#top
VIEWPOINT
Education
Wrong again.
At 3:00 in the morning, and
with my eyes and mind weary for sleep, is not the time I want to be
gaining new awarenesses. And certainly not the time I want to be
writing about them.
But here I am, at 4:oo in
the morning doing just that.
And what makes it worse, I'm
writing about having been wrong.
And, by the time I finish
this piece, I may not only have fallen asleep, but have decided that I
was wrong about what I have spent all this time thinking and writing
about for the past (?) hours, and that I was right in the first place;
or more likely, wrong both times.
Ah, but such is the search
for truth. There is no such thing as attainment, only the act. Like the
fastest runner in the world. He is only considered such because of the
race that he runs. After the race he is declared
a runner, but in fact, he is only a runner when he is running. And only
the fastest until the next race when someone outruns him.
Education. I have been
blaming Education for corrupting the minds of our youth. And, of
course, the youth become the old men with corrupt minds.
I have had a rethink on
this. Did Education corrupt the mind? Or is it more likely that the
corrupt mind has just been educated?
At this writing, I tend to
lean toward the direction that it is a combination of both.
Two children growing up in
the same environment, same parents, etc, etc, can, and do often grow up
to be very different people.
And some people begin life
one way, that is with a particular set of problems, then somewhere in
their life, they overcome that (or those) problem(s); While another
person
will go their entire life without that problem, and for one reason or
another, take on that problem late in life.
I think of the number of
times that I have read in the paper of a 70 or so year old man being
arrested for something for which he had no history of having such a
problem.
I have vilified Education. I
still do. By stating that a person has a drinking problem does in no
way excuse another person for having insisted that the alcoholic have a
drink with him. One thing does not cause the
other, but it does help perpetrate and justify
the other.
So, as I see it at this
point in time, it is the nature of the person
that is the problem. A person with a corrupt nature is going to be
corrupt whether he is in prison, or in church behind the pulpit.
Our nature. What is
our nature? That is, are we, as humans, instinctively bad? Are we the
selfish creatures that we apparently are? Are we born
bad, and have to struggle against odds to become good?
And, what is
good? Is good the opposite of bad? Or are there degrees
of good that we can attain that puts us in that category, and takes us
out of "badness?"
According to our judicial
system, we are only as good as our worst act. That is, we can live
exemplary lives, and at our first failings, we are punished as one who
is a criminal. And our official record will so state this as fact for
the rest of our life.
I'm not faulting the
judicial system, just using it for an example. This system has been the
same since there has been any form of civilization. And I have no cure
to offer as an alternative.
According to the Bible, we
are just that. We are all born into sin. We are condemned from our
first breath. And, as is custom, we often begin life with punishment,
from
the first swat on the rump by the doctor, to the knife at circumcision.
Are we in fact born as
little demons? Is it possible that Satan does not have to do anything
as far as our evil works are concerned? That all he has to do is sit
back and let our wicked nature have a free reign?
But what about the innocence
of a child? Surely that is the closest any of us will ever be to being good;
Isn't it?
And what about the Mother
Teresa's? Can we not call them "Good?"
Or is it possible that these
beacons of light, childhood and the altruistic, are not beacons at all,
but rather fireflies in darkness, that would only appear as flickers in
real sunlight?
And, if that is
the case, what then do we have to do to serve as
beacons in our search for the road out of wickedness?
Preachers in church tell us
the Bible says that Jesus is our Beacon. That He, and He only
exemplifies what we should be like.
But what is it He did that
I, as a person born into this wicked body, can emulate? I was not born
of a Virgin. I certainly am not the Son of God, in the sense that He
was. As a descendant of Adam, I, as well as all humanity, are sons of
God as Adam was, but in a totally different form.
Jesus performed Miracles. I
can't do that. He healed the sick. I could possibly become a doctor, or
a acupuncturist. But at my age, that is unlikely. He fed thousands.
That is in the realm of possibility. Now we are looking at becoming
Mother Teresa's again.
He preached the Word of God.
That certainly is possible for me to do. And I hope a touch of that is
being accomplished with this web site. But, what is the
truth? Every church on every corner says that they, and they alone have
the truth. So the Truth that I teach, may in fact be a lie.
Jesus died on a Cross. I
don't think I could find any Roman soldier to assist in that. Besides,
He died for our sins. If I died a hundred such deaths, I still couldn't
atone for my own sins, leastwise yours or anyone
else's. He was resurrected. Well, that will happen to all of us
someday, for either our good, or our undoing. But it is nothing that I
have control over, or that will help me know what to do to be good in
this life.
So I am back where I
started. What am I supposed to do to work my way out of being bad?
There is still one more
clue. Jesus said that we must become as little children if we are to
enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
But didn't we (or more
realistically -I) just finish saying that children are corrupt, wicked
little creatures? To what, then, could He have been referring?
Nicodemus wondered the same thing two thousand years ago. He asked,
"Can I climb back into my mother's womb and be born again?"
Perhaps that is what Jesus
meant when He said we should be like children, that we should be "born
again." He certainly made it clear that such is one of the requirements
for making it to Heaven. But at the time He said it, He made reference
to the children around Him, so I suspect He meant something else
besides.
What is it about children
from is different than we adults that are dealing with the problem? And
at what age does one stop being the child that
need not worry about entering Heaven?
As for age, that seems on
the surface simple enough. The established age is 12 or 13, depending
on one's beliefs and culture. To the Jews of Jesus' times, according to
my research, it is the time when two pubic hairs appear that a child
was Bar mitzfa(ed), at which time he was considered to be a man. (Not
to be confused with his being "adopted" by his father at age 30 when
his father declares that his son is now the spokesman for the family,
and that the son's word was the same as the father speaking it.)
In some cultures this is the
age when the "ex-child" took on the responsibilities of adulthood.
And it is the age when Jesus
first made His appearance to people in general, and (to us, at least,
according to the Bible) spoke His mind freely.
So, if this reasoning holds
true, that childhood ends at age 13 or so, what is there about that age
that makes us different?
Puberty.
And, of course, puberty is
the end of innocent intent and pleasures, and the beginning of a hard,
bitter change of personality and physical structure that overwhelms us,
and sometimes seems as if it will destroy us.
I would hate to think that I
am, in fact, the person I was in my teen years. A lot of who I am was
formed during that time, and certainly the problems that I struggle
with, and try to overcome, began during that period in my life.
The general consensus is, at
least so we are told, that our "formative years" are those before
puberty. I wish that were so. But, for myself, I see very little of
that innocence lingering in my psyche.
I wish it were.
And I suspect that the
nature we possessed before puberty is what we are to re-obtain.
Ok. On that premise, what
did we (at least supposedly) possess?
Children are trusting. And
of course they have no other choice. Under normal circumstances, all
that a child (especially as a baby) acquires is through others. Of
course there are exceptions, such as the cast-out children on the
streets of many countries, such as our own.
Children are loving. I don't
think there are any but the hardest hearted that can't feel the
difference between the honest and complete love that comes from the hug
of a child, in contrast to the controlled, and often contrived
affection offered by persons once they have reached puberty.
I don't think we can expect
that a child who is raised (or rather, raises himself) on the garbage
dumps of South America to recapture the sense of love, or of trust,
that they have never experienced. And though I am quite sure that is a
big part of what Jesus was alluding to, I think, also, that there is
one more point (at least) to which he was referring.
A child is an explorer. And
the younger the child, the more curious and anxious to learn and
experience every little facet of life he or she is. A child is
fascinated by a bug crawling on the ground, by a leaf floating in the
wind, in fact by every new thing that comes within range of any of
their senses.
A child will watch for hours
out the car window just observing the scenery go by.
Then, somewhere along the
line, (and often all too young) they sit back pouting and muttering,
"Are we there yet?"
The adventure is gone. The
spirit is lost.
They have grown up.
Which leads to yet one more
quality that a child possesses that is lost in adulthood. And one which
I am sure our Savior had in mind.
Appreciation.
Give a small child a simple
marble, and they are thrilled.
Give an older child a
computer, and they think it's nothing more than they deserve.
Give a teenager with his new
driver's license in his hand a new Ford, and he says, "Is that all? I
was expecting a Mercedes. All the other kids have
a Mercedes."
We have lost that sense of
appreciation.
Jesus told us to not only be
appreciative (He said "thankful") for the big things we get, but also,
which is quite hard to do, be thankful for the bad
things that happen to us.
Even a child
would be hard pressed to fulfill that commandment.
So, how did we lose
all these child-like qualities that we are to recapture?
Now you can give that sigh
of relief you have been holding back. I have returned to my original
subject (three hours later as to my writing, as it is after 7 am).
Education.
Not just in schools, though
to me it is a pitiful shame that we pay for the corruption of our
children's minds by those who we are assured have nothing but the
child's best interest at heart.
Peer pressure is certainly
another destructive influence on the child. And only the worst of a
child's associates are set up as examples to follow. And, of course,
they are also the ones teaching the child the "facts
of life."
School and peers certainly
effect a child's behavior and attitudes, as do the sordid movies and
advertisement they are being bombarded with constantly.
And they are also being
taught that "trusting adults" is for fools and small children. Which,
of course, every time an adult disagrees with, or disciplines a child,
it is evidence that the adage is true, in the child's
mind. And, should the child happen to miss that connection, there will
certainly be several of his peers around to point it out.
The preceding touches on
behavior, as stated, and attitude. But what about trust? What happened
to it?
Chances are that we have to
look no farther than ourself to find a good example of what causes a
child to not trust. How many times has a parent been seen cheating, or
conniving on the job. Or lying to their boss. Or lying to the child? Or
not fulfilling a promise to the child?
Little by little such things
build up, until the child believes that there is no such thing as
honesty.
This is a terrible period of
time in which to raise a child. And it's getting worse.
But! The "innocent" period
of the '50's was really not much better. Oh, of course, swearing and
smoking could get a child suspended from school in those days, whereas
selling cocaine and shooting a gun in school might get
a child suspended for a couple days now.
But in the early 50's there
was also peer pressure. A big difference is that the kid who smoked was
looked upon as the bad kid that all was expected
to stay away from. Now if he uses drugs and no telling what else, he is
looked upon as the "cool" kid to be emulated.
A bit of difference there.
On TV and the movies, the
hero was one who looked out for the helpless, and a man and woman was
never seen in bed together, except if married, and then at least one of
them had to have a foot on the floor.
A tiny bit different than
today. Not really any influence on the children, right?
But back to trust.
In that innocent age we had Ozzie
and Harriet. We had I Love Lucy. We
had the Beaver.
We had a ton of such
programs to teach us how to be innocent and healthy children, as well
as wholesome families, and homespun parents. Right? Ask anyone. It was
the Golden Age of raising a family.
Really?
What was the premise of
every show? What was everyone laughing at, and still do today?
Well, on Lucy, either Ricky,
or Fred, or Ethel, and always Lucy was lying,
conniving and occasionally outright stealing.
Their entire relationship
was built on such dishonesty, and the eventual confession, forgiveness,
and appreciation of the other's "little faults."
Ozzie was often out "with
the boys," or trying to be, while he and his buddies and neighbors were
trying to figure out how to cover it up to their wives, or how to slip
out of the house and avoid doing the job they had promised to do.
On the Beaver, the boys were
forever trying to figure out how to cover up some misdeed or mischief
of the Beaver's, who usually, for no malicious fault of his own, had
gotten himself into.
Family values. Innocent fun.
Entertainment.
Role models and examples of
real life,
Instructions on how to do an
evil deed and get away with it.
"It takes a community to
raise a child." Now it has a whole world to corrupt one.
So I have fairly well
covered possible reasons for lost love and trust. How about
appreciation. What happens to that?
Again, I don't think we have
to look any farther than ourselves for this one, Of course the media
and advertising develop a desire for things. "You deserve...." and
"Beg, plead or steal the money for...." are offered by ads and peers
for a child to get what they want.
But we don't help by loading
a child down with more than they can ever use or store, (and, by the
way, consider the problem of getting the kid to put them all away when
there is no room for it all in their closet).
No earning the money for. No
saving for. But rather having to forgo food and other necessities for
the overpriced item that will be out of date before it is unwrapped.
And if you don't give in to
the child's demands, it is considered child abuse of the worse kind.
So, where did we lose our
childlike sense of appreciation? Any more, I don't think it was ever
"lost" as much as was never given the opportunity to be developed in
the first place.
Education or Nature. That
was my original thought. The rest is what happens when one thought
brings on another avenue of thought. But, I find, that without taking
the other avenues, the first thought just ends up as a dead-end street,
but I think I have reached the end of the road.
What caused me to begin this
quest in the first place is my friend and father. The father was not
educated. My friend was. The father was a rather simple man (and I
don't mean simple-minded as he was far from that), but my friend tried
to be "highfalutin." The father was more of a "what you see is what you
get" kind of man, where my friend was more of a "who knows who I am? I
sure don't," though he worked very hard at covering up that fact.
Both were very much alike,
though saw themself as totally different. Both were very ridged in
their thinking, and primarily interested in their own welfare.
What made my friend as he
was? I have blamed education.
Yet, as what came to me this
morning, both my educated friend, and his uneducated father, were so
much alike.
And they both, to be quite
frank, were really no different than just about everyone else in the
world. The only oddball in the lot is me. And the main reason I am odd
is because I disagree with both my friend and his father-- which means
I also disagree with most of the people in the world, both educated and
uneducated.
Am I right? It's doubtful.
But if I'm going to be wrong, I'll be wrong with a lot of wrong
opinions supporting my wrongness, and not wrong because I just blindly
accepted someone else's "rightness."
There is one characteristic
of children I have yet to conclude. That is the adventurist, explorer
nature of children that seems to fade all too soon. That vitality
filled ability to find enjoyment in every little thing that is so
natural with children.
In my mind I see families
gathered in small groups on a sandy beach, a warm day with wispy clouds
drifting aimlessly overhead.
Men, women, and older teens
(with a few notable exceptions) are sitting much like manikins on
blankets that checkerboard the sand. People rarely moving except to do
that which is necessary, such as preparing meals or smearing coconut
oil on one another. And, very likely, unaware of the overhanging trees,
or the birds, or the breaking waves of the surf.
But, the children? Running,
playing in the surf, chasing one another, feeding the seagulls,
building sand castles, collecting seashells, and whatever other way
they can think of to enjoy and explore the beauty that God has provided.
Love and trust are elements
of childhood that, as far as I can see, have to be recaptured by each
individual on his or her own, and each in their own way. Suggestions
can be made, but little else.
But that spirit of
exploration, the life and vitality that either comes from, or lends
itself to childhood is something that we can share with one another.
That we must each provide one to another in order to keep it alive.
Just as a group of children tossing a ball one to another, contrasted
to a separated child tossing a ball into the air with no one to catch
it but himself.
Dead-end roads of
information that cause us to think we are cleverly at the end of a
journey remind me of a street I once encountered while at the beach in
Los Angeles. It was only a half-block long, and it ended at the sand
overlooking the ocean. Along the edge and at the end of the street were
official signs that read, "No parking," and "No stopping," and "No U
turns allowed."
This, to me, is a good
example of the Educated Mind. One that has lost it's quest for learning
because it believes it has already arrived, and that all who disagree
are on the wrong road.
(Incidentally,
I had intended for this to be a short piece.)
*
|