Friday, September 27, 2013

Day 435 Are you an automaton or are you here aware of the whole?

I remember correcting state writing tests for a school district of seventh graders. So, I sat at a table and corrected the writing of many seventh graders for a couple of days. The words passed by me all day.

Within this there were many forms placed on the paper by each child in this grade level. There was one group of essays that had a pattern, that pattern became obvious because it had more structure than the other papers. A teacher had really taken the time and practiced with the children a simple essay format: the opening statement and the supporting details. The body of the paper fleshing out each point in the opening paragraph. So, the opening paragraph was a perspective given.
Within this, it was easy to see which children could plug in a perspective and support and then flesh this out. There were degrees of difference within this spanning the whole gamut of the stages of development.
Usually, the papers that filled the structure with words I found cool because they completed the order. But when I compared them to what was being said within other papers where there was incomplete order as in building the from of the essay to completion was the perspectives given.
Some of the children built “ thin” statements but completed the template, meaning they had words to place in the form, but the perspective was not encompassing, meaning it did not engage me, it was a common perspective. There is nothing wrong with this, especially at this level because the child is learning to build within a proscribed form, so to take what is known and to use it is fine within learning a new form.
Some children stopped after the topic sentence, moving beyond this was difficult for them. And since this is a process, obviously these children need more support within getting beyond inhibition, getting beyond being overwhelmed with this task. 
Then there were children that could write a topic sentence that was an eye-opening perspective. So “ new “ to me I was astounded. Just reading that first line, the words was like a “ whole new world” so to speak. And often these children had a hard time fleshing this out. This varied by degree too. Some could not move beyond that first paragraph, some had very weak supporting paragraphs.
It was interesting that the papers that were given an ‘A” because they fulfilled the volume of a learned order as a form as the essay, often did not say anything new, even the information was following an established perspective. These papers were praised, not only for their completed form but for the perspective given. Had these children simply learned the perspective as well as the use of words and the conceptual ability to hold a form that orders? What was it about these children that gave perspective that was refreshing but not carried through placed into the structure. Is this that the child that had completed the paper had the time to practice their perspective and thus have easy feed back because the perspective was a norm? Had those children with perspectives that were like a window was being opened, not been allowed to flesh out their perspectives in real life, in ordinary talking, interacting life? Were they stagnant through dis-allowance of their very way of seeing the world in expression on a day to day basis. Had they ever been listened to, and thus practice building their perspective. Or, was their perspective not really heard because it was by degree an  encompassing insight that did not fit the proscription of the norm, and thus even teachers could not conceptually move and direct within this with ease, nor parents and thus the child had no practice, no follow through with their sight about the world?
If that “A” paper is of an accepted order, not good or bad, but conditioned, and all the adults follow this as a norm, and this becomes automated, like a metaphysical guidance system, would it not be difficult to recognize other perspectives? Because in essence what I am saying is that perceptually most of us follow a proscribed order, the one taught to such an extent that conceptually moving out of this is not a movement within us done with ease. A few can do this, but this few are very few, most of us are egotistical and want our perspective to be the only one, not realizing that there is value in our perspective but it is not the only way to see. Thus we are so busy doing this, or following the proscribed order just to get through the day, because we have some worry on our minds, that when a child comes with a new perspective, we cannot see it, because we are automated within a limited view, we are essentially stagnant, and this has become a habit. This in itself is a crime, because it is a state that does not see beyond limited prescription, and thus that child’s voice, that child’s eye opening perspective, is not listened to. Now, what does this eventually do to that child? Do they ever have the chance to build on their perspective? No. Would they become confused and withdrawn. Yes. Would they have ever practiced moving their perspective through to completion, have the practice to follow through. No. Would they become frustrated and withdrawn and eventually seek something to ease that expression that has not been allowed to be released in other ways? Would they by the time they get to middle school have developed habits of giving up? Just as those who follow the proscription develop habits of not seeing anything else other than that proscription that gets the “A” because it is the norm and touted enough and accepted enough within interaction that its practice is available? In both scenarios, we see where we become automated. Thus knowing we become automated, it is obvious that we stop using our conceptual ability, and this act is a crime against the development of ourselves and our children. It is unacceptable. And it means that each needs to make an effort to self realize our own levels of automation. And it also means that we have to be very careful of what we teach because what we teach will become automated to some degree, unless we realize we become this and remain aware of this as we face the world. A human living in automation is a human who has rejected conceptual ability, is a stagnant human, and as we can see with our children, an abuse to the very voice of that child and probably those with whom we have relationships with.
Now, there is this boy who I see walking up and down my street almost every day.  A good looking boy, had a job, must have been in his twenties. Quiet, polite. His hair was always in his eyes, his clothes put together. There was never conversation between us, except for the occasional greeting when my dog happened to run up to him.
This summer this boy died from an overdose. I had to ask myself what lead to this young man being responsible, and yet incommunicative with the general society choosing to basically commit suicide in taking drugs that I am sure he understood to cause himself harm. Was it that this boy never had the opportunity to really speak, to really express his perspective? Was his silence because he had spoken up for years as a child, to teachers and parents and society that moved as an automated limited perspective that never answered/responded/looked at what he was saying, his speaking really a gift as it was an inclusive perspective about life, yet because it did not match what is really extremely limited perspectives taught in a classroom where knowledge and information is imparted but never practically lived thus never substantiated thus this formation in itself not allowing any other perspective to be discovered because it is only presentation as idea? And if we become automated, we begin to believe that this is the only perspective, despite our full awareness , if we read the news, that this physical world is not taking care of this earth, thus our perspectives are limited and do not answer to this physical world, and that child, that boy, perhaps her had a perspective that was a piece of what was missing in our automated understanding, a perspective that would open up our conceptual understanding of this world, to such an extent that the abuse going on in this world would diminish simply by adding the perspective of this human, this man, this child, this expression of life, this piece of earth, this being that is here and thus a support for the whole, as in all actuality, creation would only form a structure as that which supports it. Thus, it is only the blueprint created by the human on top of physical reality that is the problem. It is limited and thus in its limitation destructive, and the self direction from this blueprint without the use of the common sense that built this blueprint in every breath, creates a destructive automaton that destroys through dis-allowance of the voice of ALL of our children.
And we wonder why there are so many behavioral problems in middle school. Perhaps it is simply that it is impossible for these children to fit into such a limited design.
Go and try to correct a large group of  seventh grade papers, and see if you move as judgement within an automated proscription or if you can manage to see the whole,  to see that something is seriously limiting expression within these children. Many of whom have a voice that is astounding, but not allowed practice and development just because it does not fit into a limited prescription.  Try and see/realize your own automation and thus lack of common sense use, this that enables a more inclusive conceptual ability, this being seeing the movement and the form, the process and the outcome, all while remaining aware of the movement and formation of the actual real physical world, in being able to perceptually move within different perspectives, not being afraid to leave the automation behind. Look to your own negative statements of reprimand and your automation self supporting statement of positive reinforcement, caught in this one is not seeing what is here for what it is but flowing a prescription of limited awareness, a detriment to our children, those who by their very voice, have no voice and thus choose what is given, a death of themselves simply because they do not fit a limited set of knowledge and information given without physical experience, the perfect medium to diminish life and only allow that which serves a lesser god of profit before life, this giving what supports life in abundance to a few instead of valuing all life as being the gift, as being what would be supportive of this physical world.
So, the question. Are you an automaton or are you life? If you really look at yourself, more than likely you will realize how much of an automaton you really are.
There are solutions to this at a very basic practical level, to get us away from being automatic as a response. This is changing the system to one that allows change within implementing what allows more perspective in this world and thus more consideration and thus more common sense, more conception that is equal to the without as the world in totality. This is a Living Income Guarantee. This ends the limited viewpoint that some are more than others, and would allow more perspective voice and thus more children the ability to practice their uniqueness, which in essence  are the real gifts, we need only accept them as they allow us, each of us to expand our conceptual ability in becoming equal and one to and as life, here on earth, this cutting edge of creation that is simply the joy of being. Anything else is a crime. That is common sense.

No comments:

Post a Comment