Geronimo! Leaping off topic again!
Cris,
Bugger! This forum doesn't automatically do nested quotes! How am i supposed to compose a reply when i can't see what parts of my post you're referring to?
STAGE 1
Outside of a spiritual sense, the term {enlightened} means to have access to more knowledge.
Yes.
Wisdom does not come into this. We seem as intelligent now as we were several thousand years ago.
But it does. Intelligence is only the 'capacity' for acquiring knowledge and ability to reason. Wisdom is both the sum of knowledge accumulated
(pretty close to your intended meaning of enlightened) and the ability to discern from that what is right, lasting, beneficial.
I indicated that having knowledge doesn't necessarily mean that the "wisdom" of all people will bring them to the same conclusions about what is best.
But now we have a greater understanding of our environment because of the knowledge we have accumulated. There is no need to make any more of it than that.
I was pointing out that wisdom is interlocked with enllightenment and that we have every sort of conflict because not everyone's wisdom will bring them to the same conclusions. You say "of our environment". What of other's environments? Your "we" can only be applied to that small group who agrees with you (me included to a degree). Saddam Hussein is unlikely to see a non-authoritarian approach as being useful.
Yes, I didn’t emphasize what needs to be taught. You seem to have fallen into the trap of assuming the spraying of information constitutes teaching.
Not at all. And you
did say what should be taught: "what is correct" But what
is correct? Different things to different people in different circumstances. Unless you believe in a universal good and universal bad. Where might those universal values come from in a godless universe?
I am more concerned with teaching how to think so people can solve their own problems.
Okay. You can revise your statement.
They still aren't likely to come to the same conclusions as you or i.
YOU -- Throughout my parenthood I have never demanded that my children take any particular action.
ME -- Read that and (sorry to say), laughed. I'm as certain that the statement is a lie, as i am that you or i exist (especially with "never" in there). Are you really going to stand behind that bit of nonsense? i.e. You were NEVER in a hurry to go somewhere when your kids dawdled along and you had to demand or compel them, say, to get into the car, or hurry and put their toys away? You "never" required that one go to the dentist or doctor or any other activity they found frightening? They didn't find drills and syringes daunting at all, i guess. And you just let your teens come and go at any time of day or night and do exactly as they pleased because you'd never demand they be home at a certain time, or that they not participate in some dangerous activity.
YOU -- Yup you’ve got it. There is never a need to give blanket commands. Once the consequences of an action are clear then they are able to make their own choice. They didn’t always make the right choice, and they learned a great deal from their errors. My response was never one of punishment but a question of what was learnt. When trained in this method from an early age they soon learnt my tactics.
That is (pardon moi) bullshit!
Never a need? You can't be serious in trying to assert that you can teach a toddler or very young child "how to think" and let her make her own decisions. My examples weren't "blanket" commands. I defined very common occurances which happen with children. If you can answer "yup" to that entire paragraph, either your lie grows, or you don't understand what i'm saying.
I go back to the hypothetical young child. A child doesn't yet have anything like the capacity or time to have taken in all your touted modern knowledge: "enlightenment". She knows nothing of the complex world except for the small bits she meets each day. To make a decision about something requires understanding of the circumstance. When a child is sick, she wants to feel better. Period. You can't convince me that this child too young to understand what a doctor really is, or a virus, or the significance of a syringe, or anything about what's making her feel bad, is going to use this great "power to think" you've supposedly endowed her with, and do what's necessary!
Here's the way i see it playing out (typical): Child feels bad; sore throat, runny nose, etc. Parent's are going to try and comfort her with reassurance and caresses, and maybe some aspirin from the cupboard.
When the sickness doesn't quickly get better, they take her to a clinic, which is very frightening. They continue to assure her and tell her that there's this guy called a doctor and he's going to see what's wrong with her and help make her feel better. Parent stands by for reassurance while doctor does his little examination. Finds out it's likely strep throat.
He brings in a syringe full of antibiotics and does the usual "this won't hurt much and it'll make you feel much better" act and she doesn't care. She knows sharp things hurt. They all work to calm her and he quickly gives her the shot. She then bursts into tears from the pain and the fear and lack of understanding as to how jabbing her in the rear relates to making her feel better.
The next week when the parents want to take her back for a follow-up. She starts crying as soon as she sees the building (and that assumes she hasn't been told where she's going beforehand). Even louder when her parents either try to convince, cajole, or just carry her inside. That lolipop the doctor gave her at the end of the last appointment is forgotten, or just didn't make up for that nasty needle. No way is she going in there because she wants to.
-------------------
Now a replay according to your theory of never comanding, and teaching only how to think: Child feels bad; sore throat, runny nose, etc. Parent's are going to try and comfort her with reassurance and caresses, and maybe some aspirin from the cupboard.
When the sickness doesn't quickly get better, the child finds herself wondering why, and thinking, "maybe it's something more serious than a cold". She goes to her mother and says, "This isn't going away. I think we'd better go to the doctor." Parent replies, "you're probably right. I'm proud of you for deciding that." Child eagerly jumps into the car and they drive to the clinic where they walk calmly in. Parent stands by for reassurance while doctor does his little examination. Finds out it's likely strep throat. Tells them. The child thinks, "crap, i hate shots. But strep is pretty dangerous." Grits her teeth.
Doc brings in a syringe full of antibiotics and begins the usual "this won't hurt much and it'll make you get better" act but she interrupts and says, "okay, go ahead." He leisurely gives her the shot. She cries a little but she's thinking "these yucky symptoms should at least clear up now." They return home.
The next week when it's time for her follow-up and her parents say, "We have to go back to Dr. Smith so he can make sure you're completely well. She feels better so she trots out to the car and they drive to the clinic. She solemnly but calmly walks in without any pressuring. Doctor checks her out and says everything's fine and they can go. When the doctor goes to hand her a lolipop, she thinks to herself, "i don't think those empty calories are going to be good for me. I don't want to get fat." So she tells him no thanks and they leave.
--------------------------
Gimme a break! No little child as young as i've said thinks anything like that, and certainly isn't yet developed to the point where she knows about any of those scientific relationships, or strep, or really what a doctor is (before going to one). She doesn't yet have the capacity for abstract concepts about her getting jabbed with a painful needle having anything to do with making her feel better or curing this sickness. That ability won't develope for a couple more years at least.
You really think that a small child can understand logic and rational analysis and act against her survival instincts and fears by taking an action that scares her because it's going to benefit her in some future time?!
Pshah!
My personal approach to life is that every event, seemingly pleasant or unpleasant, is an opportunity to learn and to experience. There are very few things that are purely right or wrong just mainly shades of gray. But if you teach someone how to think and to tackle problems, then problems disappear, they simply become learning opportunities.
I'd agree to some extent. But "NEVER" haveing to command or compel? If small children were allowed to make all their own decisions they'd never live to see puberty, let alone survive it.
Even somewhat older kids will attempt all kinds of things in this learning process you describe that could injure or potentially kill them. In fact, they will do so no matter what a parent does. All a parent can do is try to minimize the mistakes their children make which could be seriously dangerous. Sometime they'll get a huge fascination with fire. They might decide to jump from a dangerous height just to test their ability because it doesn't "look" that high. They'll attempt projects that are far beyond their capacity. And without "some" outright commands and prohibitions and rules they'll not only be involved in a far greater number of dangerous activities, but most likely have far less direction and ambition.
All this is so rediculously obvious i can't believe i'm writing it.
I am far from a conventional parent, try not to judge me by conventional standards, you simply do not know me well enough. The rest of your post seems to be based on your own standards. Perhaps you should consider that other alternatives are possible.
If that's what you think of my post then you've
completely misunderstood what i said. This is NOTHING to do with standards or your method of parenting. I can't judge that. As you say, i can't judge anything about you beyond what you write because i don't know you.
It's all about what you really said by putting your sentences together the way you did. It has to do with the scientific facts of child developement, the way the brain works, the amount of information that's required to make anything like a "wise" decision, the mental development and physical presence necessary to take on certain responsibilities.
You assume I set deadlines, or commanded them not to do things. You appear stuck on the concept that authoritarianism is the only approach to life. None of these things are necessary.
Absolutely incorrect! As i said. The opposite of that first sentence is true. You said yourself you NEVER do that.
I wasn't referring to anything about my philosophy, or even authoritarianism. It was about the literal meanings of what your sentences said. No politics. No philosophies. No sociology experiments. It was all about what you said. I, myself think parents who are all strict and expect kids to do what they say because they said it are going to screw a kid up no end, or at the very least limit him.
Sure they made lots of mistakes. And I let them. Perfect opportunities to learn.
When i delved into things relating to this area, i only meant that with no guidance, kids are quite likely to become seriously dead.
Oh sure, they soon recognized that others used that archaic system. It irritated them as much as it irritated me. But then the world seems largely backward in this area, as you are demonstrating with your attitude here.
As far as i knew i wasn't expressing
any attitude. I was talking about meaning! About how your words were telling me your family is unencumbered by the laws of biology and physics.
For example:
ME
If education is all that's required then i'm stumped. If i'm not mistaken, people don't necessarily do what they're taught is right or moral or good for them. From the tiniest things to the biggest. Kids are taught Illicit drugs are bad. Hell, in High School i remember being shown the most revolting pictures of diseased organs resulting from them. All still in use. Everybody knows wars are nasty ugly dehumanizing destructive wastes of....just about everything. There are dozens going on now. Gotta teach those school kids about the psychological and physical consequences of sex! Just read a report about 13 year old girls thinking oral sex is no big deal and ending up having difficulty with serious relationships for half their lives after. Everybody knows you've got to keep your cholesterol down to protect yourself from heart disease. I know someone who eats miracle whip sandwiches and just had a triple bypass. Know another who melts an entire pint of Ben&Jerry's (sometimes 2) and drinks it.
Not a thing in that paragraph about authoritarianism OR your 'let them learn' approach. I'm simply using a lot of anecdotes to make the point i stated in the previous paragraph to that one: that no matter what people have been taught or even what they know to be true from observation or experience will guarantee that they make the best (wisest) decision.
Even with the volumes of crud i wrote, you seem to have read a great deal more. You took a very defensive stance on your beliefs, understandably. But I wasn't attacking them. I was commenting on the litteral meaning of some of the things you wrote: i.e. your writing.
WHOA! HOLD ON!
What we've got here...is a failure to communicate.
I think what's going on is starting to seep into me brain. See if ye think i'm right.
1) I decided to comment on some things to tune up my vocabulary, warm up my typing fingers, and charge up the ole logic box because i'm out of practice at this debate sort of stuff and didn't want to get in over my head right off.
2) I took some paltry little mouse droppings from your post and as practice, wrote an encyclopaedia about them.
3) You read this huge encyclopaedia and decided that no one would write that huge tome about stupid mouse droppings and interpreted it instead as being some big devious attack on you or your beliefs.
4) You defended your beliefs by presenting the case for my being unable to comprehend them. In doing so you unknowingly seemed to be claiming you know nothing about the the mouse droppings.
5) I was absolutely stupified that you could still be asserting your lack of knowledge about the mouse droppings after reading the huge encyclopaedia, so i started off this post trying even harder; being even more specific; providing so much more data on mouse droppings.
It seems to me that while i was talking about a few teensy literal misteps in your writing, you were convinced i was talking about the essence of your belief system.
If i'm right then this is too funny because it's the sheer length and form of my relatively simple post that set off this response that was giving me the impression that you must be right out of your mind!
You didn't
really mean those unequivocal absolutes did you? I took never to mean precisely never. And all that junk i wrote about obedience. You snipped it down in your reply and said some things about it being time consuming in the beginning and that i just didn't seem to understand.
But you didn't understand ME. I thought i was making it clear with all that lengthy blather about obedience for instance, when perhaps i was confusing it.
Stay with with me here a bit longer.
Teaching them is what i was talking about with those examples. You had said "NEVER demanded". How can i put this?...
very young child + teaching only how to think + never demanding = certain injury
because as i tried to get across in that paragraph on obedience, the child would be injured or dead before learning what you were trying to teach.
i.e. You teach this very small child how to think things out instead of specific "don't ___'s". The child doesn't yet have a wide range of of experience or knowledge. She encounters a new situation which is beyond her understanding so she works it out as best she can. Say she decides to taste some of that pretty blue juice in the bottle on the table. She doesn't know it's windex or that it's toxic.
So you happen to look over just as she's about to take a gulp. Now here's my point: If you truly mean you
NEVER demand anything, and never is literal, then you're saying you wouldn't "demand" that she stop and set the bottle down!
(Same as my polluted water story.)
If you only TEACH then you're going to have to rush over and teach her about windex before she takes that swallow because that word NEVER disallows the posibility of you yelling, "Stop! Don't drink that!" She's a second from taking the swallow, so the possibility of TEACHING her not to drink it is nonsense, and she's made her decision; a bad one.
NOW: Would you not DEMAND that she stop?
That's all i'm saying is don't use absolutes like NEVER unless you mean it. You didn't qualify some absolute statements and in a debate sort of situation perfectionistic people like me are apt to take them as literal and get highly confused.
Been a strange one,
Chromatose
PS. You replied: Note I specifically said Christian STYLE, not Christian parents. And here Christian style is biblical authoritarianism. Where is "here". Your original post said nothing about 'Christian style' meaning biblical authoritarianism so it sounded like a categorization. "Yes, i eat strictly Christian style fried chicken."