Question: Can questions related to the integral nature of society or news on current events serve as a topic for discussion in the courses on integral education for adults?
Answer: It all depends on the group of people and the degree of their preparation: to what extent their understanding has ripened, how well they have mastered the tools for analysis and synthesis of their knowledge and attitudes, and how objectively they can rise above themselves and distance themselves from their personal interests.
But generally, we should certainly explore such questions. We should “dissect” democracy openly before everyone and demonstrate what an absolutely egoistic structure it is, that it is nothing to be proud of. At one time, one king reigned, and everyone submitted to the will of a single person, regardless how foolish or smart and sensible, still just one. And now it is clawed apart by different parties that want to “gnaw” everyone else to death. This is not the kind of parliament that should exist. In other words, there are obviously many problems here.
At one time scientists and philosophers ruled people, or at the very least they were valued and served as advisors to the kings. A king had an army and money, all in one set of hands. But in order to control the treasury and the army, he had a few smart people. And it was much simpler and easier, there was no embezzlement, and mistakes were kept at a minimum. Everything was in a single set of hands, a king had nobody to rob—everything belonged to him. And for making certain decisions, he had a couple of smart advisors. That’s all. Small struggles behind the scenes still existed, of course, but only in minimal doses. That’s why everything was much more stable and survived for centuries, in contrast to today’s parliament.
All of our freedom today is just maximum freedom from responsibility. Overall, understanding freedom is a big problem.
From a “Talk on Integral Education” #5, 12/13/11