[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Protest Unconstitutional Bill

Feb 11, 1996 02:52 AM
by Fredrik Montelius

Liesel argues convincingly against cencoring the Internet, saying we mustn't
blame the Internet if (for example) kids
- I would include grown-up-kids; i.e. adults,  since adults were once kids
and act to a greater or lesser degree on basis of how their lives were
shaped by interaction with their parents or other people in their vicinity
when they were young and, according to theosophical teachings, in earlier
lives, and adults often appear to act in a childish manner - misuse
knowledge obtained from sources broadcast via the Internet,
but blame those raising the kids instead.
Naturally, this information can also be obtained from a bookstore or even at
school, from schoolmates. (However; the more easily obtainable a piece of
information is, the more likely it is it will be used, and also, misused.)
It may be wise, though, refraining from blaming others, in the exact meaning
of the word.
Blame merely acts as a force, pardon the careless use of the word force, to
increase suffering with our fellow beings and makes us blind to the good
within others and ourselves.
Instead, we should look towards our withins, to find out whether we
ourselves raise our kids, and ourselves, in a desireable manner.
If we honestly can say *yes*, we are a model of a parent.
Saying this I want to emphasize that most of us are not model parents and
should seek to purge our ends and means by which we try to help our neighbor
beings to escalate on the ladder of human development.
We should also perhaps more often than we do listen to what our children
express in order to better be able to respond to their needs.
This will most surely show us that our children are in some instances just
as capable of raising us as we are of raising them, sometimes much better.
Being theosophists, we realize that we and our children have lived many
times before.
This implies our children may be much more developed monads than we are
ourselves, meaning they may well be more fit to be examples of showing how
to lead a good life that promotes human development, beneficial to
themselves and subsequently, to all.
This is NOT to say we should act according to our personal desires, stepping
on everybody else's toes.
Any action TRULY beneficial to myself is beneficial to mankind, and vice versa.

Fredrik Montelius, ULT, Sweden

>Hi, John,
>Thanks for that reply. I think you're absolutely right. We shouldn't blame
>the internet, but rather those raising the children. I hadn't thought of it
>in those terms, but it's sure a very valid argument against censoring. It's
>like Karma ... laying the blame where it belongs. I hope we do get into a
>good discussion about it on theos-l. I think most of us have children &
>we've never discussed anything ab0out them at all.
>You mention that the subject of raising kids is rarely discussed in TS lit.
>I  know of 2 references:
>Jinarajadasa, in "The New Humanity of Intuition" wrote a chapter he called
>"God's Agents - the Children". To quote a little from the first part of his
>36pp (given as a speech, it looks like, in 1929)
>"I must refer to the splendid work done for the physical nature of the child
>in some countries."
>"Pestalozzi, Froebel & Montessori.... have focused their attention on the
>child as a soul, as a psychic & spiritual being"
>Quoting Pestalozzi "no subject taught is worth a sou if it destroys courage
>& joy.
>"Teaching is not the essential principle in education; that principle is
>love. For love is the eternal emanation of the Divine in us; love is the
>central point of all education." I believe in that a lot. The things I
>remember best from all the stuff I was taught as a child are the ones that
>either my teachers loved to talk about or I loved to do, or both. I still
>have a great love for Goethe, because my 1st - 4th grade teacher in Germany
>(eons of years & eons of miles away) loved Goethe & taught us about him, &
>his mother, & his poetry, & took us to the Goethehaus. I had a year of
>European History, lovingly  & intelligently taught in HS, & I remember quite
>a bit of it. The next year we had a very humdrum teacher for American
>History, & I don't remember a thing, except what I picked up as an adult
>" Froebel... originated.. Kindergarten...The Kindergarten child, spontaneous
>& free & happy, is surely what the child should be, rather than the child
>seated on a bench in rows,'like rows of butterflies transfixed with a pin.'"
>"Froebel studied... every aspect of life & nature ... so that he might grasp
>the unity of nature."
>"Montessori ... 'the child is not a lump of clay we are going to mould. ..
>The child has a shape of its own, an individuality of its own, & potential
>energies of its own..... The child ... is eager to awaken & to understand
>.. & to act..... Parents & teachers interfere ... They suppress him in
>their attempts to help him, & this is done with the most loving motive of
>aiding the child.'" For example "They impose upon the child their rhythm, &
>try to force the child to fit into it. Have you not seen a mother  ...
>holding a child by the hand, & walking at her usual pace as the adult, and
>the little one making rapid steps to keep pace ?... That is what is
>happening all the time."
>Montessori's method "Help me to do it by myself"
>The other is a paragraph in Leadbeater's "Inner Life", which he calls "Our
>Attitude towards Children".
>To quote some of it "They have been entrusted to you, not that you may
>domineer over them & brutally ill-treat them, & use them for your own profit
>& advantage, but that you may love them & help them in order that they may
>be expressions of that divine life. How beyond all words your patience &
>compassion should be! How deeply you should feel the honour of being trusted
>to serve them this way! ..... As souls you are all about the same age &
>therefore your attitude must not be that of a selfish, cruel dictator, but
>of a helpful friend...."(towards) "a soul wearing a new coat... Remember
>always that true good means good for all, & that good is never gained at the
>cost of suffering to others..."
>Member TI, HR, 5thRR
>>On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote:
>>> I need to add a problem to what Alexis said, because I too believe in the
>>> freedom of speech, & something occurred here locally, & I don't know how I
>>> would deal with it. 2 Grammar school boys got instructions from the Internet
>>> about how to make a primitive bomb. They had already tried it out, & were
>>> getting ready to bomb their school, when they got caught. I'd like to get
>>> some opinions of others on this net as to how they would handle this, not
>>> the boys so much, but the fact that someone can put on the internet
>>> instructions on how to make a bomb for kids to learn. How do you deal
>with this?
>>> Liesel
>>> Member TI, HR, 5thRR
>>Liesel ...
>>	This sounds like a nasty, and obviously terribly dangerous
>>situation, but I would tend to distinguish between cause and means in
>>questioning what to do about it ... I guess I think the Internet, in this
>>case, had but the tiniest part to play:
>>	The sad fact is that for various reasons the American family is
>>in really bad shape, and fractured children will come out of fractured
>>homes. True enough, grammer school kids can get access to a number of
>>things highly inappropriate for children on the Internet, but in the
>>larger picture the Net is but a miniscule threat - the much deeper issue
>>is the violence itself ... for every one kid that can find information
>>about how to make a bomb from the Net, there are a thousand that already
>>have guns in their hands; the root question (IMO) is, from where comes
>>the intent to bomb a school? From where comes the desire to buy guns?
>>	I remember my own grammer school days, and even if someone had
>>just handed me or my classmates bomb instructions, it just simply
>>wouldn't have occured to us to actually blow up the school ... and even
>>if we found a gun in the playground, without thinking we probably would
>>have just given it to a teacher.
>>	I'm glad you mentioned this, however, as I'd love to see this
>>turn into a discussion. In traditional Theosophical writings there is
>>immensely complex discussions of esoteric truths ... but if the final
>>goal is the moral elevation of humanity, the very core of the practical
>>expression of this must finally reduce to *childraising* ... to the time
>>of life when the core values and strengths of character are built into
>>the human energy system. We currently have a social mileau in which by
>>the time childen begin adult life so many are already so out of tune,
>>aimed along a trajectory that will just increase this out of tuneness as
>>time goes by - and being out of tune means the personality is broken off
>>from the promptings of the spiritual levels of being, and the gap this
>>causes ... the emptiness this inevitably creates ... causes people to
>>begin living lives in more and more fractured and manic ways ....
>>intentions become low, but without an inner standard are not even felt as
>>being low; significant life choices are made for terrible reasons ...
>>	What, then, do you (anybody (-:)?) think Theosophy would have to
>>say about the raising of children - the field is wide open, as in all the
>>thousands of pages of "source" writings very few words are mentioned on
>>the topic.
>>								-JRC

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application