# What do free-market capitalism's advocates say about the importance of education? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 22, 2009, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315 "2009-08-22T15:44:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/61 "2009-09-03T06:46:38Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > The problem is that it is bullshit that doesn’t mean anything. It’s poetic bullshit. But bullshit nevertheless. You apparently don’t get it then. That’s not a very nice thing to say about gnani yoga. > [@](#): > > What is it actually trying to say? That all life is interconnected no matter how simple or complex? And what does it have to do with yoga? Or this thread for that matter? It is trying to make a wider point about economics, for starters. I thought you’d get it. What does it have to do with yoga? You’re probably thinking of hatha yoga, posture yoga. This isn’t that. This thread? It’s higher education,we’re finding out what you think about it, that’s what. > [@](#): > > It’s not enough to say “yoga will make you stronger, healthier and thus it will improve your lifestyle”? People need to feel that it will put them in touch with the universe? I’m convinced you’re thinking of Hatha Yoga. I’m not expecting you to swallow all of this as your personal beliefs. OTOH, I don’t think you’re at all prepared to debunk Yogi Ramacharaka. If you really can it will be a credit to your perspective, and I wait to hear it. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/62 "2009-09-03T06:53:56Z")
Now I’m beginning to think this is some kind of faux-new age whoosh. T2BC: Have you heard the good word of Bob Dobbs? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/63 "2009-09-03T14:18:02Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > This thread? It’s higher education,we’re finding out what you think about it, that’s what. If that is “higher education” it is of the variety that is used to identify oneself as an overprivileged member of societies class of socioeconomic “elites”. People who are either naive or affluent enough that they don’t need to study something “practical” (or anything at all really if they don’t want to). IOW it is an education whose purpose is not to prepare someone for a career or to give them the tools to benefit themselves or other people. It’s purpose is to provide a pedigre while allowing enough free time to pursue a lifestyle of suitable leisure. Not having the benefit of extraordinarily wealthy parents, I unfortunately had to resign myself to more bourgeoisie studies like engineering and business. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2009, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/64 "2009-09-05T07:44:31Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > What is it actually trying to say? That all life is interconnected no matter how simple or complex? And what does it have to do with yoga? I guess you’re on the right track. Here’s from page 29: > [@](#): > > Speaking generally, we would say to you that the emanation of the Absolute is in the form of a grand manifestation of One Universal Life, in which the various apparent separate forms of Life are but centers of Energy or Consciousness, the separation being more apparent than real, there being a bond of unity and connection underlying all the apparently separated forms. Unless the student gets this idea firmly fixed in his mind and consciousness, he will find it difficult to grasp the higher truths of the Yogi Philosophy. That all Life is One, at the last,–that all forms of manifestation of Life are in harmonious Unity, underlying–is one of the great basic truths of the Yogi Teaching, and all the students of that philosophy must make this basic truth their own before they may progress further. This grasping of the truth is more than a mere matter of intellectual conception, for the intellect reports that all forms of Life are separate and distinct from each other, and that there can be no unity amidst such diversity. But from the higher parts of the mind comes the message of an underlying Unity, in spite of all apparent diversity, and if one will meditate upon this idea he will soon begin to realize the truth, and will _feel_ that he, himself, is but a center of consciousness in a great ocean of Life–that he and all other centers are connected by countless spiritual and mental filaments–and that all emerge from the One. He will find that the illusion of separateness is but “a working fiction of the Universe,” as one writer has so aptly described it–and that All is One, at the last, and underlying all is One. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2009, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/65 "2009-09-05T17:31:29Z")
I’m sorry, but just what is it about that paragraph that you think is so insightful? We are one with all life? I think Mike Myers used that one in his last comedy. That’s the kind of thing you’d see on the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s bumper sticker. Right next to the one that says, “I nailed Mia Farrow.” Besides, it’s utter nonsense. We are no more connected to flatworms than we are to rocks. You never did answer my devastating criticism about the last paragraph you posted. He built the whole theme of that passage out of the idea that evolution is a process of moving into higher forms of being. Evolution does no such thing. Therefore, not only does his entire thesis collapse, but building it on that ‘fact’ indicates that the man is shockingly ignorant of the science he’s trying to co-opt into his philosophy. The stuff you have been posting is exactly what I find wrong with modern education. The banal and trite is elevated to the status of educational enlightenment. It’s kind of like when people quote Deepak Chopra then look smug like they’ve revealed themselves as intellectual powerhouses, when in fact all they’ve shown is that if you wrap bullshit up in the right kind of language, they’ll happily swallow it. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2009, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/66 "2009-09-06T20:09:02Z")
I haven’t had time to reply this week. Let me go back and respond to what I’ve missed and see if this starts to make more sense. I originally posted the link to gnani yoga in response to this: > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > When colleges are full of people with at best average intellects, and grade devaluation and egalitarianism demands that all their precious opinions are equally valuable, all you’re doing is elevating bullshit to high art. I sat through a graduate level course once called “The philosophy of space and time”. I was studying physics, so I thought it would useful to get a philosophical viewpoint. My god, what a load of tripe it was. The professor knew just enough physics to be dangerous, and the students were mostly morons. Again, this was a graduate level course, not some freshman intro class. I expected the material to be covered in some depth. > > Here is an actual exchange from that course. I remember it perfectly, because I repeated it over and over again to my physics buddies over beers. > > Professor: “Some theories tell us that time is a dimension like the others. So right now, you exist as an old man, just in a different place from where you are now. And you exist as a child in the opposite direction!” > > Student: “I see! That would explain why we still have childlike qualities!” > > \ > > I highly value education. I do not value the education factories and indoctrination centers that many modern college are becoming. I deplore the fact that we’ve convinced ourselves that doing four years of time studying watered-down Peruvian toenail clipping somehow makes you educated. Sam had a bad experience with a philosophy class and came away thinking that the subject is all about professors indulging total amateurs in an attempt to move them along. To this day I guess he thinks the whole field is the equivalent of the study of Peruvian toenail clippings! The next day my bookstore friend was talking about gnani yoga, and reading a few pages into it I brought me to Yogi Ramacharaka’s treatment of the philosophy of space and time. On time: > [@](#): > > And, the Intellect experiences a similar difficulty when it tries to think of an Eternal–a That which is above and outside of Time. We see Time in operation everywhere, and take it for granted that Time is a reality–an actual thing. But this is a mistake of the senses. There is no such thing as Time, in reality. Time exists solely in our minds. It is merely a form of perception by which we express our consciousness of the Change in Things. > > We cannot think of Time except in connection with a succession of changes of things in our consciousness–either things of the outer world, or the passing of thought-things through our mind. A day is merely the consciousness of the passing of the sun–an hour or minute merely the subdivision of the day, or else the consciousness of the movement of the hands of the clock–merely the consciousness of the movement of Things–the symbols of changes in Things. In a world without changes in Things, there would be no such thing as Time. Time is but a mental invention. Such is the report of the Intellect. And, besides the conclusions of pure abstract reasoning about Time, we may see many instances of the relativity of Time in our everyday experiences. We all know that when we are interested Time seems to pass rapidly, and when we are bored it drags along in a shameful manner. We know that when we are happy, Time develops the speed of a meteor, while when we are unhappy it crawls like a tortoise. When we are interested or happy our attention is largely diverted from the changes occurring in things–because we do not notice the Things so closely. And while we are miserable or bored, we notice the details in Things, and their changes, until the length of time seems interminable. A tiny insect mite may, and does, live a lifetime of birth, growth, marriage, reproduction, old age, and death, in a few minutes, and no doubt its life seems as full as does that of the elephant with his hundred years. Why? _Because so many things haze happened!_ When we are conscious of many things happening, we get the impression and sensation of the length of time. The greater the consciousness of things, the greater the sensation of Time. When we are so interested in talking to a loved one that we forget all that is occurring about us, then the hours fly by unheeded, while the same hours seem like days to one in the same place who is not interested or occupied with some task. > > Men have nodded, and in the second before awakening they have dreamed of events that seemed to have required the passage of years. Many of you have had experiences of this kind, and many such cases have been recorded by science. On the other hand, one may fall asleep and remain unconscious, but without dreams, for hours, and upon awakening will insist that he has merely nodded. Time belongs to the relative mind, and has no place in the Eternal or Absolute. On space: > [@](#): > > And, just as was the case with the idea of Time, we find it most difficult–if not indeed impossible–to form an idea of an Omnipresent–of That which occupies Infinite Space. This because everything that our minds have experienced has had dimensions and limits. The secret lies in the fact that Space, like Time, has no real existence outside of our perception of consciousness of the relative position of Things–material objects. We see this thing here, and that thing there. Between them is Nothingness. We take another object, say a yard-stick, and measure off this Nothingness between the two objects, and we call this measure of Nothingness by the term Distance. And yet we cannot have measured Nothingness–that is impossible. What have we really done? Simply this, determined how many lengths of yard-stick could be laid between the other two objects. > > We call this process measuring Space, but Space is Nothing, and we have merely determined the relative position of objects. To “measure Space” we must have three Things or objects, _i.e._, (l) The object from which we start the measure; (2) The object with which we measure; and (3) The object with which we end our measurement. We are unable to conceive of Infinite Space, because we lack the third object in the measuring process–the ending object. We may use ourselves as a starting point, and the mental yard-stick is always at hand, but where is the object at the other side of Infinity of Space by which the measurement may be ended? It is not there, and we cannot think of the end without it. > > Let us start with ourselves, and try to imagine a million million miles, and then multiply them by another million million miles, a million million times. What have we done? Simply extended our mental yard-stick a certain number of times to an imaginary point in the Nothingness that we call Space. So far so good, but the mind intuitively recognizes that beyond that imaginary point at the end of the last yard-stick, there is a capacity for an infinite extension of yard-sticks–an infinite capacity for such extension. Extension of what? Space? No! Yard-sticks! Objects! Things! Without material objects Space is unthinkable. It has no existence outside of our consciousness of Things. There is no such thing as Real Space. Space is merely an infinite capacity for extending objects. Space itself is merely a name for Nothingness. If you can form an idea of an object swept out of existence, and nothing to take its place, that Nothing would be called Space, the term implying the possibility of placing something there without displacing anything else. These are a few excerpts, he treats the whole subject in just a few pages starting on page 4. Why he is framing things in terms of the Eternal and the Absolute, well, you’d have to follow along for the first few pages before that. I just thought that since you’d had a curiosity about the subject in college and came away disappointed, you might appreciate a concise treatment of the subject by someone who is not stoned, not being paid to indulge amateurs, and is completely serious. I also thought you would find it interesting that it is a part of the foundation of this guy’s rational, structured philosophy. The point isn’t to sell you on the philosophy itself (though throughout this guy’s work it is step-by-step from one thing to the next, so be careful about latching onto an isolated section and declaring it bullshit unprepared) or turn you into a Hare Krishna or something. Only to point you to a serious treatment of the subject, in a context. That’s pretty much it! ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2009, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/67 "2009-09-06T20:13:29Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I read a few pages of your link. It did nothing but confirm my negative opinions. What I’m trying to get you to understand is that your opinions on this subject- which you could perceive is bigger than the remote subject of Hindu philosophy if you were properly educated- have no merit whatsoever as you are unprepared to defend those opinions. You haven’t debunked so much as a single phrase of this guy’s work, and I doubt you can. Your ‘opinions’ are pretty much a defense mechanism. > [@](#): > > For the record, I am not against a “liberal arts” education per se. I studied mostly liberal arts classes as my non-core electives when I was in engineering school and for a time I double majored in architecture. There is nothing wrong with studying subjects that interest you intellectually. I don’t, however, believe in studying bullshit or mysticism. I mean unless you are just looking to pad your GPA. I’m not talking about school. This isn’t something I recommend teaching in all the universities across the country. This is about what _you_ don’t understand. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/68 "2009-09-06T20:20:16Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > The problem is that it is bullshit that doesn’t mean anything. It’s poetic bullshit. But bullshit nevertheless. Obviously your idea of poetry amounts to [belle lettres](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belles-lettres): > [@](#): > > Literally, “belles lettres” is a French phrase meaning “beautiful” or “fine” writing. In this sense, therefore, it includes all literary works — especially fiction, poetry, drama, or essays — valued for their aesthetic qualities and originality of style and tone (usually with regard to the language used, but sometimes even in terms of the visual typography employed), rather than for their informative or moral content. If I’m wrong about you, maybe you can explain better what you mean. I agree there is a sort of poetic quality to the guy’s writing, but it takes the form of a rational step-by-step argument. An argument you call bullshit- again, without debunking so much as a single phrase! You must have a rather distended sense of pride to think you have the authority to make such judgments. > [@](#): > > It’s not enough to say “yoga will make you stronger, healthier and thus it will improve your lifestyle”? People need to feel that it will put them in touch with the universe? Again, you’re thinking of [Hatha Yoga](http://corepoweryoga.com/). Kind of like gym class or aerobics. Gnani yoga doesn’t deal with getting fit or striking any poses. It is a philosophical approach. Again, the point isn’t to get you to buy into it or go become a Hare Krishna, but to get some familiarity with these issues. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2009, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/69 "2009-09-06T20:34:08Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > For one thing, evolution is not a process of moving to higher states of being. There’s nothing in evolution that says the next generation will be ‘better’ than the last. > > That’s pretty much a fatal flaw in his entire ‘thesis’. He doesn’t say that the structures he’s referring to will necessarily be ‘better’, but that it is the process by which things _can_ arrive at a higher expression of being- as he conceives it. He allows them to go backwards as well. It’s about attempts at adaptation, obviously with a little bit more packed in there due to his yogi perspective. Don’t buy it? That’s fine. At least you tried to debunk one of his ideas directly, though I think you’ll have to do better than that. > [@](#): > > The problem with these guys is that they do not have rigor. Their ideas are presented as revealed wisdom, not as hypotheses to be tested in objective fashion. Maybe you can give examples of what you don’t see as ‘rigorous’. There is plenty of implicit rigor in this guy’s writing if you know how to perceive it. For instance, in just the first few pages he takes a hard stand on a number of classic, multiple choice type philosophical arguments. He draws the line between what can be known and not in a way that [Wittgenstein](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus) would be satisfied with, only arriving there without the tortuous p’s and q’s and x’s of his formal proof. Maybe you’d like him to go into that kind of explication- and I have a feeling Yogi Ramacharaka could hold up his end of that conversation- but he’s actually more clear and concise. Again, you don’t give a specific example so it is hard to respond more directly to you. > [@](#): > > And generally, what they are saying is so banal and trite that you could write a ‘Maharishi’ sayings generator that would fool a lot of people with semi-random gibberish. > > Here, let me try: > > As we use the computer, we become the computer. Our thoughts become digital, and the electrical impulses of our brains become amplified and mobile. We interact with each other; electron beings, freed from our own bodies, and they from theirs. Fellow travelers of the electronic ether. Electrons merge. Electrons that are manifestations of our inner selves as we release our thoughts through our hands and into the great maelstrom of community that is the internet. Interwoven threads of minds touch each other and fly apart - they seek each other out, and like minds cling together in a glorious burst of atomic energy. One by one, we find each other in the cloud. We form communities. We become the internet. It is our evolved, communal being, burst free from the boundaries of flesh and blood and combined into something greater than the sum of the parts. And before us the result: Goatse. Pretty much an ad hominem dodge. If you want to mock it that’s your business, but it is clear that you don’t understand the subject and would benefit from a clearer understanding of it. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/70 "2009-09-06T20:40:47Z")
Gah. You’re not helping your case. Clearly, we’re approaching this from two completely different mindsets. What exactly is the Maharishi’s expertise in physics that allows him to tell us definitively what space and time really are? And working words like ‘relativity’ into a discussion of time, when all he’s talking about is differences in the attention of the brain, strikes me as an attempt to sound all sciencey while not really knowing what he’s talking about. BTW, I didn’t have just one ‘bad experience’ in that course. The course came with a lot of reading requirements from the various philosophers who have studied space and time. Some of it was thoughtful and reasonable, but a lot of it was new-age nonsense, and it was all treated the same in the class. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/71 "2009-09-06T20:54:35Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > If that is “higher education” it is of the variety that is used to identify oneself as an overprivileged member of societies class of socioeconomic “elites”. People who are either naive or affluent enough that they don’t need to study something “practical” (or anything at all really if they don’t want to). If you’re talking about me, you’re wildly mistaken. I’m certainly no member of any overpriveledged elite. Haw, haw, haw. Affluent? Har de har har har!!! 😃 > [@](#): > > IOW it is an education whose purpose is not to prepare someone for a career or to give them the tools to benefit themselves or other people. It’s purpose is to provide a pedigre while allowing enough free time to pursue a lifestyle of suitable leisure. > > Not having the benefit of extraordinarily wealthy parents, I unfortunately had to resign myself to more bourgeoisie studies like engineering and business. Pedigree? Me??? ROTFL. The only thing special about me is that I quit watching television at a young age. Hardly unearned ‘leisure’. I didn’t have extraordinarily wealthy parents either. Quite the opposite In fact, I’ve had a job since I was 12. My academic performance was such that I was invited to attend schools like Yale, for example, but being from the family I am meant I had no choice but to attend pretty much the last school I wanted. I had a nice scholarship for that, and originally set out to study engineering myself. The school I attended didn’t offer the programs I wanted though, so I got a number of engineering minors and switched to pre law as a plan B. I learned about some formal logic and the history of philosophy from that. Being effectively though not formally bankrupt after college (even though I’d worked all through it, no help you see) I got to work, applied what I learned and am doing quite well now thanks. Nothing impractical about it you see. I think you have more to gain from this than Sam, msmith. There doesn’t seem to be anything to distinguish your ‘opinions’ from superstitions as they seem grounded on a shallow foundation which, even so, you seem unable to articulate or defend. I’m trying to help, that’s all. Go back to the metaphor of steam power running either a coarse motor or a delicate instrument. In the same context, let’s say it isn’t steam power, or the Absolute running through a structure, but rather money flowing through the structure of a business. It goes in, in goes out, and depending on if the business is well-designed or not it either grows or goes bankrupt, no? All pretty obvious. Comparing the structures of various businesses though, educated people are able to perceive things that the purely business educated seemingly are not. Compare a grocery store to a payday loans operation. Both are businesses, both turn a profit. The store however takes on the character of a public institution- there is a genuine two-way transaction there that benefits all parties involved. The payday loans operation OTOH has a structure like that of a colossal mosquito, ramming its proboscis into the wallets of vulnerable people and sucking them dry. To a business-minded person, the only consideration is whether or not a profit is being made, even if they become the guy at the center of a swarm of these social parasite establishments to the point that they resemble the goddamn Witch of the West with her troupe of thieving, flying monkeys. An educated person doesn’t follow profit to the point of sociopathy. I’d like you to figure this out before you acquire the kind of influence that allows you to really fuck things up. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/72 "2009-09-06T21:04:05Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Gah. You’re not helping your case. Clearly, we’re approaching this from two completely different mindsets. What exactly is the Maharishi’s expertise in physics that allows him to tell us definitively what space and time really are? The guy doesn’t seem to deny scientific discoveries-he cites plenty of experiments- though I wouldn’t be surprised if this was written decades ago. There are two mindsets here though, you’re right. Just check out the first 2-3 pages again. The physics he seems to latch onto the most are simple things like the conservation of energy- you know, e=mc^2, energy and matter are effectively equivalent, and energy is neither created nor destroyed. So, energy lasts forever, going both backwards and forwards in time. This is suggestive of deeper ideas to Yogi Ramachakara, which he walks through in a surprisingly not-long-winded way. He steps out of the field of physics at a certain point, describing what he sees as the bigger picture and which he’s defend as including physics. Again, the point isn’t to get you to adopt his view, but to be able to deal with what is actually a sophisticated philosophical work without embarrassing yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/73 "2009-09-06T21:16:21Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I’m sorry, but just what is it about that paragraph that you think is so insightful? We are one with all life? I think Mike Myers used that one in his last comedy. That’s the kind of thing you’d see on the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s bumper sticker. Right next to the one that says, “I nailed Mia Farrow.” He claims there is a single thing (The One or whatever) back of matter, energy, life, that includes and is the source of all of them. Kind of a unified theory of philosophy. He says why he thinks so in just the first couple of pages. > [@](#): > > Besides, it’s utter nonsense. We are no more connected to flatworms than we are to rocks. Why not? > [@](#): > > You never did answer my devastating criticism about the last paragraph you posted. He built the whole theme of that passage out of the idea that evolution is a process of moving into higher forms of being. Evolution does no such thing. Therefore, not only does his entire thesis collapse, but building it on that ‘fact’ indicates that the man is shockingly ignorant of the science he’s trying to co-opt into his philosophy. His point isn’t about higher forms of being per se, but a higher expression of the One Life, as he puts it. Again, go back to the beginning pages if you want to chop down the root of his point. Thing is though, you might be obliged to take a contrary position on one or many of these classic philosophical arguments, and would then be obliged to develop the logical structure that includes all those positions in a non-contradictory way. Good luck- I’ll read your argument in full when you’re done, I promise. > [@](#): > > The stuff you have been posting is exactly what I find wrong with modern education. The banal and trite is elevated to the status of educational enlightenment. It’s kind of like when people quote Deepak Chopra then look smug like they’ve revealed themselves as intellectual powerhouses, when in fact all they’ve shown is that if you wrap bullshit up in the right kind of language, they’ll happily swallow it. The point is to _not_ be susceptible to bullshit. We’re swimming in a sea of bullshit all the time in this country, and lots of people swallow it whole without realizing their own ignorance. Deepak Chopra? Never read him, but we’re probably better off studying math judging by what I know of his reputation. Maybe someone will come along and defend Mr. Chopra for us. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/74 "2009-09-06T21:19:27Z")
Okay, let’s be more specific: I said that often this writing is trite and banal. For example, his description of space as merely being the distance between objects is not a new or insightful observation. This was basically the position of Liebnitz, who first described this in the 17th century. But a real, deep understanding of space has to go far beyond this. For one thing, Einstein proved that space is non-Euclidian. There is interaction between space and mass and velocity. Space itself appears to have energy, called vacuum energy. It’s been measured. There’s much we don’t understand about the nature of space. To say that space and time only exist in our perceptions confuses perception with reality. The fact that a boring job seems to pass more slowly than one that’s interesting really says nothing at all about the nature of time. It’s a description of how our brains process information, and nothing more. That’s my biggest problem with people taking the philosophy of space and time too far. They are simplifying what is in fact an extremely complex subject, and then stating their simplifications as revealed wisdom. This is common in pop science, pop psychology, and pop philosophy. Complex issues are simplified to fit some elaborate model the pop philosopher has come up with. The smart ones make it seem to fit together very well. But in the end, they’re just bloviating. They have no expertise from which to draw their sweeping conclusions. Let me give you an example. Consider Erich Von Daniken’s ‘Worlds in Collision’. The book is an attempt to explain biblical and other historical claims through science. The parting of the red sea was the result of a gravitational interaction as a planet flew by. Manna from heaven was residue from a close approach by Venus. And so on. And it pulls together information from so many different specialties that no one reader can hope to know all of it. So a physicist would read it, and say “Of course, the physics in the book is idiotic. But I’m very impressed with Von Daniken’s knowledge of history. Maybe there’s something there.” Then a historian would read it and say, “Of course, the history is ridiculous. But I’m quite impressed by Von Daniken’s understanding of physics. Maybe there’s something there.” So they’d dismiss the book as a statement of fact, but conclude that regardless of the errors made, there are valuable insights to be found. And the people who know just a little physics, and just a little history, are often left thinking that the whole thing is brilliant. That’s how you baffle people with BS. Von Daniken’s flaw is that he’s dealing with subjects that he really doesn’t understand. For example, to make his theory work, he claimed that Venus’ atmosphere is full of carbohydrates (the ‘manna’). It appears that Von Daniken was a little fuzzy on the difference between carbohydrates and hydrocarbons. Likewise, he claimed that Venus was calved out of Jupiter - spit out through some undetermined process. Unfortunately, he wasn’t up to doing all that math stuff, and it turns out that any spitting out of Venus would require so much energy that the planet would basically be a glowing plasma or something, and certainly a lot hotter than it is today, even allowing for the cooling effect of thousands of years. Likewise with your Yogi. When he uses ‘the relativity of time’ to describe the fact that our peception of the passage of time is affected by the state of our brain, he’s either being careless with terms, or intentionally injecting a world like ‘relativity’ in a discussion of time to try to inject a patina of scientific respectability to his philosophy. At best, he should understand that a lay reader might read this and think, “oh, so THAT is what they mean by relativity! I get this Einstein stuff now.” Now, I’m not saying there aren’t useful insights in his work. Hell, even Tony Robbins makes a good point now and then. I just don’t think it’s the revealed wisdom of the ages, and I certainly don’t think that his descriptions of the nature of space and time come even close to the understanding of it that you can learn by studying math and physics. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/75 "2009-09-06T21:43:18Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Go back to the metaphor of steam power running either a coarse motor or a delicate instrument. In the same context, let’s say it isn’t steam power, or the Absolute running through a structure, but rather money flowing through the structure of a business. It goes in, in goes out, and depending on if the business is well-designed or not it either grows or goes bankrupt, no? All pretty obvious. And all pretty useless. Again, that is a trite observation, using a metaphor that may or may not even remotely fit the circumstances. I guess it sounds good, though. So it’s got that going for it. Tell, me - just what business decisions would you change, given the insight gleaned by the metaphor of steam running through an engine, that a less educated person might not get? And what if the metaphor of the business is more like electrons flowing through a pnp junction? Maybe if you reverse the business process, you can block your losses! Or maybe the takeaway is that driving business processes through metaphor is a really bad idea, and you’re better off applying actual understanding of the business and how it works. > [@](#): > > Comparing the structures of various businesses though, educated people are able to perceive things that the purely business educated seemingly are not. Compare a grocery store to a payday loans operation. Both are businesses, both turn a profit. The store however takes on the character of a public institution- there is a genuine two-way transaction there that benefits all parties involved. The payday loans operation OTOH has a structure like that of a colossal mosquito, ramming its proboscis into the wallets of vulnerable people and sucking them dry. Actually, this is a good example of how a little education, applied to an area of which you know nothing about, can allow you to convince yourself that you have deep insight that others lack, when in fact all you’ve done is justify your own biases. A more nuanced understanding of payday loans might lead you to conclude that they are simply a form of very high-risk loan, for which the lender must charge high interest rates in order to make a profit. There’s nothing intrinsically evil about them, and for some people, they are a godsend when sparingly used. Others over-use them and get themselves into trouble. But there’s nothing about the concept of payday loans that make them even remotely like the sucking proboscis of a mosquito, even if you did take an intro biology course. > [@](#): > > To a business-minded person, the only consideration is whether or not a profit is being made, even if they become the guy at the center of a swarm of these social parasite establishments to the point that they resemble the goddamn Witch of the West with her troupe of thieving, flying monkeys. You managed to add biology AND literature to your analogy. Truly you must have brilliant insight. Now if you could just manage to add some actual economics and math. > [@](#): > > An educated person doesn’t follow profit to the point of sociopathy. I’d like you to figure this out before you acquire the kind of influence that allows you to really fuck things up. So your hypothesis is that all educated people are opposed to payday loans? And that payday loans are profit to the point of sociopathy? Here, let me throw my own analogy out there: You’re treating the symptom, not the disease. There’s nothing wrong with payday loans, but there may be problems with the people who come to rely on them because they can’t control their impulses. Perhaps your mosquito analogy has caused you to focus on the wrong thing. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/76 "2009-09-06T23:18:28Z")
[QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive] If you’re talking about me, you’re wildly mistaken. I’m certainly no member of any overpriveledged elite. Haw, haw, haw. Affluent? Har de har har har!!! [/quote] I didn’t say you. I said it’s the type of nonsense stoners and kids from affluent families studied in elite colleges so they would have more time for ultimate frisbee. And they often end up going to law school once they can’t find meaningful work after graduation. [QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive] The point is to not be susceptible to bullshit. We’re swimming in a sea of bullshit all the time in this country, and lots of people swallow it whole without realizing their own ignorance. Deepak Chopra? Never read him, but we’re probably better off studying math judging by what I know of his reputation. [/QUOTE] I’m curious as to how any of the mumbo-jumbo you posted makes you any less suceptible to deception. If anything it is the language of deception (which, as someone who studied pre-law, you probably know). It requires no support or evidence. It’s purpose is to influence others towards a particular end using emotional appeals and colorful metaphores. For example: > [@](#): > > The payday loans operation OTOH has a structure like that of a colossal mosquito, ramming its proboscis into the wallets of vulnerable people and sucking them dry. Well…it doesn’t really represent a mosquito, does it? I mean aside from the obvious physical inconsistancies, a payday loans operation doesn’t ram anything into anyone. People decide to use their services of their own free will and they do so because they lack the analytical understanding to realize it’s not a good deal. Your metaphore is simply a nice (if biased) way to present that message. And clearly there is a demand for bullshit artists in modern society - media, advertising, sales, marketing, PR, law and so on. The problem is that unsustainable bullshit will not sustain itself indefinitely. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/77 "2009-09-09T06:02:22Z")
Sam Stone said: > [@](#): > > I said that often this writing is trite and banal. For example, his description of space as merely being the distance between objects is not a new or insightful observation. This was basically the position of Liebnitz, who first described this in the 17th century. But a real, deep understanding of space has to go far beyond this. YR is talking about infinite space, and the mind’s inability to comprehend it. On the one hand science suggests an infinite universe. OTOH, this reality confounds our conception of distance, and there is really nothing satifactory to replace it in this instance. I don’t know if that is ‘new’ or ‘insightful’- I don’t think novelty is the criteria though. I thought the criteria was ‘debunkable’ or ‘not-debunkable’. Sam Stone said: > [@](#): > > For one thing, Einstein proved that space is non-Euclidian. There is interaction between space and mass and velocity. Space itself appears to have energy, called vacuum energy. It’s been measured. I’m glad you brought that up. Let me know if you don’t think this is a satisfactory rebuttal, but that seems to confirm YR’s yogi teachings: > [@](#): > > And, likewise, the same reason informs us that this One Life must permeate all apparent forms of life, and that all apparent material forms, forces, energies, and principles must be emanations from that One, and, consequently “of” it. YR says elsewhere there is no ‘nothing’ or inert matter. There are philosophical problems with the existence of a ‘nothing space’ anyway. So, thanks to Einstein, ‘space’ isn’t inert either, but can be associated with it’s own vacuum energy, and so, having energy, can be reduced to a form of matter. How do you like the name ‘ether’? Point is, you seem to be on the same side as YR on this point. Maybe you’re fighting me and confusing us? Sam Stone said: > [@](#): > > There’s much we don’t understand about the nature of space. Yah probably. Sam Stone said: > [@](#): > > To say that space and time only exist in our perceptions confuses perception with reality. You’re going back to the root of gnani yoga. It’s on page 1. YR says: > [@](#): > > Let us begin by a consideration of what has been called the “Questions of Questions” – the question: “What is Reality?” To understand the question we have but to take a look around us and view the visible world. We see great masses of something that science has called “matter.” We see in operation a wonderful something called “force” or “energy” in its countless forms of manifestations. We see things that we call “forms of life,” varying in manifestation from the tiny speck of slime that we call the Moneron, up to that form that we call Man. YR doesn’t want to confuse anything with reality. I don’t think he is saying that time and space exist only in our perceptions, but that our perceptions cannot perceive their ultimate realities. Sam Stone said: > [@](#): > > The fact that a boring job seems to pass more slowly than one that’s interesting really says nothing at all about the nature of time. It’s a description of how our brains process information, and nothing more. Sure it does. The perceived duration of passed time is relative to the perceiving mind involved. Sam Stone said: > [@](#): > > That’s my biggest problem with people taking the philosophy of space and time too far. They are simplifying what is in fact an extremely complex subject, and then stating their simplifications as revealed wisdom. I don’t thing YR is doing that. And I don’t think gnani yoga presents itself as ‘revealed wisdom’. You aren’t asked to believe anything unquestioningly. It is all supposed to make sense, once you understand it. Of course if it is debunkable it might not make sense, or maybe it will ‘make sense’ but not be true… you know what I mean. Sam Stone said: > [@](#): > > This is common in pop science, pop psychology, and pop philosophy. Complex issues are simplified to fit some elaborate model the pop philosopher has come up with. The smart ones make it seem to fit together very well. But in the end, they’re just bloviating. They have no expertise from which to draw their sweeping conclusions. But that is kind of a sweeping conclusion, no? We’re talking about YR, and you’ve created this strawman category of ‘pop ----’. Cut it out. He could be wrong, but his expertise is evident. Sam Stone said: > [@](#): > > Let me give you an example. Consider Erich Von Daniken’s ‘Worlds in Collision’. The book is an attempt to explain biblical and other historical claims through science. The parting of the red sea was the result of a gravitational interaction as a planet flew by. Manna from heaven was residue from a close approach by Venus. And so on. And it pulls together information from so many different specialties that no one reader can hope to know all of it. So a physicist would read it, and say “Of course, the physics in the book is idiotic. But I’m very impressed with Von Daniken’s knowledge of history. Maybe there’s something there.” Then a historian would read it and say, “Of course, the history is ridiculous. But I’m quite impressed by Von Daniken’s understanding of physics. Maybe there’s something there.” So they’d dismiss the book as a statement of fact, but conclude that regardless of the errors made, there are valuable insights to be found. And the people who know just a little physics, and just a little history, are often left thinking that the whole thing is brilliant. That’s how you baffle people with BS. So this guy talked some bullshit. Who cares? Don’t confuse either this guy, or me, with YR. Sam Stone wrote: > [@](#): > > Von Daniken’s flaw is that he’s dealing with subjects that he really doesn’t understand. For example, to make his theory work, he claimed that Venus’ atmosphere is full of carbohydrates (the ‘manna’). It appears that Von Daniken was a little fuzzy on the difference between carbohydrates and hydrocarbons. Likewise, he claimed that Venus was calved out of Jupiter - spit out through some undetermined process. Unfortunately, he wasn’t up to doing all that math stuff, and it turns out that any spitting out of Venus would require so much energy that the planet would basically be a glowing plasma or something, and certainly a lot hotter than it is today, even allowing for the cooling effect of thousands of years. > > Likewise with your Yogi. When he uses ‘the relativity of time’ to describe the fact that our peception of the passage of time is affected by the state of our brain, he’s either being careless with terms, or intentionally injecting a world like ‘relativity’ in a discussion of time to try to inject a patina of scientific respectability to his philosophy. Are you seriously making an analogy between Van Daniken and YR? Forget Van Daniken and debunk YR’s writing already. I already told you to cut out the strawman thing. YR’s use of the word ‘relative’ seems justifiable- you’d need some definitive proof that YR’s intent is to deceive (inject a patina of scientific respectability) to salvage this point. Sam Stone wrote: > [@](#): > > At best, he should understand that a lay reader might read this and think, “oh, so THAT is what they mean by relativity! I get this Einstein stuff now.” Gnani yoga isn’t targeted at your ‘lay reader’. He said what he meant, you’re putting words in his mouth. You won’t hurt my feelings if you can debunk YR. I do kind of prefer that you hurry up and get to it though. Sam Stone said: > [@](#): > > Now, I’m not saying there aren’t useful insights in his work. Hell, even Tony Robbins makes a good point now and then. What good point did Tony Robbins make? Can you post a cite? I thought we were talking about YR. If you’re going to compare the two, why don’t you make a more specific, substantial comparison? Sam Stone said: > [@](#): > > I just don’t think it’s the revealed wisdom of the ages, and I certainly don’t think that his descriptions of the nature of space and time come even close to the understanding of it that you can learn by studying math and physics. It isn’t ‘revealed wisdom’. That is what the Bible is supposed to be, and you’re supposed to believe that through faith. As I said, gnani yoga is supposed to make sense to people who understand it, without any ‘leaps of faith’ at all. I don’t think any accurate piece of math or physics is excluded from YR’s view, so again you’re aiming at a false target. That’s my take anyway. If YR is wrong and you can debunk him, that’s great, let’s see it already. Your opinions I suppose answer the op, so it’s a win-win question on my part, no? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/78 "2009-09-14T20:00:40Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think you may be conflating what is the “most efficient” with what is the “best” for society. A free market will be extremely efficient in getting things made and into the hands of the people who want them. Period. Whether or not those things are good for society in some social sense is another matter. If you replaced the words “people who want them” with the wrods “people with the ability and desire to pay for them” ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/79 "2009-09-14T20:10:04Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > 1. I am allowed to keep my own money. > > 2. I make my own decisions with that money, by entering into voluntary agreements with other parties. > > 3. I accept the consequences of those decisions. > That’s about it. If you get to keep your money then who pays for the courts that enforce your voluntary agreements? I mean without court won’t your agreements become a bit too voluntary? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315/80 "2009-09-14T20:17:48Z")
> [@Sandwich](#): > > Most people do not treat economic theories like they treat religion (thank god). Have you been in a coma for the last 30 years? Maybe not most but I can identify a few people on this board and a pretty good chunk of one of this country’s political parties (at least until it becomes inconvenient for them). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-free-market-capitalisms-advocates-say-about-the-importance-of-education/507315.md?page=5)