Senaste inläggen

Av dennis hägglund - 25 juni 2008 12:29

Violence is there when what we do is not violent in our own estimate. Bigotry is when we see the violence of other peoples that is not violent in their estimate, while we do not see the violence in ourselves that is not violent in our own estimate. We see theirs; they see ours; but we don't see together.


"How can anyone say they are victimised by me? The only violence I seek is justice!" That is a conditioned perspective. "If you don't love us (Americans) you're crazy!", a rock star proclaimed in song. In capitalism the governing body first conditions the masses, and then they ask the conditioned masses to make themselves heard. Like asking your parrot to say, "I adore you!".


Peace is a mind of peace and a mind at peace. What is actually sacred? If you don't see what is sacred you can't see what will bring peace, or what is bringing strife and pain. You can't tell that by protecting what can only be coveted you destroy what can be adored. There was something sacred about each of us when we were born, while we were small. (If we were born to pedophiles this thing lasted for a very short time. We could barely speak when it was ripped from us. And the pedophiles version of this crime is that their children are the most mature. They actually lobby with this message. Sex with adults sets the stage for success.) But the business of life took over control of us, ushering out the love of life. No matter who our parents were, this sacred thing was not even noticed. Traditional psychology has declared children "empty shells waiting to be filled by adults", the only question then being what is right to fill them with.


The only empty part of a child is the part where lies are believed. That is rational psychology, complete psychology.


And today we who were treated in this abysmal fashion normally do not find fault with a system that disregarded what was sacred in us. That is programming. Adopt what molests you, be it sodomy or reasoning. Even a domestic cat will bring the baby squirrels from the trees for the master to raise; rescuing babies from the imagined hell of a natural parent's ministrations. Putting them back will really confuse the poor kitty, as will unwittingly causing them to perish.


Reason is the enemy of perception. We are trained to reason away what is sacred. Fewer and fewer things become sacred as reason develops, which means more and more violence is not violence in our way of reasoning about it. We see sacred, but as reason supplants seeing we reason away the sacred, which reasons away any harm we have done to what is sacred.


You can not use the word God in your reason and get a God out of it, because you can not find what is sacred in reason. Reason happens in a space that is too limited for anything sacred or profound. There is space for a technical description of God, but there is no technical description of God that makes a meaning "God". If you make a meaning of the word Sun, is it technical? Nothing we can name is technical in its own presence. God becomes a technical description only in God's absence, and a God who can be absent is not God.


Atheism is to remove the technical description of God from reason; why bother? Three pixels from thirteen billion light-years away through a telescope have more presence than the technical description of God which the word God means to reason, and the debate surrounding these pixels has more meaning.


You can reason only because what fits into reason is not profound; add something profound, something sacred, and you must remove it from this slum-dimension called reason. God is a dead word when reason indulges in it, which is why people are so free with it. They can use it or not; it makes no difference. Thus using it has become a gimmick, a way to bring tears to a child's eyes because to the child the word still has some meaning. ---"Has your trust in God's servant ever wavered? Ask him to forgive you now, right now! Prodigal child, welcome back to the fold!". A tearstained Kodak Moment. My little boy is Saved.--- Religion is a gimmick. Any retard can learn the ropes. There is no less sincere way to encounter an audience.


The sanctity of what is sacred is the joy of life. It is to see God. To fail to make this distinction, so that those things and actions which destroy or damage what is sacred are not perverse things and actions to us, is the sum total of blindness. It is the most perverse distinction in the cosmos to not need to see God. To not need light is not nearly as queer. Nor to not need food or not need water, or to not ever need a mother. To see what is sacred is to see God's reflection, which is as close as anyone could want to get this early in evolution. Even a crow has no way to utter something without including God in the utterance. Crows are wonderful, even if they often get escorted from the premises by cautious parents. God is the context one must see everything in to be actually living.


We have been working on how emotions are found as other. Consider the emotion of seeing God's reflection, feeling what is sacred. Is it anger, jealousy, contempt, disdain, apathy? It is only joy (joy is actually psychology, even if you have not felt it since you were little). There is a constantly new joy and nothing else. Where does this leave anger? You can not indulge in such a broad spectrum, from joy to anger. You have to be insane, as we all have seen illustrated today, to say, 'I am angry because I am helping God!'. One is only angry because the ease with which one becomes angry angers the other. How often haven't we been angry with Bill Gates during the last twenty years? The man has generated more tears from modern men than all the women in history generated from all the men. Put yourself in his place. "What do you want from me?", he asks. "Who do you think I am?", "For my next miracle...!". He is angry that you become angry with him. He's just a man, after all. Would you have done better or more?


If your airplane is crashing maybe you have time to get angry, but do you? You might get angry because you can't make your new cell phone work, especially when the kids make it work without even reading the manual. Anger contests accepted liberties, which is part of senility, part of failing to belong.


Find who you anger, which you can not do while the anger is your own, in your own veins (not meaning one should suppress it; the discovery of anger as other does not happen if one tries to control ones own anger, but only when one sees the need to find out what anger means as the other, which is compassion, even if he reasons that he should hide it), and the anger shows you infinitely more than anger as yourself can do; it shows you how you anger the other. Any feeling as other is encyclopaedic in its content.


"How did I do it to myself?". What is God if I had it done to me by another? Only reason could invent a God compatible or consistent with harm we didn't do to ourselves. In nature "I did it to myself!" is a sacred understanding, unquestioned by all but the immediate prey, death row. To see the world this universal way one must first resurrect complete perception, perception that can be responsible, perception that does not need to ask to trust anyone. If we say we should be able to trust people, how much right to ignore them is implied by this? Is it like traffic on the freeway: you stay in your lane and I won't even see you there? But threaten me and I'll notice you. I didn't see you; I was busy looking out for police cars. I trust you, so I don't need to understand you. I trust you, so whatever is sacred about you is none of my concern.


There is no benign trusting, no trusting where we don't adopt a right to not bother about the other to just that degree to which we trust him. And if you and I can resist preying in that blind-spot the world will find someone who can't, perhaps an understandably volatile child of sodomy.


Trust is to economize the senses. If we economize them enough we can live inside our heads. This is violence. I say, "I believe in democracy.", but I have economized my senses so that I can live a life of opportunism, thinking how to get spurts of reward or pleasure by conning everyone into believing that I live in the present, that they can trust what they recognise on my face, in my words and my voice. Locked inside my head, where am I going to perceive right from wrong so I can vote for the right? In my reason? Reason contains only conditioned response. I might as well tell the rulers to do as they please, "Indulge your ambitions, gentlemen (and a few ladies), since that's how you got this far up the ladder in any case. It's all momentum, isn't it? The momentum of weakening one kind of resolve to bolster the other."


How often in a democracy are we asked to tell right from wrong? Who has ever voted for anything except by eliminating the options most evil to his reason, thus accepting the remaining by process of elimination? No one ever voted for good; good was not in the running. Did you vote to liberate homosexuals? There are just as many or more still lurking in the showers and bathhouses. In there they don't want to be recognized. You couldn't have voted to also repair the environment (the architecture) to eliminate such lurking, making homosexuals more normal (which would have been good because then homosexuals would have a normal amount of dignity), simply because it was not on the ballot. Think what a joke it is to the homosexual in the shower with the boys, that a man was prosecuted for secreting a video camera in a girl's locker room. If that's a crime, then what is it to actually bring your lust into the shower physically?


Perception has to be complete. If I find a few faults with something presumed to be right, this proves it is not perception that has declared it right. Perception is not this faultfinding process either. If we add the factor I mentioned to the ballot we probably still have some issues with homosexuals, and they with us. Perception is something utterly alien to reason. It is to find out in a way that, to reason, does not seem to fit the bill: feeling as other, feeling as finding out. Reason can't accept that it has competition for the job of finding out, competition that is constantly flawless and whole, and that was born on the throne.


If the heterosexual finds out how it feels to be homosexual, what happens to his heterosexuality? He finds out it is the same thing. His revulsion, then, if he felt any, becomes revulsion for those he encouraged as well as those he didn't. It is not just that some roles do not suit males or do not suit females; they do not suit anyone. Perception brings chastity.


We who were conditioned to be heterosexual males thought that the girl role is ugly on a boy but pretty on a girl. Homophobia is a defensive reaction. Once you have someone to have sex with when it is devoid of sacred function, devoid of nature's call, you have made it as strange as it can be made, and seemingly stranger ways are not really stranger (which is why they can happen, why a hetero- is not more human than a homo-sexual).


Nature resists the pleasure of sex because pleasure is a nonsensible diminution of the real thing. Pleasure is not to commune with the sacred. Pleasure is not empathy with our star bringing life to our planet. Sensitivity of the reproductive organs has an origin, like all feelings. It had to be there to make something work in a sacred way. No successful parent of the wild ever said, "Honey, I really enjoyed that!". There was no two, not even three, not even four including God, but everything on Earth was there in that moment hailing the coming child or children as blessedness that blesses all.


Where life is evolving only messiahs and food are born, someone for all, or something for the crows. Finding a partner is the elaborate art of keeping the crow-population low.

ANNONS
Av dennis hägglund - 23 juni 2008 00:00

In this class we have shown that the various forms of authority we encounter throughout our lives condition us to live our lives in such a way that everything pertinent to our intelligence, our decision and action resolving process, accumulates as things hidden from us, and we have shown that when another's feelings are hidden from us we adopt the feeling as our own to our best ability.


We have shown that, in the shadow of language, laughter, which communicates in a universal way, seems to lack the nuances to serve as communication, because we listen to language very slowly while one must listen to the universal sounds very quickly.


We have shown that feelings as self lose their nuances. Feelings are only nuance-rich when they are perception, other, which is when they are important. As ones own feeling a feeling has no real significance. Nothing depends on a careful perception of a feeling that seems to be ones own, while everything depends on a careful perception of every nuance of a feeling that is other or others.


We have shown that nature and the cosmos lose their sanctity to a perception that habitually accepts a version of authority, including the authority of peer pecking order, that hides everything we needed to see.


These are the phenomenon related to the shrinking of activity volume in the brain, which authority has labelled "concentration" so that those whose brain activity covers the whole brain are, in this definition, unable to focus.


So there are two kinds of people: those to whom everything they need to perceive to live sane and free lives is hidden, and those who have restored the animal to the throne by completing its perception to include human mischief.

ANNONS
Av dennis hägglund - 22 juni 2008 01:25

"This is goodness, the opposite of power, to mean that children may always become the best of us, that we would rather cultivate a gift in them that eventually makes us feel stupid and primordial by comparison, than conjure from a child someone who makes us feel superior."


When we awaken the animal we have a marvel of discovery and learning that eclipses the processing of knowledge and of the images in experience which we imagined as having substance (the images of others and their actions which they have contrived by their thinking to have us believe). This sensibility also retains a perfect sense of life's context, which is of what all the other species along with the cosmos have meant to us when we were whole; and it is not a mere friendly observer of other species, but equally precious to them, always getting as much feedback from them as one seagull is getting from another.


There are two learning options in human potential. The one is the animal, which has evolved for billions of years, and the other is the civilisation handbook, which is in the memory, and which has always been written by someone trying to elicit human cooperation for his private agenda. The first historian and biographer most of us in the West know about has it said that God made him; that he was not born of a woman; that there never were any people before him. Can we imagine that he was deluded, or was he just a liar? And being just a liar we declare him sane (like George Bush)? He did not pass on a history he himself knew, of earlier generations who carried with them the knowledge of their roots in a natural habitat, a place where homo sapiens was indigenous. He chose to excise the known past from the verbal history in order to arrange some clout for himself. He chose to leave new generations in the dark. Lies are the history of language. "Lies are their mother-tongue!"


The animal discovers, learns, in a way that fits two things together: electricity and glandular excretions. When a lower glandular excretion happens in our own bodies this is evidence of a new environment incompletely understood. (When these become perception as other the new environment IS UNDERSTOOD.) A completely understood environment generates higher feelings (which are creating new perception), and to date people are only equipped for nature, not for man's environments. The shift from nature to man's environments, in other words, is responsible for the lower emotions. What we are doing here on this blog is ending an era where man is not equipped for the environment he has produced, which is the beginning of an era where man will radically alter the way he produces changes in the environment. We are studying toward the end of a time when we would make a thing or a change without having it completely understood.


When a lower glandular excretion, a lower emotion, is found as the other perception has finally evolved, actually evolved while we are here in this lifetime. Jealousy, envy, hate, are examples of non-recurring emotions, so that if once we perceive these as the other we can never feel them again. (The senses acquire the perception of the traps. Some feelings only exist as full cooperation with the trap-maker.)


This is relationship, where there is a bond of discovery. The idea that the animal is subconscious or unconscious, so that there is no activity from it that we can be completely aware of, vanishes. The animal intelligence has always been with us, as long as we have had genuine feelings, genuine glandular events. It is only its natural placement (the place feelings originally occupied in relatiohships) that has been confused. And why not? We have been in the care of a caring system, as far as we have known. We have given up the role of self-care, self-responsibility, self-reliance, self-help, etc. We have placed ourselves in others' care. We have suggested peace but accepted that it can't be done, for example. Is that sane, or simple?


In the memory things are this simple, where we do some little part, always oblivious to, or with some vague pre-programmed idea about, how the whole works, and yet this animal we have described in this class is not simple, so we have to doubt its existence: it's too complex to exist! How does a simple creature reflect that once he was a profound one?


What is more obvious than that kept creatures become simple, even more so than wild creatures which have been condemned by the same confusion, the zebra who assumes it's a killer because its eyes, ears and nose do not detect the presence of any other killer around (the natural killer being clever enough to be hidden from those three senses) while its feelings, for some reason suddenly confusing, contradict it? If we keep a creature for too long it becomes more simple than any wild creature could be, because in the wild becoming simple is lethal, terminal. Simple minded creatures are mere ripe fruit.


The zebra scenario has such a simple solution: the zebra understands its place, and realises that this feeling of killer is other, which means a killer is hidden, and it can now feel the killer in the bushes as a blossoming of profound authority. As soon as it is aware of the killer, feeling it in the bushes, feeling the awesome power, it is free. As soon as it understands, from what it feels from the bushes, that the killer means to kill only the zebra that wants to become a killer that doesn't care who it kills (random violence; chaos, a crime the natural killer is incapable of), the trial is over. The killing feeling leaves the zebra's blood when it senses the presence of a grand killer, a killer who lives on blood and feeds its young with blood and has never in its billions of years of evolution been less deadly. Judge, jury and beheader.


What binds the zebra and the killer in a bond of death instead of one of harmony? It is the presence of the inferior version of the hormones in the zebra's blood! The petty copy-cat, the inexpert marauder, the fraud. Are we good at being lower beings, you and I? Are we good at hate, which is torture? At anger, which is bloodshed and bodily breakage? At contempt, which is slumming, winning the flotsam in the stream of life? At fear, which is callousness, a habit of going without feeling the way? At lust, which is to compete for whores, so that he who lusts most poorly pays the least and comes closest to friendship? At greed, which is the partnership with lust, so that he whose greed is greatest has the most deviant sex? At gluttony, which requires a diet of both excessive food and excessive pharmaceuticals or the equivalent? At vanity, which requires complete obliviousness to the significance others put on those who appeal to them, the violence of their fascination, like a pheasant parading in a hotel kitchen? See the split: the good and the evil, where the evil grow more so while the good do not grow more so.


Here is your niche! Here is where good discovers what goodness can go on to become. And as you can do this, you being a small minority, the children can do it far more elegantly. This is goodness, the opposite of power, to mean that children may always become the best of us, that we would rather cultivate a gift in them that eventually makes us feel stupid and primordial by comparison, than conjure from a child someone who makes us feel superior.

Av dennis hägglund - 21 juni 2008 09:04

We are conditioned to live in a landscape of the projected images of people who hide their private thinking behind these images. So how do the people themselves feel? We only see how the images feel, which is for show, and which is plain to the eye and ear. It is simple to find out. The feeling that comes to us, which is in the blood, is there in the blood because we are allowing the image of the other to refute where it actually is, which is where the other's thinking is cultivating it, in his own blood. Any feeling is by nature the other. Other-discovery is the value of perception. We are evolved with the power to find out what hormones are coursing through the other's veins by a universal technique that is the transcending of the sum of the senses.


This stifles progress. You are angry, for example, but you are cleverly hiding it from me to make some progress; but I discover your anger, not just that it is there but exactly what anger it is. Now you are not making progress as your thinking was sure you would. Now your anger toward me has nothing to do for you, and it vanishes.


Without this natural power of perception we are competing. Is my anger bigger than yours? Am I hiding mine better than you are yours? Am I making more progress than you? It is only when I understand that joy is my province (which is not an attitude adjustment, but something which must become true, and is only true as profound love of nature and the cosmos); I have no place to wish anger on myself, to become the killer, to grow the tusks, to taste the blood, to laugh at the pain, that I realise that this is only a cue that my perception has anger found, and then the feeble non-predatory anger that can come to a creature of joy has left my blood. If anger were in my blood it would blot out my perception of your anger, perception being something that does not need hormones of anger but hormones of perception.


Ironically, anger is far more intense as perception than as hormones. Discovery is a biological renovation project (perception is based in the molecular composition of the organism, and each discovery must be immortalised as perception gained, new eyes if you will), and needs perfect instructions, so to be angry is just anger, but to discover anger is encyclopaedic even though it lasts for only a second.


This is not respectable. If envy is the other, the one who has the thing, then there is a discovery: I am fortunate and he is courting senility. If ownership can be misfortune we all have to distrust gain, which again is no progress. If jealousy is the other: I am fortunate, they are congenitally unfaithful. The best I can find is congenitally unfaithful. No progress. A feeling as other blossoms into what no one has ever defined it as before, a definition alien to language. And it needs no translation. The feeling is meaning. The feeling does so much work in a second there is nothing to do as translating it. It is the only complete form of information. It is what reason exists to defy, thus making a world where destructive authority remains unchallenged authority.


How do trees know what flowers should look like and smell like, and what nectar and fruit and even leaves should taste like? Reason tells us they can't, but that is what reason is for, to make the world seem so insignificant that it is alright to destroy it. When we adopt this "philosophy" we become the victims of it, the prey. Could someone prey on you by making you rich? Normally only a masochist can become rich. Make a nearly sane person rich, which would be more by accident, and he does everything like a poor person. He lives in one room, cooks on a hotplate, watches cartoons, wears clothes until they wear out, etc. He wants to preserve his gifts, not confound them. He enjoys more who he was than who money could make him into. He wants to be the sting-less bee, not the raving one.


Trees do the impossible-to-reason; they know more about you than your family, or even yourself. By means no one has managed to catalogue. And this is manifestly so. No one who watches a tree through the seasons can have a reasonable doubt about it. There is a part of all of us to whom this is not supernatural or mysterious, but is the whole significance of this planet having evolved a little, a part of us which would not expect a tree to come to mind except as the tree itself joining us. This is the born part.


(This is also the part that makes people schizophrenic, an opening to the real profundity of the planet that is not compatible with a mind full of words (words being compatible only with the images of people in memory which hide those people's thinking from us). As long as there is thought schizophrenia is inevitable, and only dying can keep it from catching up to us. Thought is a job with a reward in mind, and ultimately we all retire, unless we die at the helm. Possibly, in the case of old-age schizophrenia, it is actually more diverting than thinking could be, a kind of wealth of mind in a senile perspective.)


To ask yourself what a tree is, could you ask or look back to your first encounter with one? What did your first encounter with a tree show you about trees? Experience diminishes the nature of reality. It boasts of itself. It boasts of progress. It boasts of thinking which leads to progress. It is a competition. The person who thought most and earliest had sex earliest and with the sexiest partner. The person who thought least and latest had sex last or never. There is no progress, no experience, without the distraction of thinking. And through this haze of thought there is no way to find out what a child perceives. You may ask a child, but he also perceives how you will berate him for his answer. Say, "Tell me the truth. I won't berate you for your answer if it's true.", and he perceives that you will, and your only way out of this quandary is to do more harm to his mind.


To lose feelings as the flower of discovery of other is to lose relationship itself. This is how predators hunt. Find the creature who relies on eyes, ears and nose; sight, sound and smell. That is the antisocial or asocial one.

Av dennis hägglund - 21 juni 2008 07:30

When the hearing and seeing are bent, how do we speak and show the repair? The repair needs to enter through the failing parts. The resistance at the bend speaks as reason and thought, and shows as imagined refutations. If you have read any of this, have you ever said, "Programming! I'm immune!", and yet here is the purest form of deprogramming ever seen. Find fault with the style; I'm a foreigner in six countries, all of them my own. But with the substance?


The damage to hearing and seeing must be undone through listening and seeing. If this were easy the damage would be small, and a bird could fix it.

Av dennis hägglund - 21 juni 2008 07:03

The one who says drugs are not acceptable contradicts many.

The one who says drink is not acceptable contradicts many more.

The one who says sex is not acceptable contradicts nearly all.


How does one say to the one who takes pleasure from drugs that there is joy in being free of them?

How does one say to the one who takes pleasure in drink that there is joy in being free of it?

How does one say to the one who takes pleasure in sex that there is joy in being free from it?

--when there is so much more to becoming free from it than just saying "no" to it; when the way to the freedom is not easy? The most they can imagine in each case is "I can give it up.", which is not this joy of being free of them.


No one did more harm than by seeing innocence as sexy, function as pleasure. Is God finger-lickin' good? That is the scale of the crime. God in the micro. Man is a creature always averse to hearing how much harm his version of success is doing. Tantalising deafness. Reason's machinery is deafening, and lubricant only makes it worse.


The notions "sexy" and "pleasure" say that innocence and function are lesser than sexy and pleasure. "Sexy" and "pleasure" are notions put on a pedestal, raised high above innocence and function. In truth innocence is sympathy with God, and function, when it is called upon innocently to perform, is Heaven on Earth.


And if it is not innocence one sees as sexy, why would one praise it?


Concealing desire makes a more vicious barb of it than demonstrating it. Reason refutes this, but here in this class we are learning what reason is made of. The way to freedom from reason's mischief is not easy, but it is well illuminated.


If concealing it is not making it innocent, then what remains but chastity or cruelty? Chastity is not something missing, but an acquired gracefulness like a bird's takeoff. It is to see the terrible distinction between what is naturally becoming, and what man has deemed becoming, in the behaviour of opposites in pairing. Innocence became this in man's destructive world, and needed a way made for becoming that in order to remain innocent in pairing. Why should pairing be less innocent, why "Virgin Mary"? Is it Judeo-Christianity, the notion of wild beasts, fifth day monsters and how man has the residual monster left in him despite sewers and churches?


Imagine, if you are a male, that you love a girl, and then she grows up a little and berates you for not lusting after her? Is this the girl you loved? This is "an artificial ingredient", a "chemical additive". The wonderful girl is still there, but will have little or no outlet for the rest of her lifetime, unless she gets help so serious it is perhaps not to be found on Earth, and the only way she can get it is if you discover that help.


Let us not make virtues in our own image, but accept that innocence is not beyond us, even if it has escaped us, so that we have no need to abandon the evolved virtues for contrived ones. A parrot of authority is not a teacher. A teacher is someone who has the job of saying, doing and being right where it counts most.

Av dennis hägglund - 20 juni 2008 22:44

When, as toddlers, we are first able to listen to the words, we are told lies about who we have been so far and who our mothers have been to us so far. Then accumulation: each adult proceeds to tell us the lies about who he is and has been and will be, and also we get a history of who every known adult past and present was or is. And finally, around puberty, one by one our peers begin to manufacture lies about themselves in the same spirit, until we have no friends left of a real kind. There is a believer in us, falling for all these lies, and only this believer is not abandoned (as is that in us which waits for truth, reality, communication).


Each adult knows of himself that he projects someone who is not real for people to relate to as himself. Each knows that the person who develops a relationship with this projected someone is not relating to a living being, and hence that he is utterly alone despite having this "relationship".


Thus: any adult person believing himself to be private in his mind rather than abandoned in the real world is actually insane. He is abandoned because he has no one that he is relating to or can relate to which is not a device of someone's thought. He is not private because he is not hiding from anyone real. He is hiding from the figment of others contrived by their thinking to keep what they imagine to be their real selves private.


This is elementary psychology, the first and most obvious starting point for self-discovery. The question is, is this for the private self to read, or is there another reader? When the private self reads the reading is not difficult because it is not making anything happen.


This is like any wasting disease: here is the cure, and are you going to take it, or are you really that intent on following the lemmings into the depths?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


What the adult does in his head as an approach to his dealings with others is obviously not good for them. His perspective is that he does it, while a rational perspective is that all mature people have done it to us, as well as to everyone since the beginning of human history. Everyone we have met who was old enough has done this to us all our lives, and everything we have read or heard from the past was generated by this mental acrobatics, and it was not good for us; it did us serious harm, and it is the harm that is thinking.

Av dennis hägglund - 20 juni 2008 00:14

The strangest thing I see in the teaching environment is the idea every teacher seems to rely on, that all solutions are already available. If there is violence in the school, for example, all that is required is to send the teachers to a course on how to deal with violence in school. So, in reflection, all that is wrong with any school is that its teachers have not yet been sent to this course. The funny thing, of course, is that every school is full of violence. No one has ever seen the purported benefits of this wonderful course.


When no solution exists, the healthy thing to do is to pretend to have the solution and use it as if it works?

Skaffa en gratis bloggwww.bloggplatsen.se