A Stepping Stone?

April 26, 2018 General Insights No Comments

If you want that a child learns to count to 10, you can start teaching it to count from 1 to 2.

Well done.

However, if the child is at the same time being led to believe that there is absolutely nothing after the 2, really nothing at all, because 2 is simply ‘the best of the best’, then the child will have the biggest trouble to get past the number 2, let’s say, on its way to number 3.

Good…

However, if you at the same time … you will run into the same problem again with 4.

And then we might arrive at 5, with quite a lot of effort.

And just maybe … we come to 6 … somewhere at the age of retirement … and …

And well. Actually we did not even want to teach the child to count to 10. We just wanted the child learning to count

… to infinity.

One often hears/reads: people need a ‘stepping stone’, on the way to deeper understanding. That ‘stepping stone’ is a belief in some kind of New-Age-y idea (or just really very Old-Age-y, does it matter?), something that pulls them out of the purely materialistic idea in which they might already have been a child for 30 or 40 years, on their way to insight in their own deeper possibilities.

That is possible.

But what I usually notice then is that people – as with our count above – just get stuck: at 2, at 3, at 4, … and then back to 2 or even to 1 …

All things considered I personally think that ‘stepping stones’ are not recommendable,

unless they are handed down in very great openness. But of course: then it would not be stepping stones anymore. Then it would be just the whole open thing from the start.

So show 1 and 2 and immediately show, even in advance, that it does not stop at 2, it always goes further.

By the way: also the 0 is important.

The 0 is very special. It is a starting point and an end. And you don’t have to do anything at all, for that 0. It goes entirely ‘spontaneously’ 😊.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Parallel Distributed Processing

In the mental sphere, Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP) is nature’s way to reach ever more complexity. It’s also the title of a phenomenal book (edited) by Rumelhart & McClelland, published in 1986 — my mind-opener a few years later. Much AURELIS-thinking started then. Subconceptual In PDP, the basic units of mental processing are not the Read the full article…

Hooray it Works!

It seems like the basis of this culture. Not so much the phrase in itself but rather the direct stop at its end. It is a culture of minimal effort. If ‘it works’ … what more do you want? It is also a culture of ‘many’. Many things. Something works and off you go to Read the full article…

Why Full Teacups Are Not Big Fans of ‘Empty’ Teacups

‘Emptiness’ is a screen on which much can be projected. HA! Of course lots of things are emerging from ’emptiness’. Things of which you may search for some ‘conceptual cause” which cannot be found in that ’emptiness’, because there is simply no ‘conceptual cause’ present in it. That is just what ’emptiness’ means: ’empty’ of Read the full article…

Translate »