dimanche 15 février 2009

peace education

It is important to include discussion of education in any peace summit. Sustainable peace depends on education based on the recognition of children's emotional needs, the respect for their intelligence, the appreciation for their ideas and opinions and the provision of learning opportunities which engage their instinctive motivation for fulfillment of their human potential.

My experiences as student, teacher and parent have taught me to respect children's natural human right to growth through learning in freedom… ‘freedom’as in the absence of religious or political dogma which nurtures ignorance, fear, hatred and thus conflict. So-called ‘spiritual’ freedom or ‘inner freedom’ is moral freedom because it implies responsibility and thus contrasts with irresponsible freedom or ‘license’. Moral freedom allows for insight into the interconnectedness between all people and respect for one’s own humanity and respect for the humanity of others. In this way moral freedom or ‘true freedom’ translates to outer freedom which is foundational to a culture of peace.World peace depends on each person's respect for their own humanity as well as the humanity of others. Therefore it is necessary to have a universal education which aligns its foundational a culture of peace. philosophy with the understanding of human nature as a social, compassionate and therefore peaceful nature. Inner peace - a function of moral or 'spiritual' development - translates to moral action and social cooperation or 'outer peace'. Consequently education for peace is a function of learning which is meaningful because it engages the person's natural motivation for complete human development. So-called 'peace education' or 'holistic education' provides the conditions for world peace because it provides the conditions which are right for complete human development. We must learn to trust human nature and educate children in such a way that they can develop their human potential. This is the only way we can bring real peace to the world. ''There is only one problem, and it is human development in its totality; once this is achieved in any unit - child or nation - everything else follows spontaneously and harmoniously.'' (Maria Montessori. To Educate the Human Potential )

It seems to me that there might be a basic reason for so many seemingly anomalous situations which cause a great deal of confusion, violence and suffering in a culture which extols the individual right of freedom to pursue so-called ‘happiness’. Can the reason be found in analysis of emotional forces which emanate from the fact that the internal logic of the Constitution is based on a false premise... that human nature is characterized by ego-centric self-interest? It is this fallacious view of human nature which underlies the dualistic philosophy of balanced government as the means to control people's freedom for the pursuit of their so-called 'happiness'. This may be a stumbling block to the creation of a culture of peace and the implications are far-reaching. We would need to modify our understanding of human nature as a peaceful and compassionate nature on one condition… that human development must be complete. The nature or (‘character’) of each individual depends on the level of human psychological and moral (or ‘spiritual’) development which they have reached. Violence is evidence of frustration of complete development. Consequently a culture of peace depends on education which aims for complete individual development... moral as well as intellectual. Complete human development is the aim of the ‘right education’ for the individual as a whole i.e. ‘holistic education’. Holistic education is also known as ‘peace education’. Peace education would have to become a priority concern for the new Department of Peace.

Education for Peace or ‘Holistic Education’
"From a humanistic standpoint there is a serious dilemma in the philosophy of the Fathers, which derives from their conception of man. They thought man was a creature of rapacious self-interest, and yet they wanted him to be free - free in essence, to contend, to engage in an umpired strife, to use property to get property. They accepted the mercantile image of life as an eternal battleground, and assumed the Hobbesian war of each against all; they did not propose to put an end to this war, but merely to stabilize it and make it less murderous. They had no hope and they offered none for any ultimate organic change in the way men conduct themselves. The result was that while they thought self-interest the most dangerous and unbrookable quality of man, they necessarily underwrote it in trying to control it. They succeeded in both respects: under the competitive capitalism of the nineteenth century America continued to be an arena for various grasping and contending interests, and the federal government continued to provide a stable and acceptable medium within which they could contend; further it usually showed the wholesome bias on behalf of property which the Fathers expected. But no man who is as well abreast of modern science as the Fathers were of eighteenth science, believes any longer in unchanging human nature. Modern humanistic thinkers who seek for a means by which society may transcend eternal conflict and rigid adherence to property rights as its integrating principles can expect no answer in the philosophy of balanced governmment as it was set down by the Constitution-makers of 1787". (Richard Hofstadter 'The Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism' in Horowitz, R.H. (Ed) The Moral Foundations of the American Republic. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Oceania 1986 p. 73)

To establish a culture of peace it is important to analyse the emotional forces which emanate from the fact that the internal logic of the Constitution is based on a false premise... that ego-centric self-interest is a characteristic of human nature. This fallacious view of human nature underlies the philosophy that government must control people's freedom in their pursuit of so-called 'happiness'. The implications are far-reaching. We need to define our understanding of human nature as a peaceful and compassionate nature but on one condition… that human development must be complete. Violence is the result of frustration of human development. The nature or (‘character’) of each individual depends on the level of human psychological and moral (or ‘spiritual’) development which they have reached. Consequently a culture of peace depends on education which aims for complete individual development... moral as well as intellectual. Complete human development is the aim of the ‘right education’ for the individual as a whole i.e. ‘holistic education’. Holistic education is also known as ‘peace education’. Peace education is responsible education because it aims for cultivation of moral citizens who are able to deal with the responsibilities of personal and political freedom. For this reason one of the priorities for the new Department of Peace would have to be promotion of peace education.

Peace in the world is the outer manifestation of inner peace as a higher state of consciousness.

samedi 14 février 2009

holistic education as education for peace

It seems to me that there might be a basic reason for so many seemingly anomalous situations which cause a great deal of confusion, violence and suffering in a culture which extols the individual right of freedom to pursue so-called ‘happiness’. Can the reason be found in analysis of emotional forces which emanate from the fact that the internal logic of the Constitution is based on a false premise... that human nature is characterized by ego-centric self-interest?. It is this fallacious view of human nature which underlies the dualistic philosophy of balanced government as the means to control people's freedom for the pursuit of their so-called 'happiness'. This may be a stumbling block to the creation of a culture of peace and the implications are far-reaching. We would need to modify our understanding of human nature as a peaceful and compassionate nature on one condition… that human development must be complete. The nature or (‘character’) of each individual depends on the level of human psychological and moral (or ‘spiritual’) development which they have reached. Violence is evidence of frustration of complete development. Consequently a culture of peace depends on education which aims for complete individual development... moral as well as intellectual. Complete human development is the aim of the ‘right education’ for the individual as a whole i.e. ‘holistic education’. Holistic education is also known as ‘peace education’. Peace education would have to become a priority concern for the new Department of Peace.


"From a humanistic standpoint there is a serious dilemma in the philosophy of the Fathers, which derives from their conception of man. They thought man was a creature of rapacious self-interest, and yet they wanted him to be free - free in essence, to contend, to engage in an umpired strife, to use property to get property. They accepted the mercantile image of life as an eternal battleground, and assumed the Hobbesian war of each against all; they did not propose to put an end to this war, but merely to stabilize it and make it less murderous. They had no hope and they offered none for any ultimate organic change in the way men conduct themselves. The result was that while they thought self-interest the most dangerous and unbrookable quality of man, they necessarily underwrote it in trying to control it. They succeeded in both respects: under the competitive capitalism of the nineteenth century America continued to be an arena for various grasping and contending interests, and the federal government continued to provide a stable and acceptable medium within which they could contend; further it usually showed the wholesome bias on behalf of property which the Fathers expected. But no man who is as well abreast of modern science as the Fathers were of eighteenth science, believes any longer in unchanging human nature. Modern humanistic thinkers who seek for a means by which society may transcend eternal conflict and rigid adherence to property rights as its integrating principles can expect no answer in the philosophy of balanced governmment as it was set down by the Constitution-makers of 1787". (Richard Hofstadter 'The Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism' in Horowitz, R.H. (Ed) The Moral Foundations of the American Republic. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Oceania 1986 p. 73)

dimanche 8 février 2009

Human Nature and the Constitution

All the heated discussion (mosque debate) can be seen as valuable because it provides further evidence that we as a collective are rising to a higher level of consciousnes. This is exactly what will save us all from the disastrous effects of the excesses of ego the prevention of which the American constitution was created. The world is changing and it is impossible to stem the tide.

It is interesting to reflect on the fact that the internal logic of the Constitution is based on a false premise... that ego-centric self-interest is characteristic of human nature. It is this view which underlies the dualistic philosophy of balanced government as the means to control people's freedom for the pursuit of their so-called 'happiness'. This all has far-reaching implications. See the following: "From a humanistic standpoint there is a serious dilemma in the philosophy of the Fathers, which derives from their conception of man. They thought man was a creature of rapacious self-interest, and yet they wanted him to be free - free in essence, to contend, to engage in an umpired strife, to use property to get property. They accepted the mercantile image of life as an eternal battleground, and assumed the Hobbesian war of each against all; they did not propose to put an end to this war, but merely to stabilize it and make it less murderous. They had no hope and they offered none for any ultimate organic change in the way men conduct themselves. The result was that while they thought self-interest the most dangerous and unbrookable quality of man, they necessarily underwrote it in trying to control it. They succeeded in both respects: under the competitive capitalism of the nineteenth century America continued to be an arena for various grasping and contending interests, and the federal government continued to provide a stable and acceptable medium within which they could contend; further it usually showed the wholesome bias on behalf of property which the Fathers expected. But no man who is as well abreast of modern science as the Fathers were of eighteenth science, believes any longer in unchanging human nature. Modern humanistic thinkers who seek for a means by which society may transcend eternal conflict and rigid adherence to property rights as its integrating principles can expect no answer in the philosophy of balanced governmment as it was set down by the Constitution-makers of 1787". (Richard Hofstadter 'The Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism' in Horowitz, R.H. (Ed) The Moral Foundations of the American Republic. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Oceania 1986 p. 73)