I mean educational institutions, particularly on the elementary and secondary levels. I feel that the structure and content of universities is a step up, particularly in some universities, but still does not fulfill what I feel is a potential for humanity to be able to create their own way of being. My major issues (with elementary and secondary schools) are with both the content, which is severly deficient in regards to teaching the young how society’s institutions function, about the development of history, and preparing them socially in such a way that they can teach themselves as well as opening the institutions in such a way that they become a resource for students to create their own way of life.
I find most of the institutions of society unfulfilling, so I will limit my examples and their descriptions. I also find corporate institutions unfulfilling as lived experienced, for reasons that I hope would seem obvious, but foremost because workers are removed from the product of their labour. (I do not currently work at or for a corporation.)
I find entertainment institutions unfulfilling, mainly because they train us to become spectators of life, and there is a dearth of potential for participation and creation.
I find institutions in general to be unfulfilling because of conventional norms which have to be fulfilled, which includes things like ritualistic behaviour and uniforms.
I am not concerned with seeing that these institutions be demolished, I have no such aspirations, but to initiate a way of life which supercedes them I would find rewarding. Introducing a novel form of a commons would be a step in that direction. I do not think it should be obligatory (nor restricted) to engage in capital accumulation. I also believe that it is possible for people to be conscious of their habits and relationship with the planet so as to enrich the environment we live in.
Excuse me if I seem to be slow here. Perhaps I will end up getting more from the conversation than you, but if you would take the time to clarify some of this I would appreciate it. I understood your previous post where you said that history would in essence end if a global culture was acheived in which no other culture could arise which was not global.
What I don’t understand here is what you mean when you say history is a kind of development. What kind of development are you talking about?
It seems that you imply that the role we play as historical beings is unimportant, and I’m not sure why. To clarify what I mean when I say “our role”, I mean that the choices that we make and our actions contribute towards the development of society, either because we enter institutional roles and act as instruments to fulfill the institution’s purpose (or not fulfill it, I suppose, depending on the quality of the work we do), “our role” is also important in regards to our interactions with others, the ideas we express to them, what we make them think and feel, the influence we come to have in their life, and so perhaps the influence over their actions which in turn contribute to developing society… Does that clarify what I mean by role a little? My teachers ( to take an example) played a role by standing before the class, exhibiting a certain demeanor, extolling the curriculum (or taking the consequences of failing to do so), and so forth, this influenced in turn things that I thought and felt and learned, what I thought was possible.
I don’t think that idea of a role is by any means a simple thought, and I am sure I haven’t done it justice in the above, but I hope I’ve at least gotten across what I mean when I am asserting that individuals play a role in the development of history. Probably the most significant thing I’ve left out is any consideration of free will. Connected with considerations of free will and determinism, but in a broader sense with human nature, would be what our natural inclinations would lead us to accept. Admittedly these last considerations aren’t something I’ve worked out. I tend to incline towards thinking that the universe is mainly determined, and that human nature, as well as natural necessity is out of step with my own desires or “vision”, yet I do not think I will abandon them for that reason. I suppose that’s why I reacted against Fukuyama’s “crackpot” and Lampert’s “ridicule”, not because I feel I am undeserving, but for the opposite reason entirely, that I feel I’ve embarked on an utterly Quixotic endeavour that I can’t seem to bring myself to let go of.