[email protected]

In a message dated 9/23/03 7:43:50 AM, sjogy@... writes:

<< I think there's a big difference between saying that you learn something
from every experience and experiences happen IN ORDER to teach us something.
Many things happen for no reason, but you can still take a valuable lesson
from them. >>

VERY true.

If we don't believe people can learn from random happenings, how can we
possibly believe in unschooling?

If we needed to plan out our entire curriculum before being born... yeeeesh!

<<Many years ago, someone blew up a house I was living in. Some people
actually asked me what it was about my life that caused that to happen. I
have learned many things through having had that experience, but no one
could ever convince me that there was anything about my life that CAUSED
that.>>

I got a couple of people saying something like that to me after I broke my
leg last year. It was irritating. What I needed to learn, I think, is that wet
ramps in climates where slippy-slime can grow will be slippery like nothing
ever seen in New Mexico.

I learned that we need a bigger door into our downstairs bathroom.

I learned that my kids can't make much food beyond a hot dog, peanut butter
sandwich, Ramen and scrambled eggs. I learned I can get really tired of that
menu.

I took it not as sympathy but as irritating insult that I was hurt in order
to teach me a lesson. Seemed to me someone had paid for me to go and speak to
people who really wanted to hear me. There are still people who were greatly
put out by my missing that conference to be in the hospital, so if anyone on
this list was one of the people who said "I guess there was some lesson the
universe needed to teach you," you don't need to confess because I don't remember
who said it. Keep it to yourself forever, if you can.

I think people are born randomly and they live in a random world where they
try constantly to find patterns (because that's what people do) and sometimes
they get all excited about a pattern or theory (about causation or death or
life or afterlife) and they start making decisions based on their theory.

Because of that, people have thought that human behavior has caused tornados,
earthquakes, volcanos, floods and fires. They REALLY believe that because
people were bad, or prayed wrong, or didn't sacrifice a sheep or a cow or a
virgin girl, that something invisible but powerful was going to dip them in hot
lava, or shake their houses down. Some people have little tiny versions of
that: lucky socks, wearing a certain ring or bracelet or shirt, whatever it is,
there are magic talismans in use even by the most scientific of people.

Sandra

JenV72

To fully understand the lesson, one needs to look deeper than
just the surface/physical aspects of life that are affected. If a
sickness or injury occurs maybe it is your body/mind/soul
saying "You need to slow down and rest. YOu are taking on too
much. YOu need to spend some time working on the inside and less on
the outside world for awhile. I've been trying to send this message
in other ways, but you haven't listened. Now I need to give a
louder message".
Louise Hay has written a really neat book about the
metaphysical/spiritual reasons for different ailments. Just for fun
I looked up leg problems (a broken bone would certainly be a
problem). She suggested that since legs carry us through life, a
leg problem would be the result of fear of the furture and not
wanting to move.
Of course not everyone would like a book like this, but I find it
quite right on for myself.
The deeper reason for things happening might not always be to
learn a lesson, it may be to keep something else from happening.
Let's say someone is planning a vacation, but got sick. That sucks,
the vacation was to Hawaii and was going to be awesome.
Later that night he hears on the news that the plane he was supposed
to take to Hawaii crashed, no survivors....it wasn't his time to die.
Have you ever heard people who are trying to buy a house say. I'm
so glad we didn't get that last one, THIS is the right house for us.

Just a few more ideas....

-Jennifer V
ps Eastern philosophies often discuss predestination. I just say
this because I believe there was earlier dicussion about the idea of
predestination being new...maybe I'm incorrect though.

> I got a couple of people saying something like that to me after I
broke my
> leg last year. It was irritating. What I needed to learn, I
think, is that wet
> ramps in climates where slippy-slime can grow will be slippery
like nothing
> ever seen in New Mexico.
>
> I learned that we need a bigger door into our downstairs bathroom.
>
> I learned that my kids can't make much food beyond a hot dog,
peanut butter
> sandwich, Ramen and scrambled eggs. I learned I can get really
tired of that
> menu.
>
>

Julie Bogart

--- In [email protected],
SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/23/03 7:43:50 AM, sjogy@s... writes:
>
> << I think there's a big difference between saying that you learn
something
> from every experience and experiences happen IN ORDER to
teach us something.
> Many things happen for no reason, but you can still take a
valuable lesson
> from them. >>
>
> VERY true.
>
> If we don't believe people can learn from random happenings,
how can we
> possibly believe in unschooling?


My question for this belief system (one that I was schooled in in
CA in the 70s through est) is if we choose everything (and the
permutation that we choose it all before even being born) what's
the point of lessons anyway? Who cares if I learn anything? To
what end?

Why would I choose to break my leg to learn how to, what,
recover from leg-breakings? Why would I choose to have my
husband cheat on me so that I could, what, experience the pain
and suffering of divorce? Then when I learned the lessons, what
do they produce?

And a corollary: how does learning something from choices
made before birth look or feel any different than being dealt a
random set of circumstances that we learn from as we go?

Learning is the nature of living. Choosing in pre-existence or
facing dilemmas after being born? What's the diff?

Julie B

Julie Bogart

Stop me, stop me. I can't help myself. :)

Jen, I'm currently studying some of these issues in a grad
school program so I offer my thoughts here not to rebut you per
se, but because your post triggered some of the reading I'm
doing. Hope that's okay.

--- In [email protected], "JenV72"
<jvaitkus@h...> wrote:

> Louise Hay has written a really neat book about the
> metaphysical/spiritual reasons for different ailments. Just for
fun
> I looked up leg problems (a broken bone would certainly be a
> problem). She suggested that since legs carry us through life,
a
> leg problem would be the result of fear of the furture and not
> wanting to move.

While this idea may be supportive ahd helpful as a point of
reflection, doesn't it also try to mitigate against the feeling of
being out of control that breaking a leg produces?

Much of religious thought over the centuries is about gaining
control over the unforeseen. And much of it is comforting and
often even useful for reflection. The caution I have in myself now,
though, is to beleive that these ideas are axiomatic—that a
broken leg equals fear of the future and not wanting to move. If
we believe that it actually means those things, we will become
perfectionists in our attempts to control our emotions, thoughts,
beliefs and ideas to prevent bad things from occuring, when in
reality there isn't a belief system/healthy emotional life system on
the planet that protects anyone from harm or evil.


> The deeper reason for things happening might not always be
to
> learn a lesson, it may be to keep something else from
happening.
> Let's say someone is planning a vacation, but got sick. That
sucks,
> the vacation was to Hawaii and was going to be awesome.
> Later that night he hears on the news that the plane he was
supposed
> to take to Hawaii crashed, no survivors....it wasn't his time to
die.

But it was everyone else's time to die? I remember after 9/11
hearing of the miraculous escapes of some of the survivors.
Several attributed those narrow escapes to God as preserving
his/her life. How does someone else see the loss of their loved
one's life—God didn't protect, care, save? That it was their
"time"?

I had a friend who told me that her best friend died of cancer after
the whole church community had prayed for her. This friend of
mine was very ill at the time. She said that God taught her
through her friend's death that she must learn to trust God more
so she wouldn't die.

For me, this felt strange and wrong. Better to mourn the lost life
and to face illness honestly than to assume God is orchestrating
death for one so that the living person would learn to trust God
better than the dead one did.

> Have you ever heard people who are trying to buy a house
say. I'm
> so glad we didn't get that last one, THIS is the right house for
us.

And have you heard of the ones who almost got their dream
home when someone else got it and they had to settle for a
lesser home? (My sister comes to mind...)

In the end, we all make sense of our exitsence in ways that bring
us peace and comfort. For me, it became too uncomfortable to
try to fit every circumstance into a "meaning" package.

Julie B

[email protected]

In a message dated 9/23/03 5:45:58 PM, jvaitkus@... writes:

<< Louise Hay has written a really neat book about the

metaphysical/spiritual reasons for different ailments. Just for fun

I looked up leg problems (a broken bone would certainly be a

problem). >>

But not a psychosomatic problem, nor a blockage of chi or such, as those
theories deal in.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 9/23/03 7:52:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, leschke@...
writes:

> Rhonda, you've got to stop yelling at me. <g>
> Tia
> leschke@...
>

I wanted to be sure you were hearing me!! Thanx for the laugh Tia! I needed
it.

Rhonda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

Hi all,

My name is Amy, from Grand Rapids, Michigan. I am not yet an unschooler, but
am really just to the point of deciding where and how the necessary changes
will take place -- I may bring that up later. My oldest son Fisher is
currently in first grade at a charter school. My younger son Riley is only three
months -- his unschooling involves watching us bigheads until he gets too tired. <
g>

I have been reading posts on this list for a little less than a week. I,
like Holly, take myself with a huge grain of salt -- so big, it would give the
whole list high blood pressure. But I'm interested in pursuing a line of
thought here, so I'm going to give it a whirl. <g> I've been reading the _Ishmael_
series by Daniel Quinn, and found them very intriguing, even life- and
worldview-changing. They are meant to be a series of philosophical treatises,
couched in novel form. (Hey, it worked for Plato.) In my response below I've
pulled out some of the ideas.

In a message dated 9/23/03 6:53:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
> Not all "good" and "bad" are cultural. If
> they were, babies would have nothing to cry about until someone else had
> taught them what to expect. Food is better than lack of food. Warmth is
> better
> than freezing cold.

You use the terms "good" and "bad" and then talk about behaviors of basic
survival. Babies don't cry because their hunger is universally bad -- they cry
to be fed and therefore to survive. But, if that baby lives in North America
or Western Europe, she will grow up to consume more than her share of the
world's resources. Rainforests will be destroyed so that she and her peers, at 21,
can have a cappucino before their first college class of the day. That could
be considered bad, especially by the inhabitants of the rainforest. (And no,
I'm not in favor of depriving starving babies, North American or otherwise.
Stick with me, I'm trying to get to the "useful" part.) Eventually, because
I'm told that the planet needs the biological diversity found in rainforests
(and in other ecosystems that we often destroy for our food and our raw
materials), this will be bad for the survival of the planet.

If that crying baby belongs to the !Kung in Africa, however, she will have
very little ecological impact -- her people still live within the limits of the
ecosystem, still control their population and the damage they do to the
environment. That could be considered to be, if not good, at least not harmful.

My point: much of the "beliefs" discussion on this list has dealt with world
religions that are only six to eight thousand years old -- a blip on the
screen when it comes to the whole of human history that could inform our beliefs.
Because the major world religions (Hinduism, a variation of which Judie
seemed to be espousing; Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, neo-Paganism, if not Paganism -- I'm most certainly missing
some) have all come about in cultures in which humans were not living within the
laws of the community of life, they have all had to address humans as flawed
beings, as capable of evil, which many of them have elevated to The Question of
Evil. Because of that, they can get pretty goofy. For instance, one way
I've heard the central tenet of Christianity paraphrased is that God so loved the
world that he committed divine child abuse . Or in Hinduism, souls that are
working their way to enlightenment may choose incarnations (or be sentenced to
incarnations) that seem awful, but all is as it is supposed to be. And so
the mostly Hindu nation of India lives with the Untouchables.

(I should clarify that I think faith and religion are amazing things, because
they are an expression of the natural capacity for spirituality that lives in
humans. It's just that they can be reduced to some statements that are
really weird, even harmful [to humans].)

But there may be more useful insights when one goes back to the
evolutionarily stable way that humans lived for nearly three million years before the
agricultural revolution. Insights like: Take only what you need; Limit your
population size; Live by the laws of your tribe, but don't assume you can tell
other tribes how to live; As you eat one day, you may be eaten on another, so
you might want to come to terms with death as a very real part of life. (And
world religions and their practitioners often confuse death with evil, it
seems.) So in unschooling and in life, it might be useful to extend the models for
making choices. I'm not saying that we will return to a hunter/gatherer
lifestyle, but that we can learn and envision and create a way of life that is not
inherently destructive to the planet or ourselves.

And now I have to laugh at myself, because I'm just so pleased with
everything I just wrote here that I'm envisioning the responses: "wow, you'll have no
trouble with unschooling," and "what was that book again?" Probably not, huh?
But it is exciting for me as I'm integrating these ideas into how I interact
with the world, and I'm very interested in feedback and yes, criticism.

I'm pressing send now. Bring it on. <g>

Peace,
Amy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

JenV72

Hi Julie,
I do understand your points. There are so many ways of looking at
things, and I totally agree with you that we all make sense of our
exitsence in ways that bring us peace and comfort. I don't believe
we'll ever know what the truth is, or thruths are, about our life on
this earth until we've left (even this point will bring disagreement
with some...that's fine). There is so much we don't understand, and
yes, trying to put "meaning" to everything can be quite tiresome at
least. And putting meaning to many things brings me peace and
comfort.
I'm not going to answer all your questions here one this list,
but if you're really interested in my ideas you can email me
privately (but please don't feel like you should if you really don't
want to, I wouldn't be hurt :)

Have a great day,
Jennifer

--- In [email protected], "Julie Bogart"
<julie@b...> wrote:
> Stop me, stop me. I can't help myself. :)
>
> Jen, I'm currently studying some of these issues in a grad
> school program so I offer my thoughts here not to rebut you per
> se, but because your post triggered some of the reading I'm
> doing. Hope that's okay.
>
> --- In [email protected], "JenV72"
> <jvaitkus@h...> wrote:
>
> > Louise Hay has written a really neat book about the
> > metaphysical/spiritual reasons for different ailments. Just for
> fun
> > I looked up leg problems (a broken bone would certainly be a
> > problem). She suggested that since legs carry us through life,
> a
> > leg problem would be the result of fear of the furture and not
> > wanting to move.
>
> While this idea may be supportive ahd helpful as a point of
> reflection, doesn't it also try to mitigate against the feeling of
> being out of control that breaking a leg produces?
>
> Much of religious thought over the centuries is about gaining
> control over the unforeseen. And much of it is comforting and
> often even useful for reflection. The caution I have in myself
now,
> though, is to beleive that these ideas are axiomatic—that a
> broken leg equals fear of the future and not wanting to move. If
> we believe that it actually means those things, we will become
> perfectionists in our attempts to control our emotions, thoughts,
> beliefs and ideas to prevent bad things from occuring, when in
> reality there isn't a belief system/healthy emotional life system
on
> the planet that protects anyone from harm or evil.
>
>
> > The deeper reason for things happening might not always be
> to
> > learn a lesson, it may be to keep something else from
> happening.
> > Let's say someone is planning a vacation, but got sick. That
> sucks,
> > the vacation was to Hawaii and was going to be awesome.
> > Later that night he hears on the news that the plane he was
> supposed
> > to take to Hawaii crashed, no survivors....it wasn't his time to
> die.
>
> But it was everyone else's time to die? I remember after 9/11
> hearing of the miraculous escapes of some of the survivors.
> Several attributed those narrow escapes to God as preserving
> his/her life. How does someone else see the loss of their loved
> one's life—God didn't protect, care, save? That it was their
> "time"?
>
> I had a friend who told me that her best friend died of cancer
after
> the whole church community had prayed for her. This friend of
> mine was very ill at the time. She said that God taught her
> through her friend's death that she must learn to trust God more
> so she wouldn't die.
>
> For me, this felt strange and wrong. Better to mourn the lost life
> and to face illness honestly than to assume God is orchestrating
> death for one so that the living person would learn to trust God
> better than the dead one did.
>
> > Have you ever heard people who are trying to buy a house
> say. I'm
> > so glad we didn't get that last one, THIS is the right house for
> us.
>
> And have you heard of the ones who almost got their dream
> home when someone else got it and they had to settle for a
> lesser home? (My sister comes to mind...)
>
> In the end, we all make sense of our exitsence in ways that bring
> us peace and comfort. For me, it became too uncomfortable to
> try to fit every circumstance into a "meaning" package.
>
> Julie B

[email protected]

In a message dated 9/23/03 10:47:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
arcarpenter@... writes:
In a message dated 9/23/03 6:53:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
> Not all "good" and "bad" are cultural. If
> they were, babies would have nothing to cry about until someone else had
> taught them what to expect. Food is better than lack of food. Warmth is
> better
> than freezing cold.

You use the terms "good" and "bad" and then talk about behaviors of basic
survival. Babies don't cry because their hunger is universally bad -- they
cry
to be fed and therefore to survive. But, if that baby lives in North America
or Western Europe, she will grow up to consume more than her share of the
world's resources. Rainforests will be destroyed so that she and her peers,
at 21,
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

I don't know exactly where the environmental impact part of your post comes
into play with responding to Sandra's post, but as to the first part, have you
read Jean Liedloff's book *The Continuum Concept*? It deals with the heart of
what Sandra stated in this part of her post. I am currently rereading the book
for the umpteenth time, and I have just read the part dealing with the very
nature of a baby's reality in his or her own continuum. She writes in matters
concerning a newborn infant; "Again, the quality of his awareness is very
different from what it will become. He cannot qualify his impression of how things
are. Either they are right or not right. Requirements are strict at this early
date. As we have seen, he cannot hope, if he is uncomfortable now, that he
will be comfortable later. He cannot feel that "mother will be right back" when
she leaves him; the world has suddenly gone wrong, conditions are intolerable.
He hears and accepts his own weeping, but although his mother knows the sound
and its meaning since time immemorial, and so does any child or adult who
hears it, he does not. He only senses that it is a positive action toward setting
things right. But if he is left to cry for too long, if the response it is
meant to elicit does not come, that feeling departs as well, giving way to utter
bleakness without time or hope. When his mother does come to him, he simply
feels right, he is not aware that she has been away, nor does h e remember
having cried. He is reconnected to his lifeline and his environment meets his
expectations. When he is abandoned, put out of his continuum of correct
experience, nothing is acceptable, and nothing is accepted. Want is all there is, there
is nothing to use, to grow on, to fulfill his requirement for experience, for
the experiences must be expected ones..." and a little while later she writes;
"If he feels safe, wanted, and "at home" in the midst of activity before he
can think, his view of later experiences will be very distinct in character
from those of a child who feels unwelcome, unstimulated by the experiences he has
missed, and accustomed to living in a state of want, though the later
experiences of both may be identical. At first, the infant only notices; he cannot
reason. He becomes familiar with his surroundings by association. At the very
outset, in the first postnatal messages brought in by the senses, there is an
absoluteness, an unqualified impression of the state of things, relative to
nothing but the innate expectations of the infant and, of course, devoid of any
relation to the passage of time."

So Sandra's hypothetical baby cries from its innate expectations. Gradually
the baby learns that certain actions elicit a positive response. If those
innate expectations were not present at or even before birth, then babies since
time immemorial would have no need to cry until someone taught them that they
should expect some things to happen. As it is, babies, all of them, have a
natural expectation that food and warmth are basic requirements in their continuum,
and if not met, they cry. At first not knowing why they cry or even
remembering that they did cry, but gradually learning that the cry begets a response. A
young baby without the power of reason cannot hope to know the passage of
time, as it has no experience of time. It isn't until much later that time has
meaning in dealing with the basic needs. An infant has no knowledge of time only
that something is either right or wrong, good or bad at this moment. A five
year old has a much better concept, yet still not fully realized. A promise of a
special want at a future date (to use Liedloff's example, a bike at Christmas
promised in August) means little to a five year old, almost as if there were
no promise at all, but hope is beginning to be established. As hope can only
be established with the passage and realization of time. For without time there
is no hope. An infant knows no time, therefore has no hope, but does have
innate expectations. A ten year old on the other hand experiences time better and
can understand August, September, October, November, December. Although for a
ten year old, the wait, the hope, is still prolonged.

If you haven't read the book, I strongly suggest doing so. But that is just
my two cents. <g> I could be way off track in interpreting what you were trying
to say.

~Nancy

He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered
whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.
Douglas Adams


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 9/23/03 10:46:49 PM Central Daylight Time,
arcarpenter@... writes:
> And now I have to laugh at myself, because I'm just so pleased with
> everything I just wrote here that I'm envisioning the responses: "wow,
> you'll have no
> trouble with unschooling," and "what was that book again?" Probably not,
> huh?
> But it is exciting for me as I'm integrating these ideas into how I interact
>
> with the world, and I'm very interested in feedback and yes, criticism.
>
> I'm pressing send now. Bring it on. <g>
>
> Peace,
> Amy
>


Hi Amy, guess what my name is? *grin*

I've read Quinn's books as well, and I LOVE THEM. If I believed in required
reading, they would be on everyone's shelves, as a wake up call to the way we
are living.

I'm interested in others' responses.

~Aimee in IL


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]