Modern science has to a large extent contributed to the impoverishment of education by its residual approach to life.
Modern science is not even modern. It was built upon what before was in the hands of the majority of church-obedient believers, not upon true wisdom up-
held by heretics, poets, astrologers, witches and al- chemists.
Modern Western science only recently began to gradually integrate some of the major insights of per- ennial science, thus gradually growing into a truly ho- listic science. And yet, even then, it won’t be such modern a science since what we are going to achieve, by then, will only be what alchemists already knew more than a thousand years ago. Not to talk about much older sources of this perennial wisdom, such as the Taoists’ holistic worldview and the hermetic sci- ences in Babylon, Egypt, Persia, India and other of the ancient high cultures of Eurasia that are five thousand and more years old.
Secondly, and more importantly, modern science is based upon a residual concept of life that, even
though it has been questioned by quantum physics, still does not recognize that the first principle, the creational principle, is energy, and not matter and that matter is not different from energy in that it is only a specific condensed form of it.
Thus, what Einstein saw as a contradiction in ob- serving that particles tend at times to be matter and
at times to be waves, was an inevitable outflow from Einstein’s observer perspective. Relativity theory was the first step in breaking apart the matter-principle that reigned since Aristotle, in the West, and quantum physics followed this line even more tightly and with seemingly more revolutionary results. But the first step on this redemptive path was the most daring one; in that sense Einstein was a true alchemist among modern scientists.
Despite the fact that modern science is presently challenged by a growing concern about our environ- ment and the raising threat to our health and security, education leaps far behind the breakthroughs into a more holistic science.
If we enquire in the results that the restrictive, re- sidual, anti-natural and anti-spiritual worldview has brought about in education, we observe that quality has been sacrificed for quantity. The quality of educa- tion that once was reserved for nobles has been sacri- ficed to achieve a minimal standard education for the masses. We have quantified stupidity with the non- sensical belief that stupidity for more would bring about less stupidity for all.
More specifically, in our attempt to bring about functional scientists and not intelligent or wistful sci- entists, we have developed an education for that pur- pose, an education that by restricting life to a me- chanical concept brings about mechanistic functionar- ies and employees. That was logical since they had to fit into a mechanistic science, a mechanistic social sys- tem and a mechanistic religion with a single male Gee-Oh-Dee that one can please and manipulate by going to church, and else by falseness, sentimentality and generally a life full of taboos and restrictions.
We have to realize that education is dependent upon the reigning worldview and the reigning science paradigm.
Only really democratic governments allow an edu- cation that educates people to play the role of alter- native elements within the mainstream system, thus allowing the existence of a counterculture. And where such countercultures exist, they do not only know and divulge the insights I present in this study, but they walk this talk on a daily basis.
Meanwhile, mainstream culture, unable to come up with creative solutions or cross-disciplinary ap-
proaches to the present complex problems in rela- tionships, go on in their mix of cruelty and sentimen- tality, their focus on control and policing people, their lacking trust in self-regulative processes, their igno- rance about the cyclic nature of life, their general fear of life, their pleasure anxiety, their growing violence and their utter ignorance about true, and not false and hypocrite, spirituality.
The concept of protectiveness is an important in- gredient in mainstream’s back-office and its strategy to control relationships instead of granting people the freedom, and the responsibility, to self-regulate their exchange processes with others.
And surely, protectiveness will not solve our rela- tional problems, but in the contrary render them even more complex and unsolvable, because these prob- lems are related to how we use our bioenergy, how we handle our emotions. The more we bring in con- trol and supervision, persecution and fear, the more we tend to block the natural flow of our emotions and the streaming of the sexual energy.
This is why awareness of our emotional flow proc- esses is not considered by mainstream thinking as a
positive value, and why people within consumer cul- ture do not teach their children to become competent
sexual partners, as this is done in healthy and natural
tribal societies. Instead, our reality within the hypo- crite present system is that most of us learned about sexuality in an atmosphere of secretiveness, pervaded by an overlay pattern of bewilderment, guilt and fear.