THE NEW EDUCATION
THE FUNDAMENTAL IMPEDIMENTS
N. Huntley, Ph.D.
At this time the educational impediments might be considered to be a double-tiered problem---two stages. Firstly, many members of the Board of Education and institutions, admirably, are fighting the subtle and covert infiltration into our educational curricula, in particular, in the U.S., of Pavlovian and Skinnerian animal stimulus-response and operant-conditioning doctrines. This is a horrendous scenario with calamitous consequences for the human race, in the form of incremental brainwashing and enslavement. This is guaranteed to robotise the population in a generation or two; and even worse, that is the intention.
The implementation of these behaviour-modification programmes totally ignores the parent and local-school viewpoint. This Federally-controlled school structuring has engendered the term 'rat-lab experimentation'. One of the programmes has been described as 'a more modern version of breaking children to the heel of thought control . . . . it is so flagrantly dangerous, damaging and destructive . . .' (Quote: Dr. Veatch in Back to Basics Reform by C. T. Iserbyt).
Moreover, a sequel and extension to this is that United Kingdom and Europe are introducing their version of these insidious behavioural techniques. A Cabinet Office Behavioral Insight Team has been set up to be instrumental in manipulating and moulding the public's behaviour, in particular, to create greater compliance and submissiveness, described as essentially an economic objective, which would be intended to bring servility in, for example, tax exploitation. Though, there are far worse repercussions.
Our main interest here, however, is in the second aspect of this problem, and one not generally recognised, that even if we rehabilitated the educational system as per the commendable current reformation attempts, regarding these rat-lab techniques, we then encounter the next level of impediment; that of emphasis on quantitative rather than qualitative learning, outlined in the author's article, The New Education: Part I.
What do we mean by quantitative? This is a simple word which surely everyone understands. We mean procedures, techniques of learning methodologies emphasising formatting, and specific programming, as opposed to development and growth through expansion of free thinking consciousness. It emphasises objectivity as opposed to subjectivity: memory rather than understanding; quantity rather than quality; moreover, it develops left-brain consciousness at the expense of the right brain. The conscious mind can be flooded with the hypnotic effect of subconscious or marginally conscious contexts. The 'free thinking' can be overwhelmed with programme structures, so much that the personality itself is 'moulded'. An attribute of this is the narrow, sceptical, closed mind; a fixed condition that is the property of closed systems, causing the inability to 'step outside' the system. Whereas the ability to view one's thinking from a higher perspective, to keep all systems of knowledge open, is a product of the right-brain consciousness, intuition, imagination and creative ability.
Let us give a clearer idea of the power of left-brain contexts. Firstly, some questions. Why is it so difficult for people to change their minds? Why is there so much resistance to change? Why do people attack others when a different viewpoint is expressed? Why are academics particularly guilty in this latter respect? Why does one thing feel so right and another so wrong?
Education emphasises structured learning, which is programming. We will give a simple example of how mental and intellectual structures can rule one's thinking. The example is actually a perception-structure but the same principle applies to mental structures. Experimental psychologists have come up with an excellent example. It is the ability of face recognition. All humans have a high skill in this respect since virtually every adult has seen millions of faces---including repetition of the same faces. As a result of this repeated perception, a programme builds up in the mind for seeing faces; it is of course made up of the memory of so many faces. It forms an energy overlay, a structure, a template which now formats the original basic consciousness through this perception process.
In other words, as we look at a face, instantly an overlay framework superimposes on our vision. The framework is that of an average human face, a statistical face. It is a model of the human face which is a programme giving a constant comparison with the actual face viewed. There is of course tolerance in its parameters; for example, the two eyes must be a certain distance apart but with a degree of acceptable tolerance. Moreover, the eyes must always be above the nose or mouth, etc.
Thus the input energy (consciousness) in this perception process is firstly moulded by this standard framework for the human face, then this model is adjusted slightly according to the actual face viewed. This is all achieved instantaneously when we perceive a face.
The template effect of this model human framework is like a habit pattern, which is a learning pattern that is not within conscious control. One can of course break down habit patterns with effort, involving will and very strong focussing of the mind. Or in the case of the above facial prejudice, one could practice drawing alien type faces, or simply ones that do not conform to the accepted and objective pattern of the average face model.
The whole point of explaining this in detail is: what happens when an observed face does not match the standard face overlay on our perception? Everyone knows the answer. The reaction is anything from dislike, an uncomfortable feeling, repulsion, to even fear and hostility.
Clearly there can be other subconscious reactions entering into the experience but these are all subjective to the observers and are additional to the more objective reaction, that we are discussing here, governed by the automatic comparison between the observed face and the standard template. Note that the reason why the word 'template' is used here, whereas the experimental psychologists use 'schema' to describe the overlay pattern, is that science has not recognised that consciousness is a real energy (also attention is an energy) and this, consciousness energy, which is a spectrum of frequencies, is not dependent on the brain---that is, not a by-product of the brain.
The consciousness input, the function, first creates the overlay structure and then the structure feeds back its information to function. When a powerful habit pattern (programme) is formed or the programme becomes, or is, unconscious, this pattern will then control consciousness.
The reader may have realised that this overlay programme, superimposed without free choice over the visual sense, creates a very high degree of prejudiced perception. We must next appreciate that all learning in which we build up structures, also creates a prejudiced condition or bias---a bias towards the developed pattern. Fashion; getting used to it, is a common example.
What one may not realise is that when we study a subject we get used to it, and skillful with it. For example, one might learn Newton's laws. Endless repetitive thinking may have now taken place over a long period of time. These instructions become firmly embedded. An actual framework of interconnected energy patterns is developed, covering all aspects of Newton's laws. Anyone who may suggest, say, limitations to Newton's laws or question certain applications, will most likely come under attack and ridicule.
Sadly, this is a product of our educational system. It creates a context-dependent mind and tends to develop an arrogant and egotistical personality (in those habitual subjects). We tend to assume the human mind is free to think anything it wishes at any time. But it is formatted by countless frameworks or energy patterns. Consciousness is drawn into the templates of these patterns/programmes and must obey the information they contain. 'Moulding the mind' can be taken literally; scientists will find nature's informational systems work on geometry---thus shape of energy is information.
We can see now how education and learning create a formatted mind in which there is little or no free consciousness that would give flexibility and the ability to create new thoughts and draw new conclusions, etc. We are referring to programmes that have become unconscious by repetition and constant instruction and evaluation. Thoughts will only manifest in particular 'directions'. This cannot occur when an education aids the development of right-brain consciousness, with its intuition, imagination and creative ability.
Excessive evaluation should be tempered, and teaching should, in particular, in creative studies, ideally present data, or data sources, for students to make decisions. Subjects can be introduced from the fields of philosophy, psychology, involving ethical and social behaviour, parapsychology, new age, religion, politics, art, music, even principles of education itself, encouraging the student to think about and research these areas, forming their own opinions, but always taught to keep an open mind; not to form closed-loop thinking on incomplete knowledge. The structure of knowledge itself is not being taught; for example, specific and general learning, and open and closed contextual systems and their relationship to consciousness and evolution. All knowledge and evolution should involve spiral paths; 'loops' which are forever expanding, and avoiding closure.
The horrifying realisation is that education not only restricts even structural knowledge, narrowing down the field by teaching and stressing that objectivity is the only acceptable mode of acquiring knowledge, but also, in turn, it prevents perception that this is happening; that this limitation or closed-system effect is taking place, by suppressing the imagination and intuition, since imagination would activate the intuition and allow it to operate, overriding the rigid contextual patterns of thought.
As a final comment, the quantitative methodologies, ignoring the nature of true unity, encourage ego development (emphasis on self and separation); a condition synonymous with closed systems and the basic reason why 'soul' is omitted or is invalidated by science and education generally.
Return to Home Page