and young women in the same institution, 1852, from co- + education.

Next the philosophy of education. In the first paragraph on the Stanford resource on philosophy, there is:

Philosophy of Education
First published Mon Jun 2, 2008; substantive revision Sun Oct 7, 2018
Philosophy of education is the branch of applied or practical philosophy concerned with the nature and aims of education and the philosophical problems arising from educational theory and practice. Because that practice is ubiquitous in and across human societies, its social and individual manifestations so varied, and its influence so profound, the subject is wide-ranging, involving issues in ethics and social/political philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of mind and language, and other areas of philosophy. Because it looks both inward to the parent discipline and outward to educational practice and the social, legal, and institutional contexts in which it takes place, philosophy of education concerns itself with both sides of the traditional theory/practice divide. Its subject matter includes both basic philosophical issues (e.g., the nature of the knowledge worth teaching, the character of educational equality and justice, etc.) and problems concerning specific educational policies and practices (e.g., the desirability of standardized curricula and testing, the social, economic, legal and moral dimensions of specific funding arrangements, the justification of curriculum decisions, etc.). In all this the philosopher of education prizes conceptual clarity, argumentative rigor, the fair-minded consideration of the interests of all involved in or affected by educational efforts and arrangements, and informed and well-reasoned valuation of educational aims and interventions.

There is quite a variety of content on the Wikipedia from different countries. Below are examples, which also has translations of the concept to other languages. There are more Wikis, but I took the longer ones.

Arabic: فلسفة لتربية (If you translated this entry, there is a long list of philosophers)
Chinese: 教育哲學 (Includes also Chinese philosophers)
Danish: Pædagogisk filosofi
Dutch: Filosofie van de opvoeding
English: Philosophy of Education
Finnish: Kasvatusfilosofia (Short, but has links to authors considered influential.)
French: Philosophie de l'éducation
German: Bildungstheorie
Hebrew: פילוסופיה של החינוך (Covers a wide range of philosophies and approaches.)
Norwegian: Pedagogisk filosofi
Portuguese: Filosofia da educação
Russian: Философия образования
Spanish: Filosofia de la educación
Swedish: Pedagogikens filosofi

In the English Wiki on the Philosophy of Education, there are the following names with those bolded also appearing in Educational Psychology.

• 5History
  • 5.1Ancient
    • 5.1.1Plato
    • 5.1.2Aristotle
  • 5.2Medieval
    • 5.2.1Ibn Sina
    • 5.2.2Ibn Tufail
  • 5.3Modern
    • 5.3.1Michel de Montaigne
    • 5.3.2John Locke
    • 5.3.3Jean-Jacques Rousseau
    • 5.3.4Immanuel Kant
    • 5.3.5Charlotte Mason
  • 5.420th and 21st century
    • 5.4.1Rudolf Steiner (Waldorf education)
    • 5.4.2John Dewey
    • 5.4.3Maria Montessori
    • 5.4.4William Heard Kilpatrick
    • 5.4.5William Chandler Bagley
    • 5.4.6A. S. Neill
    • 5.4.7Martin Heidegger
    • 5.4.8Jean Piaget
    • 5.4.9Mortimer Jerome Adler
    • 5.4.10Harry S. Broudy
    • 5.4.11Jerome Bruner
    • 5.4.12Paulo Freire
    • 5.4.13John Holt
    • 5.4.14Nel Noddings

The Wiki on Educational psychology

Educational psychology is the branch of psychology concerned with the scientific study of human learning. The study of learning processes, from both cognitive and behavioral perspectives, allows researchers to understand individual differences in intelligence, cognitive development, affect, motivation, self-regulation, and self-concept, as well as their role in learning. The field of educational psychology relies heavily on quantitative methods, including testing and measurement, to enhance educational activities related to instructional design, classroom management, and assessment, which serve to facilitate learning processes in various educational settings across the lifespan.[1]

Educational psychology can in part be understood through its relationship with other disciplines. It is informed primarily by psychology, bearing a relationship to that discipline analogous to the relationship between medicine and biology. It is also informed by neuroscience. Educational psychology in turn informs a wide range of specialities within educational studies, including instructional design, educational technology, curriculum development, organizational learning, special education, classroom management, and student motivation. Educational psychology both draws from and contributes to cognitive science and the learning sciences. In universities, departments of educational psychology are usually housed within faculties of education, possibly accounting for the lack of representation of educational psychology content in introductory psychology textbooks.[2]

The field of educational psychology involves the study of memory, conceptual processes, and individual differences (via cognitive psychology) in conceptualizing new strategies for learning processes in humans. Educational psychology has been built upon theories of operant conditioning, functionalism, structuralism, constructivism, humanistic psychology, Gestalt psychology, and information processing.[1]

Educational psychology has seen rapid growth and development as a profession in the last twenty years.[3] School psychology began with the concept of intelligence testing leading to provisions for special education students, who could not follow the regular classroom curriculum in the early part of the 20th century.[3] However, "school psychology" itself has built a fairly new profession based upon the practices and theories of several psychologists among many different fields. Educational psychologists are working side by side with psychiatrists, social workers, teachers, speech and language therapists, and counselors in an attempt to understand the questions being raised when combining behavioral, cognitive, and social psychology in the classroom setting.[3]

Names in the English Wiki on Educational Psychology include:

• 1History
  • 1.1Antiquity (Plato and Aristotle)
  • 1.2Early Modern era (John Locke)
  • 1.3Before 1890
    • 1.3.1Juan Vives
    • 1.3.2Johann Pestalozzi
    • 1.3.3Johann Herbart
  • 1.41890–1920
    • 1.4.1William James (1842–1910)
    • 1.4.2Alfred Binet
    • 1.4.3Edward Thorndike
    • 1.4.4John Dewey
    • 1.4.5Jean Piaget
  • 1.51920–present
    • 1.5.1Jerome Bruner
    • 1.5.2Benjamin Bloom
    • 1.5.3Nathaniel Gage
• 2Perspectives
  • 2.1Behavioral
  • 2.2Cognitive
    • 2.2.1Cognitive view of intelligence
  • 2.3Developmental
  • 2.4Constructivist
    • 2.4.1Jean Piaget's Cognitive Development
• 3Conditioning and learning
  • 3.1Motivation
• 4Technology
• 5Applications
  • 5.1Teaching
  • 5.2Counseling
    • 5.2.1Training
    • 5.2.2Employment outlook
• 6Methods of research

Other topics that may relate are education, preschool, kindergarten, primary education, school, secondary school, homeschooling, college, university and many more. So much for introduction.

 

[thorbiorn]

Below are three themes that could influence how one approaches education.
Spirit, soul and materialism: In much of modern education, the predominant view is materialistic. It does not recognize spirit as having existence, or considers the possibility of any hyperdimensional reality.
Knowledge, truth, objectivity vs lies and falsehood: While knowledge, truth and objectivity were sought after, it now seems that political correctness or politically expedient "truths" even if they are false, deceptive or lies are credited with value even if they contradict knowledge, truth and objectivity.
Good and evil. In a society ruled by political correctness, the concept of good will be thoughts and behaviour that accord with what is considered politically correct.

An educational approach where materialism is accepted as a maxim, where lies and falsehoods are approved, and where evil is encouraged can hardly be healthy.

In reality, however, all is not black and white. Even in a world ruled by materialism and politically correctness, there are likely to be gaps here and there that indicate the work of spirit, knowledge and truth as well as genuine helpfulness. Similarly, just because someone professes to spirit, knowledge, and a distinction between good and evil, does not mean that all is ideal. It would not be possible in our world.

 

[Yupo]

There's a wonderful book on the subject called Begin Here; The Forgotten Conditions of Teaching and Learning by Jacques Barzun. I can't recommend it enough.

 

[thorbiorn]

There's a wonderful book on the subject called Begin Here; The Forgotten Conditions of Teaching and Learning by Jacques Barzun. I can't recommend it enough.

Thank you, @Yupo, I'll take a look.

 

[thorbiorn]

In the last three hundred years, at least, there have been discussions about whether a child is born good, evil or something else. I will still share this find from the German Wiki on progressive education, called Reformpädagogik where one finds:

The Enlightenment was ambivalent with regard to the anthropological question of whether the child initially had a naturally good soul (Rousseau) or was always “radical evil” (Kant). Many later reform pedagogues leaned towards Rousseau that a child only has to be able to develop themselves, and emphasized the important role of cooperation in order to receive the good through social give and take.

The concept Kant used, radical evil, is in German, "radikal Böse". The Wiki has:

Radical evil (German: das radikal Böse) is a phrase used by German philosopher Immanuel Kant, one representing the Christian term, radix malorum. Kant believed that human beings naturally have a tendency to be evil. He explains radical evil as corruption that entirely takes over a human being and leads to desire's acting against the universal moral law. The outcome of one's natural tendency, or innate propensity, towards evil are actions or "deeds" that subordinate the moral law. According to Kant, these actions oppose the universally moral maxims and displayed from self-love and self conceit.[1][2] By many authors, Kant's concept of radical evil is seen as a paradox and inconsistent through his development of moral theories.[3][4]

And going one step further the Christian term, radix malorum may refer to Radix malorum est cupiditas:

Radix malorum est cupiditas or Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas is a Biblical quotation in Latin that literally means "the root of evil is greed", or "the root of evil is want".

This Latin phrase is a translation of the original Greek manuscripts of the Bible. The Greek text reads "ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία" (1Ti 6:10 BGT) - literally translated into English as "A root of all the evils is the fond love of money". Daniel Wallace states that ῥίζα (root) is qualitative, since it lacks an article.[1]
[...]

It is translated as "the love of money is the root of all evil" in King James Version).[2] It has frequently been rendered as "money is the root of all evil".[3]

Or did Kant have in mind something like the Christian original sin, because one could ask where from the love of money comes?
The verse that is referred to is from 1. Timothy, and Timothy is not usually considered one of the authentic letters by Paul, as this passage from the Galatians 5:16-26 in the Zondervan AMP version:

16 But I say, walk habitually in the [Holy] Spirit [seek Him and be responsive to His guidance], and then you will certainly not carry out the desire of the 1sinful nature [which responds impulsively without regard for God and His precepts]. 17 For the sinful nature has its desire which is opposed to the Spirit, and the [desire of the] Spirit opposes the 2sinful nature; for these [two, the sinful nature and the Spirit] are in direct opposition to each other [continually in conflict], so that you [as believers] do not [always] do whatever [good things] you want to do. 18 But if you are guided and led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the Law. 19 Now the practices of the 3sinful nature are clearly evident: they are sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality (total irresponsibility, lack of self-control), 20 4idolatry, 5sorcery, hostility, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions [that promote heresies], 21 envy, drunkenness, riotous behavior, and other things like these. I warn you beforehand, just as I did previously, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit [the result of His presence within us] is love [unselfish concern for others], joy, [inner] peace, patience [not the ability to wait, but how we act while waiting], kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the 6sinful nature together with its passions and appetites.

25 If we [claim to] live by the [Holy] Spirit, we must also walk by the Spirit [with personal integrity, godly character, and moral courage—our conduct empowered by the Holy Spirit]. 26 We must not become conceited, challenging or provoking one another, envying one another.

1 Galatians 5:16 Lit flesh.
2 Galatians 5:17 Lit flesh.
3 Galatians 5:19 Lit flesh.
4 Galatians 5:20 Including prostitution, which was often part of pagan ritual.
5 Galatians 5:20 Including such things as occult practices, witchcraft, worship of evil powers, drug-induced trances.
6 Galatians 5:24 Lit flesh.

What Paul talks of also connect to hyperdimensional realities and STO/STO. In the future, these themes may enter education, or hints might be dropped for those interesting in discovering more.

 

[Il Matto]

The understanding we have of the world we live, including what knowledge is, what existence and consciousness is, how the human mind functions, as well as views on what is right and wrong, and therefore what should be done and what not, has consequences for what we think of education, including what is considered worthwhile teaching to whom, when, where, how and even by whom or in an age of increasingly depersonalized teaching

Thank you for starting this thread thorbiorn, though I appreciate that its a few years old at this point! Regardless, I'm glad to have found it as these questions interest me greatly.
A few general comments if I may...
I suspect that few would disagree that the sphere of education today is extensive and that education is something that is highly valued - witness not just a developed system of state education in most countries, but also a variety of institutions that cater for a widespread call for further qualification and accreditation in subjects as diverse as accountancy and horticulture. Alongside this is the ever burgeoning market for 'self-education' manuals and the plethora of post-plandemic online courses that most institutions are now very adept at providing. Governments, by and large, insist that education is one of their 'top priorities' and various authorities and institutions seem to ceaselessly emphasise that education is crucial to poor and troubled areas throughout the world.
It's interesting to consider the etymology of 'education' and indeed how 'education' is defined in the dictionary, but - and this is just an initial thought - maybe agreeing on a definition of education is not the primary concern (we can probably get along just fine with a general understanding of the word for the time being), rather, perhaps we should primarily be concerned with giving an account of what it means to be a 'well-educated person'? This strikes me as a valuable starting point when considering education simply because its an awkward question!
Oddly, at least in my experience, the question of what makes a well-educated person is one that doesn't come up often enough. Many people, when asked, will readily tell you any number of things, such as: studying Shakespeare is a waste of time, schools should focus on technical knowledge that aligns with today's 'job market', that students should learn how to learn rather than particular subjects, that this school is better than that, that this teacher is brilliant and that one useless, that home-schooling is the way forward, and so on. Such suggestions from people seem to have in mind an idea of educational 'success', that this or that is more effective at contributing to some achievement or result, but what is the result? Again, what exactly counts as being well-educated?

Below are three themes that could influence how one approaches education.
Spirit, soul and materialism: In much of modern education, the predominant view is materialistic. It does not recognize spirit as having existence, or considers the possibility of any hyperdimensional reality.
Knowledge, truth, objectivity vs lies and falsehood: While knowledge, truth and objectivity were sought after, it now seems that political correctness or politically expedient "truths" even if they are false, deceptive or lies are credited with value even if they contradict knowledge, truth and objectivity.
Good and evil. In a society ruled by political correctness, the concept of good will be thoughts and behaviour that accord with what is considered politically correct.

Annoyingly, perhaps, I'm going to pose my question and not try to write a coherent answer to it (mostly because I don't currently have one). I do think it would be worthwhile to ponder what being well-educated entails in light of what I have quoted above, however.

Any takers with any thoughts?

 

[thorbiorn]

Annoyingly, perhaps, I'm going to pose my question and not try to write a coherent answer to it (mostly because I don't currently have one). I do think it would be worthwhile to ponder what being well-educated entails in light of what I have quoted above, however.

Any takers with any thoughts?

Below are some reflection about the question, later some excerpts about knowledge and growing in knowledge.

One approach could be to review our own educational journey, which could include that a part, if not much of our education takes place outside a school setting, especially later in life.

What contributed to our level of knowledge? What, if anything could we have done differently? What were we taught and why?

We can even play with the idea if our education would have been of use if we had lived in a different time and place.

Once the review is done one could look at how it might apply from the perspective of the points you quoted. Then one could go over the journey again and re-evaluate. This would tie further reflections more to the personal experience and perhaps help in developing a perspective.

In the context of the theme of the thread, one could also review the educational journey in terms of different philosophical perspectives on education. Which ideas were guiding the education we received, how would our education have been different, if other principles had been followed? For an example of a different idea, there is in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Epictetus where one finds:

Epictetus draws a sharp distinction between book learning, i.e. mastering the content of particular treatises, and what may be called education for living, in which one acquires the attitudes and habits that enable correct behavior. The latter is of paramount importance; the former may be of instrumental value but if overemphasized may prove a hindrance to ethical development.

Maybe in the review of our educational journey some internal programs will be discovered. In a session not long after 9/11, there was: Help others to read programs in themselves.
Session 13 October 2001

Q: ([...](L) Okay, I wanted to ask a few things about the egroup. My idea has been that one of the main things that the group ought to be dealing with is how to learn to read when programs are activated around them. There are plenty of groups that can discuss politics and conspiracies and so on, but the real work on the self is quite a bit more difficult. I have been thinking that the most important thing we need to do is learn how to free our energy and increase our frequency thereby. Can you give any guidance about how to best go about this other than what we have already learned or what we are already doing? Any further guidance?
A: Help others to read programs in themselves.

The Cs noted about people in Russia in Session 22 March 2014 and this points to both school and life being sources of knowledge.
There are many in Russia who learned in a school of hard reality difficult for Westerners to imagine. On top of this, they are better educated in general.

Q: (Perceval) Is there anyone essentially giving him orders? Is what he's doing being controlled directly in that sense?

A: Not in the sense you mean, but yes in the sense of conscience.

Q: (Ark) I think that what is of value is that he has the right team of advisors. When you have your advisors and they are smart and knowledgeable, they are experts in certain areas, and they will say, "If you do this, this will be the result, so I suggest that."

A: Indeed, there are many in Russia who learned in a school of hard reality difficult for Westerners to imagine. On top of this, they are better educated in general.

Q: (PoB) Is there a real threat of Putin being assassinated?

A: Always that, but he wasn't KGB for nothing.

"a school of hard reality" would connect to life as it was lived by the people. The Russia has a high percentage of people with a tertiary education. Did this help more people to pay attention to objective reality?

Life is religion
Session 28 September 2002

A: Life is religion.

Q: (L) What does that mean?

A: Life experiences reflect how one interacts with God. Those who are asleep are those of little faith in terms of their interaction with the creation. Some people think that the world exists for them to overcome or ignore or shut out. For those individuals, the worlds will cease. They will become exactly what they give to life. They will become merely a dream in the "past." People who pay strict attention to objective reality right and left, become the reality of the "Future."

Just work daily at becoming more aware on three levels
Session 16 August 2014:

Q: (L) Okay, is there any final bit of advice, or any last thing to say before we shut down for the night?

A: Just work daily at becoming more aware on three levels
1. Body and immediate environment,
2. Wider world affairs,
3. Cosmos and spirit.

Q: (L) Shouldn't "spirit" go with "Body and immediate environment"?

A: No, it is via the first steps that one achieves cosmic consciousness.

Q: (L) I don't understand.

(Chu) You have to work on the body and environment, and then understand the wider world at first. And then you can develop cosmic consciousness and spirit.

(L) Oooh. So in other words, to achieve cosmic consciousness, i.e. true spiritual advancement, you have to expand your field of vision to be very wide?

A: Exactly. Those who suggest that you must look only within live in a singular bubble.

Trying to relate the above three points to current educational system could be an excercise.

The following is long and may be an argument for including some paleontology, biology and biochemistry into a concept of being well educated. A question might be if these areas of knowledge carry meaning in relation to the three area above: "1. Body and immediate environment, 2. Wider world affairs, 3. Cosmos and spirit."

All who seek to graduate to 4th density must seek knowledge.
Belief that is based on firm knowledge of nature is empowering.
Session 23 March 2019

A: [...] Coming to knowledge that is sure by your own efforts locks it in at the belief center, and thus gives added power. All who seek to graduate to 4th density must seek knowledge. In 4D, eventually it will be your job to engineer lifeforms on new worlds.

Q: (L) Well, from what I've been reading about the engineering of the lifeforms on this world, that gives me the idea that 4th density intelligence and abilities are so...

A: Stupendous is the term.

Q: (L) Yeah, stupendous. Reading these books has just blown me away.

(Pierre) You mean the level of engineering?

(L) The level of engineering, the level of intelligence, I mean... Obviously, there have been experiments. Look at the book, Prehistoric Life. You can SEE minds working on engineering creatures. Then they decide, oh, we don't like that one. They wipe out the whole planet and then a whole new bunch appear. That's engineering. They didn't like the old design. There were some of the old designs that REALLY were bad, I'm tellin' you! [laughter] I swear, you can see in that book. There were some really BAD ideas! Serious design flaws.

(Joe) You said in the forum that every single species was individually engineered out of the experimental parts that were previously engineered through billions of years of Earth's history. So, I was wondering... They said in a previous session that life here was seeded. First, primitive life was given. But to what extent was the progress of all the species on Earth directly created?

A: As Behe suggests, at the family level.

Q: (L) Like family Canis. You can get wolves, dogs, etc.

(Joe) So all of the constituent parts of dogs were directly created somewhere else, and then...

(L) Look at the book. You can see where they started. It shows you how they started with the most basic organisms. They played around with those, and then they built on it. It's just like amazing to look at those pictures and see what they've uncovered in the fossil record. You can see they tried doing this, then they added that to it, then they used a part from this and part from that, engineered a new part or two, and so on. Every species has a certain number of genes or parts of them that no other species has.

(Joe) In the previous session they said it was more or less like a thought in 4th density of a dog. Then that's transferred to 3D and matter accretes to that.

(L) Well, I'm sure that happens the same way they were describing abductions.

(Joe) No, but is that... So there is an evolutionary process where the component parts of a dog...

(L) I don't think they were talking about the dog.

(Joe) So some evolution happens naturally? Ya know what I mean?

(Pierre) I think what Joe means is that... Joe is reconciling intelligent design and evolution somehow by saying that yes, at our level...

(L) There is no evolution.

(Pierre) But the ideas in the mind of the engineer of the mind in 4D DOES evolve...

(Joe) Like you send a blueprint down, and the matter accretes around that blueprint and produces a dog quite quickly.

(Pierre) And then you learn from it, your thinking gets better, and you design a Dog 2.0.

(Joe) No, a dog evolves from something.

(L) No, a dog doesn't evolve from anything. A dog is created.

(Joe) And it appears out of thin air?

(L) No, it doesn't appear out of thin air. It gets... I think what they were saying was that the idea of the different small like proteins or other building blocks. But how do they get put together? And I don’t think it was exactly like the thought of a “dog” but they were talking more about basic life forms to begin with, and the engineering via DNA. If there is a “thought” that is transferred to 3D, it would be in the DNA. If you look at the book, you see how it starts off with very basic structures, like slime molds. Cyanobacteria. Then, you get things where groups of different kinds of organisms form tubes. Then they form stalks. Then they learn how to do photosynthesis. Then they make leaves. Then, somewhere along the way, sexual reproduction comes into the picture. Once sexual reproduction has entered the picture, then the door is open for seeding other things via sexual reproduction. Then, what you can do is make a code and plant it in literally by sending viruses or something through the realm curtain or even just thoughts, or something like abductions. You can plant it in an egg and it's born. It's not like something just accretes out of the air. It happens in a very practical way...

A: Following the idea there is a certain amount of experimentation and even gestation of some "parts" in other lifeforms or in other realities before transference to this one.

Q: (Joe) What I was trying to say was it's kinda like a blueprint is transferred to these lifeforms, and they follow a preprogrammed blueprint...

A: No. There is no evolution as you are thinking.

Q: (Joe) I thought you were saying that basically there IS evolution, but then these small organisms...

(L) No, that's not what I'm saying! I'm saying if you look, you can see where they created parts. And every time you can see where they did something and then it went along. If you look at the book, you see each world of... There was the Slime World. It came to an end. When the slime world ended, then there was another world. Okay, still some slime survived, but the new world had tube creatures. Then that world ended, and another one started that was plant creatures.

(Joe) Okay, so there's no development from one to the next.

(Pierre) I have an analogy, and I'd like to know if it's correct. You see in the history of the planet these cycles of mass extinctions, and bursts of life. Recurring. An analogy between those cosmic cycles and engineering at a human level is toss the old blueprint, and start a new one.

(Joe) So each stage is discrete.

(Pierre) Is it a correct analogy?

A: Yes but that does not mean that all designs are useless.

Q: (L) It's like...

(Pierre) You have some parts that go through a lot of different animals that are more and more evolved, but the part stays more or less the same.

A: Here is an analogy: You could use a horse drawn wagon as a chassis for an automobile.

(Pierre) Ah, okay...

A: It isn't perfect, but it is a step.

(Pierre) Yes.

A: Human souls were put into Neanderthal to incubate and induce direct DNA changes. There is so much to this topic that it could take a very long time to explain it all. Best to continue to study and think and network. Look at the book. It is all there for those with eyes to see. Love is the human manifestation of creative energy.

Q: (L) Okay, take a break!

(Artemis) Wait, I'm alone!

(L) Take your hand off! [laughter]

(Artemis) They're like, "No, we're not done talking!"

(Scottie) [Review of previous answer] So, what that means is that it's not like dogs evolved from wolves. It's like they designed wolves, and then they said, "Hmm, let's design dogs!" And then they designed dogs.

(L) And they put it into somebody's mind to start breeding certain traits...

(Scottie) Yeah, and that could happen in various ways.

(L) Or the natural variation of the wolves produced a dog one day.

(Chu) Well, if you have all the parts and you just adapt them like a bicycle... To the human eye, it looks like an improved bicycle, but you did two projects at once. Behe says that microevolution can be justified, and I'm not even sure about that. Like a color that changes in the species could be another...

(L) Yeah, there's not too much that can be done even by microevolution. It can refine something, but it usually just breaks things. In order to give it a little more clarity, my thought was that in the beginning, somebody was experimenting on this planet. And if you look there are these vast ages of one thing, or just one type of thing, and then the next age of something a little more advanced... For a period of time, the whole planet was covered with whatever it was, and then, BOOM! Extinction. Then for a period, it was covered with another thing then BOOM! Extinction. At each level, you can see that everything is increasing in complexity and variety. So yes, it gives the impression of evolution, and in a way, it is: it is evolving in the minds of the 4D creators/engineers and they keep trying new things. And yes, there is the appearance of common descent because, in fact, there is “common descent” in that when the engineers find something that works, they use the template, even the DNA, again and again. So, somebody was learning how to build things. Somebody was freakin' practicing! Then they say, "Oh, that was handy! Let's use that for this!" Remember, the Cs said that human beings lead the DNA smorgasbord parade of all that exists on this planet. We've got genes that are in worms and flies and fish and apes and whatever. That used to really upset me when they would say stuff like that. It would really gross me out. But it's true. We share many genes with so many other families and species. That's because those parts worked in a certain way and did certain things that were wanted, and the 4D engineers used them again and again, modifying this or that, but basically, the DNA instructions have to be the same because it’s an information code.

(Joe) We're the most complex organism on the planet that is a product of many attempts... many iterations of life.

(L) Because the same control genes that make a leg in a frog make a leg in a human. But there are other things that make a human leg different from a frog leg – that’s the engineering, the tweaking of the instructions.

(Chu) Ew!! [laughter]

(L) Sorry, Chu, but it's true: You have frog legs! [laughter]

(Joe) There's a comment there about how human souls were put into Neanderthals to incubate and induce direct DNA changes. That's different.

(L) That's a bit different because here you're talking about something that's more conscious and you're talking about an organism that's already developed to a very advanced stage. So that particular kind of inducing changes could possibly work. The Cs said that STS took over about 300KYA, and by then, all the major creating and engineering of life forms as we know them now was a done deal. If Love is the power of creation, that’s why 4D STS can’t create; they can only modify or interfere, suppress, etc. So in a real sense, our world was created by Love and is truly, jaw-droppingly amazing.

(Scottie) That's still a type of engineering. If you take a "super doggie-type soul" and put it in a wolf, maybe you get a dog.

(Joe) Well, that's the question. Is that only for human beings? There's no soul or essence that can go into animals that can change them?

(L) Does that thing about the Neanderthals only work for humans, or is that something that also could work for animals?

A: In some cases, yes.

Q: (Artemis) What did they want to say before when we stopped them? They wanted to say something. So, continue.

A: Learning how to think has been a big part of the destiny. Now, it must be combined with belief of a particular kind. Belief that is based on subjective wishful thinking is entropic. Belief that is based on firm knowledge of nature is empowering. This is what your grouping has lacked. You now have the opportunity and tools to change that.

Q: (Pierre) Yeah, that's a big change. If I correctly remembered, we were about knowledge is good, belief is bad. Now, they introduce a distinction: there is bad belief based on wishful thinking, and there is good belief based on objective assessment of reality and knowledge. They already mentioned Belief Center earlier, and I was thinking, "Belief Center? Power?" I think they allude to the fact that when knowledge is taken a step further and used to fuel a strong belief in this truth, it has a different effect on you. Not only you know, but...

(L) It unlocks something. Years ago, the Cs talked about needing to have the wrong locks removed. They also said something about faith… “When you have found something of truth you will receive demonstrations which locks in your faith. “

(Pierre) You KNOW in your belief center, and that's empowering. I think they even allude to some of the steps in 4th density where this creative thinking is due to the fact of a knowledge-based belief center.

(L) Well, what did they say? Life is Religion. Paying close and careful attention to objective reality... I don't think there is anything in the world that is more akin to paying close and careful attention to objective reality than studying how DNA works, cell biology, the machines of the cell, how bodies are built, how bodies work... that is the most intensive act of studying Nature possible, I think... For me, it's been the most powerful... This is stuff that has come up since I was in science classes; we didn’t have this information then though I strongly suspected something was up when I read what was then known about ribosomes!

(Pierre) And actually you described it. This process of accumulating knowledge to absorb it in your belief center. You described the process of learning about Intelligent Design a month ago. You said something like you learned so much about it, you were intimately convinced about it.

(L) For me, it was like being reborn. Like having locks on my mind just blown off.

(Pierre) What I say, is it correct, or is it off?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) To be fair to them, the Cs said years ago that all the power to change reality is contained in the belief center of the mind.

(L) Yeah. For 20 years, I couldn't BELIEVE in anything!

(Pierre) You wanted to know. It's not mutually exclusive what the Cs said. You can believe AND know. You can believe BECAUSE you know. That's a big step.

(L) Well, it's what the Apostle Paul said: Faith is confidence in things not seen, and he also said that we can KNOW all about God by observing what has been created, that is, things that CAN be seen. If I can see the freakin' images of the images of the microscopic machines in the cell, and we're talking about... These are machines that convert light into sugar, water, and oxygen. 15 MILLION of them can fit on an area the size of an I-phone pixel!! [laughter]

(Andromeda) That's crazy!

(L) That... That is the most astonishing engineering...

(Joe) It's so obtuse of human beings to not accept that. Human beings' conscious experience of the development of technology has been precisely that: being able to engineer things at a smaller and smaller level. So if you see the same thing in nature, how can you not say it was designed? If I designed it, how could it not be in another mind to design that? It's massively more complex, and it takes a lot of engineering and thought and design to make a microchip. Then you look at the body and you see things that are massively more complex, and you go, "No! That happened by accident!" Did the microchip happen by accident? Why would you even think it happened by accident?

(Ark) Something occurred to me when I was on my bike today. So, I am riding, right? And there is a butterfly in front of me. I ride, and the butterfly just flies in front of me. Probably it has some fun for doing that. Now, there is this road, and there is this butterfly flying. And we were both going against the wind. And then I am thinking: Okay, we have these Boeings with AI that are crashing. I've never seen a butterfly that crashed! [laughter] And then it goes against the wind! There is a software somewhere in the butterfly which is SO ADVANCED that it is... It cannot consciously compute anything, but something is doing it! So, how it can fly against the wind with almost no power?

(L) And that tiny little butterfly has a tiny little brain... it's so small!

(Ark) What I want to know is: Where is the software which is SO powerful and so universal?! It's crash-proof! Where does it come from? Is it in the genes? Or after the butterfly is born, it downloads from somewhere this software? Where is it?

(Pierre) It's the information field [makes patented Pierre Information Field Gesture].

(L) Information field. So, your question is: Where does the butterfly's software come from?

(Ark) Yes.

A: As Pierre said, it is information fully and freely given/received via the antenna of the proteins.

Q: (Scottie) So, can I fly like a butterfly if I have a different antenna? I've always wanted to fly, so...

(PoB) Why we cannot fly?

(L) Because we don't have the right antenna!

(Ark) We don't have the hardware for flying.

A: When you get enough knowledge, sure!

Q: (L) In other words, what they're saying is that when you get enough knowledge that you can engineer a living creature, then you can engineer yourself to fly. But first you need the knowledge to engineer a butterfly - at least! And based on what I’ve been studying, we have a ways to go yet!

(Scottie) At the moment, we can't even engineer a robot that flies like a butterfly.

Above there was, "Love is the human manifestation of creative energy."

To love you must know. And to know is to have light. And to have light is to love. And to have knowledge is to love.
Session 9 September 1995

Q: (L) There are many teachings that are promulgated that Love is the key, the answer. They say that illumination and knowledge and what-not can all be achieved through love.

A: The problem is not the term "love," the problem is the interpretation of the term. Those on third density have a tendency to confuse the issue horribly. After all, they confuse many things as love. When the actual definition of love as you know it is not correct either. It is not necessarily a feeling that one has that can also be interpreted as an emotion, but rather, as we have told you before, the essence of light which is knowledge is love, and this has been corrupted when it is said that love leads to illumination. Love is Light is Knowledge. Love makes no sense when common definitions are used as they are in your environment. To love you must know. And to know is to have light. And to have light is to love. And to have knowledge is to love.

In Paul's 1. Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 13, v 2. there is a weighing between knowledge and love.

And if I have prophetic powers – that is, the gift of interpreting the divine will and purpose; and understand all the secret truths and mysteries and possess all knowledge, and if I have faith so that I can remove mountains, but have not love I am nothing – a useless nobody.

In our lives and daily news, there are here and there clever people, "well-educated" certainly, but love in their hearts, as Paul describes it in the above letter is not to be found.

To be "well-educated" in the sense of "Life is religion",
might relate to the circles that Gurdjieff talked about in ISOTM, or the states (of knowledge) in the work of Ibn al-Arabi, or "the levels of the staircase as presented by Mouravieff
Session 13 July 2002

Q: Are the levels of initiation and levels of the staircase as presented by Mouravieff fairly accurate?

A: Yes, but different levels accessed in other so-called lives can relieve the intensity of some levels in "another" life.

Q: (L) So work on the self in different incarnations - assuming one is not an organic portal - can be cumulative? You can pick up where you left off if you screw up?

A: Yes. To some extent.

It is a consolation, that souls coming into this world, do not have to go through the whole course of life to become "well-educated".

 

[Magnolia]

Joel Salatin has an article on his blog about St. Martin's Academy, a boy's school in Kansas. "It's a Roman Catholic all boys boarding school with about 65 students grades 9-12 located on a farm." The school's motto is "cast out into deep waters." Two quotes on the academy's homepage state:

---“Noise is a whirlwind that avoids looking oneself in the face and confronting the interior emptiness…What will become of our world if it cannot find oases of silence?”
---“The only honest endowment for a school is a self-sufficient farm, without machines, to feed a chaplain, teachers, a cook, and boys who eat like hogs but also hoe, chop, pitch hay, and shovel dung.”

According to Salatin, the school engages students in a variety of activities beyond education of the intellect, including:

These boys hand milk half a dozen grass-fed milk cows each morning for their roughly 20 gallons of raw milk they consume each day.
No screens are allowed on campus.
Everyone plays rugby.
Every student learns to play the dulcimer.
Each student attempts to earn a Deerslayer badge. That means he went to the woods, cut a branch, used a drawknife to shave it into a bow, twist a string from thread and kill a deer with it. He spent four years making bows, trying to get them perfectly balanced, perfectly symmetrical, and perfectly carved.
Wednesday is work day. They have pastured chickens and an eggmobile. They butcher chickens, lambs, and pigs.
Whenever a woman walked into a room, they all stood up and offered a chair.