The Failure Of Universities In A Disunited World - And What To Do

Dear Reader,

Hello! It has been a very long time since I wrote on this blog. There have been circumstances that have prevented this of late, but, at the same time, there did not seem to be much else of any importance that needed to be said that was different from what I had already posted over the preceding years. A sabbatical was appropriate.

Truth transcends opinion?

Some may say my posts are only my point of view anyhow, and that other opinions exist. The question arising therefore is whether that is a valid view, or is that a view that we have been educated and/or feel obliged by society to accept? Perhaps we need to study whether there is a Truth that transcends opinion. Perhaps we need to study ourselves thoroughly to understand the world. As Socrates once said: "The unexamined life is not worth living."

I try to relate only what certain ancient teachings say about the application of wisdom in our lives, knowing that is what the future is to bring about. Materialism, self-centred living and pure survival living are out as viable ways of life.

The state of things in the world as they are now seems to invite further comment right now, in particular how the governments of the world seem to be hanging back from their commitments to change their policies to achieve a green economy in harmony with the environment and climate change. 

Strangely, with severe weather conditions now in so many regions and icebergs breaking up at a great rate, there is a definite question mark as to the world's sincerity in this regard. This is often down to pressure put on governments by vested interests who want to protect their investments and their profits as much as they can. And big companies are powered by the best university graduates available. Who does more harm to the world, the educated or the uneducated?

We should, I suggest, also question the viability of the views of our political representatives and the parties they represent, how well they use their time, and whether they really have the character required for such responsibility. They often give the impression that they're in the job to get out of it what they can, rather than giving of themselves in true service. A recently discarded UK prime minister can now claim a PM's pension even though occupying the job for only 40+ days and can also put forward nominees for honours. Is this right? Why do we allow such things?

The problem is that we tend to 'go with the flow' of what governments decide, particularly in fear of job redundancy, though some don't and they often become labeled as 'radicals', or worse. I accept, however, there are those who hold over-extreme views, particularly in their methods of protest.

But it is true that we can't just carry on as though technology can solve everything, particularly the hand-held variety. And in the hands of the wrong developers, artificial intelligence (AI) can be a threat.

One Indivisible Truth?

But it is the One Indivisible Truth that I invite people to look at, and if we can see its validity then there is a possibility for unified thought of a progressive nature that will enable us all to deal with the world's issues. It sounds like a dream, but dreams can become reality. 

To attain a long-term improvement in the way governments and establishments approach matters, and how we live our lives, we must look at our methods of education, for it is into that system that our political representatives are born.

The key problem has been that the way of politics is geared toward how we improve our standard of life - not (firstly) how we should live in balance with the world around us in a sustainable way. For centuries we had become used to thinking that mechanisation and exploitation of the world's resources were the basis of our way forward. Then, at the end of the 20th century, people (though still a minority) seemed to suddenly become more aware that what we were doing was causing harm and creating danger to the survival of our species. 

The approach of governments to achieving a solution to this state of affairs has been painfully slow, and in democratic countries that can be put down to the influence of voters and pressure groups alike who want to preserve what they have and not have to change with any pain associated with that change. Yet you cannot really hope to gain without pain! We had gone too far with our destructive habits and to get away from those habits does mean pain unless one's emotional perspective can be brought to bear on the situation at hand.

For our children and their future, it should mean that they are educated to understand themselves and their total environment (physical and spiritual) in a constructive way and that their education to the university level needs to be tailored accordingly. Currently, its orientation is to produce graduates that have learned purely how to make a living for themselves, particularly in the professions and potentially harmful areas of science and technology. The lack of moral guidance in those areas of training in particular leads to problems in society later.

What is moral and how should it be taught?

By the time tertiary level education is reached then students start to become thoroughly immersed in the 'scientific method'. This is all very well and praiseworthy, but not if it is taught as the sole criteria in one's evaluation of something, as it usually is. It infers that the head must predominate in discrimination and deduction of what is correct and what is not. 

Emotion and heartfelt feelings have long been thought to be the preserve of the feminine. Well, and why not? We all possess both feminine and masculine tendencies: should we exclude one or the other from our way of thinking?

It is because of the overuse of 'the head' (or intellect) - a masculine tendency - that societies and the world were led to a series of environmental disasters. One of the most base ideas to be promulgated towards the end of that era was a simple acceptance that 'we are a throw-away society' as though it existed but it's something that should be accepted. What rubbish (excuse the pun!). But the oceans still show plenty of evidence that there are people that still live without a conscience in this matter alone.

It also produced the kind of thinking that regarded Hiroshima and Nagasaki as test sites, not the scene of horrible execution and lifelong suffering for the survivors.

Professor G. Venkataratnam of the Indian Institute of Technology has said: "Since humans have both Head and Heart, progress and the development of human society should not be based solely on the Head, marginalizing the Heart in the process." He added: "In earlier times, great stress was laid on virtuous action, as a result of which character development received attention not only in the home but also in the school."

The professor continued (highlighted text is my implementation):

... the rapid growth of scientific knowledge opened up opportunities for business, trade and commerce, which in turn made profit the dominant element in almost all aspects of human activity, including education.

No wonder schools and colleges of today are focused largely on catering to the needs of the marketplace, since that is the easiest way to make money.

... the prevailing system of education [lays] excessive stress on the acquisition of worldly knowledge [that] leads to young people entering life (knowingly or otherwise) without a moral anchor. Knowledge in the truest sense of the word is incomplete unless it includes aspects relating to the Inner World.

No amount of delving into mathematics, physics and other worldly subjects can give a student any idea of what, for example, [Truth], [Righteousness], etc., are all about. Without the moral anchor human values provide, not only can the life of the individual go astray, but society itself could succumb to false dogmas and ideologies, to the detriment of humanity as a whole.

The case for a re-examination of the orientation of the Western educational system (particularly at the tertiary level), surely, is adequately stated above by Professor  Venkataratnam. 

The hard facts arrived at in the sciences must be subject to evaluation by a deeper, spiritual, discerning eye. So too should the professions be guided by such wisdom instead of pushing their worldly view to extremes, as they often do in the real interest of reward, both financial and by reputation, not in their client's welfare.

And, importantly, so too in government, so that we can have representatives that we respect and trust to act in our - and the world's - very best interests. Too often we hear how government representatives seem more concerned about their sideline business responsibilities and appearances on entertainment shows.

Only by such changes in the mechanisms of our society will the world truly gain and have the possibility of evolving towards unity and peace.

Professor  Venkataratnam has explained the method of inculcating a sense of values into education:

... what education is really supposed to mean.... [stems from] two root words in Latin related to education:

(1) EDUCARE (pronounced EDOO KAARE) and (2) EDUCERE (pronounced EDOO KAERE).

The former means to support and nurture the growth of, while the latter means to draw out. The former is the root for the word education as currently used, while the latter appears to have gone into oblivion.

[Sri Sathya Sai] Baba resurrected the second root word and combined it with the first so that education implied something more than what people took it to mean. He then gave the name educare to this enlarged and enhanced vision of education. Educare, Baba explained, brought into play both the “drawing out” aspect and the “nurturing” aspect as well. What was to be drawn out were human values from the Heart, which then were to be blended with learning as normally understood.

In other words, Baba’s educare was a two-in-one package involving both the Heart and the Head, thus linking education to the two Latin root words introduced above. 

The educare philosophy has been, and is being, adopted by many schools and colleges, both in India and various other countries, including the USA, and also at the Sathya Sai universities.

Indeed, the famed Greek philosopher Socrates once said:

Whom do I call educated? First, those who manage well the circumstances they encounter day by day. Next, those who are decent and honorable in their intercourse with all men, bearing easily and good-naturedly what is offensive in others and being as agreeable and reasonable to their associates as is humanly possible to be... those who hold their pleasures always under control and are not ultimately overcome by their misfortunes... those who are not spoiled by their successes, who do not desert their true selves but hold their ground steadfastly as wise and sober-minded men. 

I would also add that many who have turned to law-breaking, alcohol and/or drugs (or other addictions and deviations) would find life more meaningful if they had been educated using the said methods where meaning is the central focus in education. When meaning presents itself, everyone at any age understands and finds direction. The failure of meaning in advanced education has too often meant that students slide into what is termed a nervous breakdown.

What is also certainly true is that the current Ivory Tower scenario (universities) does not fulfill the needs of society and the world at large; they contain a lack of relevant meaning and connectivity.

Thank you for reading this.