Advanced education and training
Our “wisdom” about modern education has brought about only two things to date, and they too have now become inferior to the last and the highest level. In each discourse on education, these two things appear in uniform and are said to be just like proverbs. One is that the curriculum should change because the whole problem is curriculum. This is the logo of a modern education reform project.
Secondly, we have education but no training and this is the expression of our total critical awareness of modern education. Simply by saying these two things, we lose our responsibility in modern education. If it is argued that curriculum is a less important part of modern education, then things get worse. Or if it is said that training refers to “training” or “meditation process” then the matter is over. In our educational context, modern educational thought and its theoretical aspects are considered extremely inappropriate, while these are the same ideas on which the entire modern education system is built.
The word “training” has caused a great deal of confusion to us and greatly reduces the sophistication of the modern training process. The reason is that we have never seen a difference in the organizational process of modern education and the moral and social process of traditional education. In the modern organizational process, “training” means “training” and is a means of creating discipline in children or individuals.
Whereas training in traditional education was a formal process, which included “literature”. “Literature” here does not mean literature, because “literature” was a process of teaching “manners” to a child, which involved “discipline,” and the teacher was central to the whole process as a teacher. Traditional educational training included both teaching and “literature”.
But the focus of the whole process was the teacher. The “meditation process” was the process of developing a child’s mental and psychological abilities, while literature was a process of civilization of the child’s discourse and behavior, often involving “rigor” or “punishment.” This “harshness” or “punishment” was meaningful only and only in a cultural relationship that was the primary meaning of both the teacher and the disciple. After the end of the relationship, it is merely a “torture”.
In traditional education, the teacher was a practitioner, responsible for developing the child’s moral consciousness, demeanor and civilization. In contrast to training, the purpose of traditional training has been to protect the child’s moral self and to develop a sense of piety, enabling the moral independence of the child. While modern organizational training makes the individual’s moral self unimportant and limits his or her total personality to mechanical behavior of discipline.
Modern education is the new embodiment of this whole process. The modern education teacher is simply a “facilitator” as a part of the system and “training” here means “training”. Modern education is organized organically, and the modern organization is structured on the principle of power and production. Training is of paramount importance in a modern organization.
The purpose of “training” is not to be moral, but to be effective. Training creates a mechanical change in the behavior of the human being on the principles of modern discipline. Modern discipline does not involve morality, rather it is exercised with authority, and subject to economic and monetary penalties. The purpose of the training is to eliminate the moral autonomy and individuality of a human being and mold it into a robotic template.
The authority and its entities in the organization replace the code of conduct, and “training” transmits the active center of human action from entry to exit. Without training authority, constant supervision and financial punishment, it makes no sense. The purpose of training is not to create a man of moral consciousness, but to create a working human being. This is the organization that is the foundation of modern society and the state, which is not only universal, but it seems that these terms are now entrenched in the entity.
In the “trained” man the detention center is out of his mind, which necessitates constant surveillance and espionage. Continuous surveillance, reporting and espionage are key sources of authority and management throughout the entire organizational process. Whereas in morality, the focus of action and restraint is on the inside of the human being, which is meaningful in the Holy. The moral self of man is the center of the eternal presence of the Creator and the source of human action. Infinity is present in moral attitudes and moral actions.
The modern organization is a paradigm of authority that universalizes the “presence” of power and cannot be erected without permanent guardianship. Without every watchful eye, outfit is impossible, and now it becomes a camera and covers every aspect of our lives. The “trained” human being is guided by the same eye of power, while the “trained” man is guided by morality in the presence of his infinity.
The topic of punishment is very interesting in modern education. Uncheck does not support punishment, but it may be something to talk about. The corporate institutions of modern education have changed the whole educational paradigm, and over time the corporate and capitalist aspects of modern education have completely vanished. Talking about the relationship between teacher and student in this environment has become a joke and a joke because institutions have completed the teacher’s test. Now the child and his parents belong to the institution and if the teacher is in any degree then he too goes.
Now the educational institution has also legislated against punishment and its purpose is to end the moral evil. In this corporate context, eliminating the relationship between teacher and student is not a moral evil, but an important social development. Now the modern educational institution and the student belong to the shopkeeper and the customer, and punishment in this economic relationship is truly a moral evil. Legal prohibition of punishment in educational institutions is also an indirect acknowledgment of the traditional educational process being completely changed and unmanaged.
After these requests it is not difficult to see that in our academic discourse, “training” is the same meaningless word as the syllabus. The world has shifted from place to place, but we have been overwhelmed, but we are in a state of denial and hostility. We cite curriculum and training, but do not explain why.
We are dissatisfied with our national education, and want to be clever about one of the two parts of the system, but consider its analysis as pointless. Then we are convinced of something we have dubbed “academic simplicity”. We do not realize that what we call simplicity is, in fact, the pinnacle of our national mind. We have declared our humility as a simple one and made it one of our “highest moral qualities.” And that is precisely the so-called moral virtue of which we have completed the burial of all kinds of sciences.