August, 2006

Noel Huntley, Ph.D.

Why does our educational system produce a mind which veers increasingly towards conditions of thought, ideas and creativity that are moulded by an outlook which can only be described as conventional, orthodox, sceptical, narrow-minded, and only able to tolerate what is probable? In other words, a mind intolerant of the improbable, the paranormal, and, in anything which is a mystery; furthermore, that there could be any significance to coincidences and synchronicities other than chance. It would appear to be a failure to confront the unknown. And we are back to the compulsion and need to create the stable conditions of intellectual security. Education should build up the ability to confront the unknown, mystery, and even confusion; not reduce it (the confront).

Statistics could show that the more educated a person is---meaning in the usual academic sense---the greater is the tendency to exhibit arrogance. Children at a suitable age should be given at least a whole lesson period studying all the ramifications of this antisocial, debilitating characteristic. Accompanying this study the student should also examine and fully understand the meaning and application of humility. Teaching these two common human traits is far more important than any intellectual pursuit. The arrogance of the educated acts as a huge handicap to progress. It creates the formation of dogmas---quickly closes off systems of knowledge, fermenting an attack on any individual questioning these sacrosanct areas of information.

We might respond to this by briefly reminding the reader of some of the theoretical conclusions of quantum mechanics. The quantum reality, although considered purely as a mathematical convenience, is represented by a field of infinite probabilities. From this we get the interpretation that we (or the observer or scientific instruments) make a selection from this quantum reality of all possibilities. This means that if we develop a certain belief system we shall automatically attract events from these probabilities appropriate to that belief.

This notion of selecting our reality according to beliefs (or other programmed states) is elementary information in aspects of metaphysics, ancient knowledge, New-Age, religious philosophy. Education encourages the closed-minded condition (other manipulations also do this) to accept only well-established phenomena as real, in particular, that which can be proved, or tested with the physical senses. This becomes a belief system and the unconscious will ensure that such an educated person will only perceive this. In relationship to the previous article on education, Part IV, we see that the learning process, as presently set up, progresses towards consolidated conclusions, ideas, laws, principles and theories; these are stable levels of explanations and understanding. Scientifically these will generally have applications to technology, which then means that the technology will be designed as per the context of the closed information (such as proven laws, principles). Just as religions contain dogmas and belief systems, science also forms belief systems regarding the boundaries it sets.

One way of setting up the mind to be formatted, and this is a principal educational failure, is the non-recognition of the relative importances of different subjects in the manner these subjects benefit the individual in life and the community as a whole. This is not evident from an evaluation of the subjects but from the omission of important areas of learning, or simply over-focussing and validating less important aspects of existence. For example, information is given priority over communication, academic degrees more important than conduct, technique and technologies are losing sight of their original objectives and purposes, and of course quantitative values given precedence over qualitative values. There is a neglect of ethics and responsibility. In fact there is a complete failure to recognise that intelligence and evolution are all about (or should be) behaviour, not intellect or technology. What we are alluding to here is that the qualitative aspects of learning and behaviour will handle the over-structuring and closing down of the mind. This is like not being able to see the wood/forest for the trees---this is the over-structuralised mind (quantitative). But the intuition (of right-brain consciousness) can step outside the trees and see the wood in relationship to other woods/forests. This is a qualitative state since it involves integration and expansion, and making new connections. It becomes heuristic as opposed to deductive.

One might forward the objection that behaviour does not correlate particularly with intelligence. Firstly we are not talking about trained good behaviour (which may be basically programmed, and therefore compulsive and enforced). We are referring to a qualitative condition involving such traits as benevolence, ethics, integrity, compassion, etc. A consciousness naturally functioning along these lines---and it generally will unless taught otherwise---will have a right-brain ability and a more open heart chakra (remember the expression 'the heart knows'---which involves a physics far in advance of current scientific standards and so meets with the usual arrogant response of ridicule). Ultimately advanced spiritual or qualitative states of mind surpass the intellect, except that in fact they raise the intellect to a higher logical capability.

Current intellect only utilises 3D logic, that is, Aristotelian, Boolean, external, linear, 3D logic. This only handles the quantitative (separateness) aspect of knowledge and existence. A second order logic is required to fulfill all conditions: internal, nonlinear, multidimensional logic, which the intuition is capable of accessing, and embraces, true unity and the qualitative aspect of knowledge and existence. [To be clarified in later articles.]

Let's look at the type of mind today's education tends to create. Learning and programme curricula subtly set up the mind for the manifestation of intellectual egotistical states and arrogance, even if mainly through omission of information, creating an imbalance. Arrogance is commonplace within the academic community. It is vital that young students, before acquiring much knowledge are coached in an understanding of humility and the opposite, arrogance, and the full implications and ramifications explored. Arrogance means that the mind will give preference to protecting the ego rather than consider truth. Most scientists are not interested in truth if their ego is threatened. This is a sure way to retard progress for both the perpetrators of this condition and the people they attack or ridicule. Furthermore, encouraging the neutral state of mind, which children should be taught/programmed at an early age, will enable them not to take sides in conflicting arguments when the facts or sufficient data are not known, enabling them to learn a wider range of information---not to mention be far better in relationships by allowing another person to have his or her opinion. What happens is that the intellectual ego thinks it is revealing a 'don't know' condition unless it denigrates the source, that is, feels compelled to deny information it does not understand.

One of the most important positive programmes which young students should be taught---and which any good psychologist knows---is the power of the belief system. The neutral state of mind (neither believing nor disbelieving without adequate knowledge) will prevent the unconscious from protecting any wrong beliefs, or prejudices that can cause the person to fail to perceive any knowledge (or make a discovery) which would contradict those beliefs. We may see that the creation of unnecessary scepticism bcomes an excellent trap to prevent discoveries.

In Part IV we covered the paradox of progress. Education thus tends to create a mind more and more dependent on context and on a secure structuralisation of knowledge. These patterns of knowledge can become as 'solid' as the habit patterns of skills and will direct one's thinking and mould the personality. We cannot over-stress the extent to which over-structuralisation embeds information/programmes, and a normally flexible consciousness is molded by it, and has to obey the structure. Thus the mind will home in on safe, secure, established structures of knowledge. This intellectual security becomes all important to the individual since it is based on years of hard learning and usually teaching. This is a very comfortable condition and one can now handle all kinds of questions in one's specialised subject, though often seemingly qualifying one to extend this to other subjects---it is also reinforced by the ego-needs. These are all undesirable conditions.

Thus in fact there is a dichotomy here. The more secure the mind becomes in this respect the more insecure it will become at the slightest provocation or threat of change. It is very common for academics to be hostile and hurl insults at people who disturb this ego-security, and some will go to extreme lengths to destroy the source of this disturbance. The essence of all this is that advancing knowledge is hugely limited by egotistical states, of arrogance, insecurity, and from this we get dogmas, even in science; furthermore, these have hidden contextual belief systems.

Clearly the psychology of all this should be taught to students as early as possible. Also ethics and responsibility should be taught prior to acquiring significant knowledge---this would be normal in more advanced civilisations.

Let's take a look at an example of well-established knowledge, such as Newton's laws. We know that these laws apply and have been verified. However, the type of trap we get into works roughly along the following lines. Newton formulates his laws. Other scientists corroborate the laws. At the time, science in general is not so advanced and all tests will be based on the level of thinking and knowledge at that time. A thorough education embeds these statements about nature and a consolidated structure is formed in the mind. This becomes a powerful unconscious context. This belief system, which is what it is, now dominates, even when science has advanced more, and anomalies, discrepancies and limitations should now be observable but aren't. The belief system that Newton's laws are immutable now prevents the detection of the clues to these limitations; the all-powerful unconscious mind will filter off all information which would contradict the belief system. The mind simply observes what it wants to observe, and furthermore will feel inclined to attack anyone who suggests otherwise. The embedded structures mould the personality, and the personality feels threatened. This is the kind of mind we are creating today.

We are not blaming the educational system for egotistical states of behaviour in general. As a whole, the process of growing up on this planet over-emphasises separateness---excessive individuality to the point of self-interest with an actual reduced perception of other viewpoints, only with a neglect in the recognition of collective states, unity and operating for the greatest good. The educational system does, however, over-structuralise the mind, it tells people what to believe rather than train people to think for themselves. By stressing the left-brain mental attributes, objectivity and theory, we emphasise indirect perception, neglecting and not recognising the direct and experiential knowledge, intuition and imagination. We need to re-evaluate imagination in its vital application to discoveries and understanding generally, rather than associate it only with fiction. (Einstein quote: 'What you can't imagine, you can't discover' and 'Imagination is more important than intellect.')

Experimental psychologists have conducted many valuable research programmes related to perception and behaviour. One such experiment involved a type of problem solving suitable for children, animals, as well as adults. Human subjects were tested over a wide range of ages from young children to adulthood, demonstrating changes with ego-development. Very briefly this experiment involved the use of optional 'tools' for solving simple problems. The 'tools' could be selected from two categories 1) using magnitude differences, such as a large square and a small one, 2) using gradients such as a gradual change in light shading or colour. The important conclusion was that adults chose the 'polarity' type of tool, large/small, whereas children and animals chose gradient scales. However, with growth and development of the child to adulthood a gradual change was evident, as the choice went from gradients to magnitude. The ego thus tends to operate on polarity, judgement, comparison, opposites and extremes; these all create separation. Whereas the scales method forms a continuous contextual gradient---the contextual layers are contiguous. The ego will form polarity contexts like 'good' and bad', somewhat chosen randomly or from agreement (see other articles on context). The gradient scale gives the true relationship between the parts; whereas opposites and polarities give points of judgement that are chosen and are just relative to the individual's hidden contexts.

As previously implied, the solution is to recognise the imbalances set up by the educational system with a left-brain bias, a lack of right-brain consciousness, and lack of emphasis on the qualitative aspects of life; to teach humility and the neutral state of mind, etc. Nevertheless, as a final comment we must remind the reader that it is not an accident or mistake, but this level of control goes beyond the Educational Board---the closed-minded condition is an excellent way of preventing people from finding out the truth and becoming too smart.

Return to Home Page