PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: After the death of the physical body is the continuing conscious essence still a human being?
TINNY: The term human being refers to a particular combination of physical body and conscious mind. Once these characteristics are transcended the new being is at a different stage of development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the name of the beings which envolve beyond the human level?
TINNY: It is a particular trait of human language to name things. This may not be appropriate at higher levels of conscious development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even so, it still may be useful while we remain at the human level to name these higher beings.
TINNY: I'm sure someone will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But not you?
TINNY: No, I won't be the one to name this higher level of conscious development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Getting back to the concept of reincarnation, would you explain why you say you don't believe in the most common meaning of the word, which is, that after physical death the soul passes into another earthly physical body.
TINNY: When I say I don't believe in that concept of reincarnation I am not saying definitely that the concept is wrong, only that it is of much lower probability than the understanding of reincarnation which I described.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I always realise that. I know you remain open to the truth of all possibilities, but speak and act as if the truth of highest probability is real truth.
TINNY: I think it's important to maintain that open mind, but to remain open must not become an uncritical acceptance.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Absolutely.
TINNY: In answer to your question, my reasons for not accepting that traditional understanding of reincarnation are two. First, it does not follow from the general process of developmental progression called envolution; and second, there is no substantial evidence to support that particular understanding of reincarnation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain each of those reasons in some detail?
TINNY: First then, about not following from the process of envolution. One of the most basic characteristics of the process of envolution is that each level and each stage within any level builds upon the previous level as a base from which to reach further heights of developmental progression. The cycles are not repeated steps but are progressive steps. The steps do not travel in a circle but are moving along an upwardly spiraling pathway.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Couldn't it be said that the repeated bodies the spiritual essence are believed to inhabit are progressive steps which must be taken until consciousness has reached a point of enlightenment that allows the cycle to be broken and the physical existence transcended?
TINNY: That is often a part of the traditional belief about reincarnation. I would even have to agree that it sounds quite plausible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then why do you say that it is wrong?
TINNY: I don't say it is wrong, only that it is much less likely true than the alternative view which I presented.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Your argument so far hasn't been persuasive.
TINNY: I see that myself. I'll try to explain further. If the traditional understanding of reincarnation were correct it would mean that at any moment there would be many non-material conscious beings who had already inhabited physical bodies, or souls, awaiting the creation of new physical bodies so they could re-enter and live a material life hoping to make sufficient progression in the next physical body to break from the cycle requiring material existence and exist eternally in a higher realm.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't that more or less what some religions claim to be the case?
TINNY: A number of religions hold that belief in one way or another.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying they are wrong?
TINNY: I acknowledge that claim as one of the possibilities. I say, though, that it is of lower probability than the alternative I have proposed. I think the evidence indicates it is much more likely that each soul which God links to a newly created physical body is a new soul. This view is most consistent with the overall evidence provided in the unified theory of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain how the traditional theory of reincarnation is in conflict with the unified theory of existence?
TINNY: I'll just give a few significant examples. According to the unified theory of existence the sole purpose of the physical universe is to bring into existence conscious beings capable of attaining perfection in every aspect. The purpose is not to create mechanistic physical shells to be inhabited by already developed beings of non-material consciousness. If this were the purpose of the physical universe the natural order of physical progression would not be likely to require the many billion year long continuous development of matter until human form was reached. Perfected being would simply create a physical existence at the level needed to meet the needs of these waiting beings of non-material consciousness. There is a harmonious logic and pattern to the physical universe and all forms of material existence. Any belief that does not fit comfortably into this natural order must be considered suspect. It appears so much more likely that as each new human being is conceived that a unique new conscious being is brought into existence having the potential to attain perfection in every aspect by the expression of their own free-will. The promise is not that every human being upon physical death will be granted godlike existence; the promise is that each human being who comes into existence has the potential to achieve that exalted state. Some human beings will fail to reach that highest goal just as innumerable less developed material forms have failed in their quest for perfection during the maturation of the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Your further argument is more persuasive, but I'm still not convinced.
TINNY: Nor should you be. Do you agree, though, that the traditional belief in reincarnation is of lower probability than the view that says new conscious beings arise from each human life conceived and are not a repetition of old consciousness in new bodies?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can certainly agree to that. The new view is definitely of higher probability than the old beliefs about reincarnation. I would maintain the right to change my assessment of the likelihood of one over the other when more is known about the true nature of our existence.
TINNY: That is how truth must always be approached.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any proof to substantiate the traditional beliefs about reincarnation?
TINNY: That's not an easy question to answer. It is claimed there is proof. There are two problems with the evidence held up as proof that one spiritual being can inhabit a succession of human bodies. The first problem is whether or not the evidence is true; and second whether or not the evidence, if true, has been correctly interpreted.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is this proof?
TINNY: There has been quite a number of people who have reported being able to recall past lives.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And you don't know whether or not this is true.
TINNY: There is always a difficulty with subjective evidence. It is hard to verify.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it just the word of these people who say they recall past lives or is there any more to the claims than that?
TINNY: There sometimes seems to be knowledge or abilities which were not available to the present person but could be attributed to past lives.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think these people who claim to recall past lives are lying or using tricks?
TINNY: Probably some are. Others appear to at least be genuine in their beliefs. I remain open to the possibility that some people have had experiences where they have been in contact with the non-material aspect of persons from the past.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you rate this as very likely true?
TINNY: It is hard to say.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And, even if it is true, you don't think it proves the traditional beliefs about reincarnation.
TINNY: That's right, I don't. I have wondered why it is people have so often claimed these experiences of contact were related to their own past lives. It would seem to me at least equally plausible, and probably more so, that if the experience of contact with past lives were true it was with someone else's life, not connected with their own. Since consciousness has its transcendental nature through light, and has a timeless aspect, then it would be the case that the conscious aspect of every being who ever lived would be available if only we had the means to reach them. Since all is one, and space and time disappear as factors in the absolute reality, then the conscious aspect of every human being has the potential to reach beyond space and time to communicate with all consciousness that has already passed beyond the material plane. Just because this contact with the consciousness of past beings may occur does not in any way prove that there is a transmission of one spiritual being through a succession of physical bodies.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I agree, there is nothing in the experience to indicate the truth of the traditional beliefs about reincarnation. You said you wondered why this was the widely held interpretation of the reported experience of contact with past consciousness. Do you have any idea why this is so?
TINNY: If the nature of existence according to the process if envolution was not understood the belief that the contact was with one's own past lives would not be unreasonable. This traditional belief has been handed down for thousands of years and I don't think anyone has really thought to consider other possibilities.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it appears these are two possible alternatives to what happens to the soul or continuing consciousness after the death of the physical body. Are there any others?
TINNY: There is also the possibility that just as the forms of life below the human level have not made sufficient development to complete their quest for perfect existence beyond the material plane, the human level of development has not reached that point either.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it is possible that consciousness must envolve beyond the human level to be able to complete the journey to perfection after the death of the physical body.
TINNY: That is one of the possibilities I have considered.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How high do you rate the probability of this being the reality of our existence?
TINNY: Quite low.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the reasoning behind that assessment?
TINNY: It seems to be clearly the case that the human level of consciousness is the turning point where free-will first achieves dominance over the external deterministic influences. This fact provides strong evidence to indicate that the human level of development is sufficient to continue progressing toward perfection after the death of the physical body. This of course makes the probability that the human essence can continue to progress after physical death very high.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there still more possibilities as to what happens after physical death?
TINNY: Theoretically there are millions of possibilities, but most of such low probability that they can be treated as if they were impossible. The three possibilities we just discussed would be considered most likely, with the one standing as far more probable than the other two.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The three are: that the human level of development is not yet sufficient to continue progression after physical death; that the soul or continuing conscious aspect of the human life does continue progressing after physical death, and does so by inhabiting a succession of earthly physical bodies; and, the far most likely possibility, that each new human being who comes into existence has the potential to continue progressing toward perfection after the death of the physical body, and the conscious development made in the one lifetime on earth is the starting point for the continuing non-material being after physical death.
TINNY: That covers the three possibilities most worth considering.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the human level of existence were not yet at the level that could continue the path to perfection after death then some more advanced form of conscious life in the future would achieve the necessary level.
TINNY: That is undoubtedly the case.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How would you feel if it turned out it was not to be the human race but some future beings of higher consciousness descended from the human race who achieved the goal of perfection in every aspect? This would mean not you but only your distant descendants would achieve that perfect condition of existence.
TINNY: I could accept that reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't it change the way you live your life if you knew you could not personally earn the opportunity to continue the progression to perfect existence by living a right life and achieving a high consciousness?
TINNY: Just as all forms of physical existence before the human, I would fulfill my necessary role in the natural order. The less developed forms of life not having sufficient consciousness to realise the critically important role they play in the grand plan of physical existence are not aware of the honour that is theirs. I cherish that honour whether the final benefits are to be mine or reserved only for my descendants.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would there be any difference in what is right living regardless of which of the three alternatives about the continued existence of consciousness after physical death were true?
TINNY: Right thought, word, and deed would remain identical no matter which was the actual truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think there will be any conflict between those who favour one alternative over the others?
TINNY: I hope not, that would only impede the quest of us all for perfection. All conflict at the human level slows progression. The truth will become known naturally and comfortably as we continue to envolve.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In traditional religious language, besides the concept of heaven there also exists a concept of hell. You have described heaven as the continued progression toward perfection in every aspect beyond the material plane. What do you think of the concept of hell?
TINNY: If hell exists I'm sure it would not be a place of an eternity of torture and pain. In reality hell would most likely be the situation where one has achieved a sufficient level of consciousness to be aware of the sublime condition of perfect existence, but not of sufficiently high consciousness to achieve that most grand goal.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That would be the condition of those human beings who did not choose to exercise their free-will to follow natural law and live a right life. They are the ones who, having not chosen the right path during earthly life, would pass beyond the material plane still unable, or at least unlikely, to make that right choice.
TINNY: Keeping to religious language, this would be the condition of sin. Sin being wrong behaviour through conscious choice when right behaviour was within the individual's potential.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This fits very closely with the beliefs of some of the world's major religions.
TINNY: I don't seek truths which are consistent with traditional religious beliefs, but I am glad that important ideas from the new world view and traditional beliefs are so often the same. Truth is truth regardless of who professes it or whatever its source. Traditional religious truths are often consistent with the truths revealed through the unified theory of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it possible that after physical death the continued conscious existence, which you say is beyond the material plane, may not be beyond all physical existence, but only beyond physical existence as we know it?
TINNY: I wouldn't deny that possibility either. As consciousness envolves toward perfection it may be that there are levels of material existence, each higher than the previous one, which allow further progression before absolute and perfect existence totally beyond the material plane is reached.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would this mean that in higher physical levels the matter existing there would be of a finer nature, unable to be perceived as matter in the lower levels.
TINNY: If there is a series of progressively higher physical domains each would likely consist of finer material forms, which could not be readily perceived from the coarser lower levels.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How likely is that to be the true nature of existence?
TINNY: I don't have enough evidence to make a valid objective judgment on that question.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If that were the true situation would it be consistent with the unified theory of existence?
TINNY: It would be fully consistent.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it change what is right thought, right word, and right deed during this particular physical domain?
TINNY: Not in the slightest degree.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems that in many instances there can be a number of possible alternatives without affecting the general truth of the overall reality.
TINNY: That is part of the power of this new world view. It allows cherished beliefs to be maintained without resorting to dogmatism to protect those beliefs. We are left free to explore many alternatives. We are left open to receive truth. It seems this new world view is close enough to the true nature of reality so that the consideration of various alternatives within the new world view does not prove a challenge to the whole of the world view, and therefore does not provide a threat to cherished beliefs.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When we were discussing the traditional religious concept of hell you seemed quite definite that it would not be a place where people were punished for their failure to follow the right way of life on the material plane of existence. Why was that?
TINNY: Because of the essential wrongness of punishment. Punishment at the human level does not satisfactorily teach right behaviour. Punishment often only serves one purpose and that is for vengeance. Vengeance is not one of the characteristics manifested by a perfected being. Vengeance and the belief in the need for punishment came from wrong human thinking. We must correct those errors in our thinking not only to progress, but also to survive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Obviously revenge is a very unworthy human desire, but is it true that punishment can do no good?
TINNY: I didn't say that no good could come from punishment. As we discussed earlier all that occurs on the material plane has an outcome which includes some degree of both good and evil. While some good can come from punishment, the good will always be accompanied by an evil component. What I was really saying is that punishment at the human level is not an effective way to teach anything. Whatever is learned will always be accompanied by powerful negative side effects. The long term damage done by the continued use of punishment in human society would result in the eventual destruction of humanity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If punishment is not the right way to teach anything, what is the right way?
TINNY: The best way to teach is by directed positive influence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does the name describe the process?
TINNY: Directed positive influence as a name is a very accurate description of the process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I have a feeling this term, directed positive influence, will have an important place in our future.
TINNY: You're right. Directed positive influence will become the way of life in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We'll leave the discussion until later then. Since we have begun talking about teaching and learning this might be a good time to discuss education. I would imagine one of the social problems facing human society is the failure of educational systems to produce a society of well educated citizens.
TINNY: The present state of education in human society could best be described as a disaster. Basically education is teaching too little, teaching even that small amount ineffectively, and much of the little that is taught is incorrect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That does sound disastrous. What is the best thing you could say about education at present?
TINNY: That there is a lot of room for improvement.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you talk about education are you just talking about schools?
TINNY: Education is, by the essential nature of human life, part of every aspect of society. The same problems exist in the general educational processes of society and the specific educational programs in the schools.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then let's talk about schools. I have a number of questions about schools.
TINNY: Even though I have been educated at home I know quite a bit about schools.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could we start with a very brief overview of the problems with schools?
TINNY: I'll just list a number of problem areas in no particular order. Schools are seldom a fun place to be. Schools often tend to be punishing. Schools offer too few rewarding experiences. Schools are often boring. Schools often have many meaningless rules. Schools do not cater to individual needs. Schools are too difficult for the slow learner and too easy for the fast learner. Schools are often compulsory. Schools restrict individual expression. Schools stifle creativity. Students aren't taught how to learn. Students are seldom given a choice in what they want to learn. Many students have little desire to learn. Students often treat each other badly. Teachers often treat students badly. Students often treat teachers badly. Teachers often don't respect students. Students often don't respect teachers. Teachers often don't like students. Students often don't like teachers. Too much time is spent in controlling behaviour. Not enough time is spent learning. Teachers aren't adequately trained in managing the classroom environment. Teachers don't sufficiently understand the process of learning. Students and teachers do not cooperate enough. There is too much violence in the schools. Many teachers are poor adult role models for students. Many school books are poorly designed. Parents do not prepare their children sufficiently before they start school. Many parents don't support the efforts of the schools. Parents don't participate enough in the schools.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's quite a list. Is that all?
TINNY: I only listed a few of the huge number of problems in the schools.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You listed problems with students, teachers, and parents. Can you say who is most responsible for the problems in the schools?
TINNY: The responsibility must be shared by every member of society. No one group can be singled out as the main cause of the problem. The school environment is a microcosm of world society therefore showing the great range and complexity of general social problems.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let's discuss a few of those problem areas in education in more detail. To start with you say schools are seldom a fun place to be. What do you mean by fun?
TINNY: The overall school experience should be enjoyable to the students.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: School is not generally thought of as a place to have a good time.
TINNY: I realise that, but the reality remains unchanged. To best fulfill the educational function that is the responsibility of schools then school must become a place where the students have a good time.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Schools are thought to be a place where students work hard.
TINNY: And so they should be. Students should work very hard, but that does not mean they be made to work hard. They should put full effort into their work because they want to. The work that students should put so much effort into should be enjoyable work.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can school work be really enjoyable?
TINNY: School work must be learned effectively. Many things are learned in schools besides academic subjects. As children learn that school work is enjoyable they can take this knowledge into adult life and will experience the work of their vocation as enjoyable.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But most jobs are not enjoyable.
TINNY: All jobs should be enjoyable and all jobs could be enjoyable. Unfortunately this has seldom been considered of importance in adult work, and it has equally been denied due consideration in school work. We need new attitudes to all forms of work and this will require major changes in the types and circumstances of work.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it so important that work be enjoyable?
TINNY: As things are at present many adults dread going to work and many students dread going to school. If this is the feeling before even arriving at work or school it certainly doesn't provide a mental attitude conducive to being productive. It would be much better if adults looked forward to going to work and students looked forward to going to school.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this have to do with the importance of free-will in human behaviour?
TINNY: It has a lot to do with the importance of free-will. If we go somewhere we don't want to go, and do something we don't want to do, then we certainly aren't doing these things due to the exercise of our free-will. We would be doing them because we would suffer or be punished in some way for not doing these things. It would be fair to say we were forced to do these things which we wouldn't choose to do by free-will. If schools were attractive enough so that students wanted to go to school, and if school work was attractive enough that students wanted to do the school work, then these choices would be made on the basis of free-will. At the human level of existence force is evil, free-will is good; force is wrong, free-will is right. It is impossible for the potential of schools and learning to be fully expressed unless students are attracted to them by free-will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That sounds quite logical. It's a shame it wasn't realised long ago.
TINNY: It was, most important truths have been known for thousands of years.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why hasn't human society acted in accord with those truths then?
TINNY: While these great truths have long been known by a few, they have at the same time been denied by many.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are these truths better accepted today than they were in earlier times?
TINNY: Human society is still in the dark, but happily on the verge of enlightenment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that schools tend to be punishing. Do you mean generally punishing or that punishment is used in the schools?
TINNY: Schools are generally punishing and punishment is used in schools.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can a school be generally punishing?
TINNY: It has to do with the meaning of the word punishing. The common definition of the word 'punishing' includes such terms as disagreeable, unpleasant, and boring. I think that throughout the world the feelings about school by many students would be aptly described by that definition. There is also the technical definition of punishment which is - any consequence of a response or any stimulus which follows a response which reduces the future rate of that response occurring is punishing.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'd like to hear that technical definition more simply said.
TINNY: If you do something and what you do is followed by something you don't like then you'll be less likely to do that thing in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's easier to understand. How does this make schools punishing in the technical sense?
TINNY: The student's initial response might be going to school. If going to school was followed by an unpleasant or boring day while at school then in the future the student would be less likely to go to school. The student's response could also be considered to be having positive thoughts about school, which if followed by unpleasant or boring experiences at school would result in positive thoughts about school being less likely to occur in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is easy to see that actions are responses, but are thoughts responses also?
TINNY: Thoughts are responses just a much as actions are. This is why when I speak about the changes which will take place, as the new world view sweeps through human society, I always refer to changes in thoughts, words, and deeds. Words and deeds can be described as overt behaviour because they can be heard and seen by others. Thoughts can be described as covert behaviour because they are really known only to the one who thinks them.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You covered the generally punishing nature of schools, what about punishment being used in the schools?
TINNY: The use of punishment has no place in human society, and in particular it has no place in the schools. The use of punishment in schools inhibits learning, drives students out of school, and teaches them that wrong is right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does the use of punishment teach students that wrong is right?
TINNY: We learn from everything that we experience, with no exceptions. When a student sees a teacher punish someone the student learns that using punishment is socially acceptable behaviour. The teacher while trying to attain any goal through the use of punishment gives powerful social sanction to the use of punishment. As we discussed, evil is the imposition of will by force. Punishment is one of the processes of material existence which allows the imposition of will by force. Any teacher who uses punishment teaches their students a disastrously inappropriate social behaviour. They teach their students that wrong is right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Haven't many of the world's schools done away with corporal punishment? It is becoming increasingly less acceptable for teacher to hit students.
TINNY: Punishment is by no means limited to hitting. Sometimes words can be used to do far more damage than physical blows. There is probably no teacher who has never hurt a child with words. The developing personality of a child is most fragile. Great care and patience are necessary to nurture these developing personalities so that maximum positive growth is attained.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do teachers who hurt their students with words always mean to harm them?
TINNY: I would hope it was more often the case that the teachers were ignorant of the effects of their words. Teachers are taught how to teach but are seldom taught how students learn. To be the most effective and least harmful a teacher must understand the learning process. Anyone who truly understands how we learn would know the potential harm that can be done through punishing words.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So punishment has no place in the schools at all.
TINNY: Better to say punishment very rarely has a place in schools.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Besides being punishing you say that schools offer few rewarding experiences.
TINNY: Just as schools mistakenly rely too heavily on punishment in their attempt to teach and manage, they also mistakenly fail to rely heavily enough on rewarding experiences in their attempts to teach and manage.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So schools do too much of the wrong thing, punishment, and not enough of the right thing, offering rewarding experiences.
TINNY: That's a good way to put it. Rewarding experiences are the opposite of punishing experiences. Even the definitions are opposites. The common definition of the word rewarding includes such terms as satisfying and worthwhile. Throughout the world the feeling about schools by only a relatively few students would be fairly described by that definition. And, just as there is a technical definition of punishment there is also a technical definition for the rewarding experience, often called reinforcement. Any consequence of a response or any stimulus which follows a response which increases the future rate of that response is reinforcing or rewarding.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And could I have that technical definition more simply stated?
TINNY: If you do something and what you do is followed by something you like then you'll be more likely to do that thing in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How would schools be if rewarding experiences were predominant?
TINNY: I'll compare this to the example I gave earlier about punishment. If the student's initial response was going to school and that response was followed by satisfying and worthwhile experiences then in the future the students would be more likely to go to school. And if the student's response was having positive thoughts about school and these thoughts were followed by satisfying and worthwhile experiences then these positive thoughts about school would be more likely to occur in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So schools should have a generally rewarding nature and reinforcement should be used in the schools.
TINNY: In human society good must transcend evil, peace and love must transcend force and aggression, the exercise of free-will must transcend the imposition of will by force, and reinforcement or rewarding experiences must transcend punishment. The use of reinforcement has a very important place in human society, and in particular it has a very important place in the schools. The use of reinforcement in schools facilitates learning, attracts students to school, and teaches them right over wrong.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does it teach students right over wrong?
TINNY: Just as when students see punishment being used they learn that the use of punishment is socially acceptable behaviour, when they see teachers using reinforcement, or directed positive influence, then students learn this to be a socially acceptable behaviour. The teacher using these positive methods of influence gives powerful social sanction to reinforcement. As we discussed earlier, good is the exercise of free-will. Directed positive influence is one of the ways which allows free-will to be expressed. Any teacher who uses reinforcement teaches their students an appropriate social behaviour. They teach right over wrong.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't both punishment and directed positive influence ways of controlling others?
TINNY: There is a major essential difference. Punishment makes a demand, while directed positive influence offers a positive rewarded alternative. Punishment and reinforcement are not just things that are done to us by others but can also be ways in which we influence ourselves with our minds. Punishment is as wrong if done to yourself as it is if it is done to you by others. Directed positive influence remains the right way whether guided from within or initiated by others to provide guidance.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could directed positive influence be used to teach something that is wrong?
TINNY: Yes, the word positive in this case refers to the means used, not to the content of what is taught. It could equally be used to teach right or wrong.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And punishment can also be used to teach both right and wrong.
TINNY: That's true also. Here we can see further the difference between the two methods. Using punishment there is little opportunity for the student to make a personal assessment of the rightness or wrongness of what is being taught, while directed positive influence leaves the student free to choose whether or not to accept that which is taught. If a student chooses an alternative path to that which is being taught through punishment they would come to harm because of that decision. If a student chooses an alternative path to that which is being taught through directed positive influence then they come to no harm. Indeed if they choose an alternative right path they don't necessarily even take a loss of reward since rewarding experiences occur along all right paths. It is for this reason that directed positive influence does facilitate the exercise of free-will, while punishment does restrict the exercise of free-will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You also say that schools are boring.
TINNY: Yes. Little effort is made to either choose interesting material or to teach the chosen material in an interesting manner.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't there things that everyone should know whether they are interesting or not?
TINNY: I would agree with that, but it must be said that at present schools teach a fair amount of material that is neither interesting nor necessary.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should schools stop teaching those subjects which are not necessary and many students find uninteresting?
TINNY: Schools should make all subjects available and allow students to choose which they want to study. Even subjects which are not necessary and that many find uninteresting will be chosen by some. No matter what the subject though, great effort should be made to present that subject in the most interesting manner possible. Those which are most necessary should be made the most interesting.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that schools often have meaningless rules.
TINNY: One of the greatest problems in the schools is the management of students' behaviour. I would say that it is not a legitimate function of schools to manage students' behaviour. The role of the school is to provide educational opportunities not to manage behaviour.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But if schools don't control the behaviour of the students then learning wouldn't take place.
TINNY: As schools are presently organised what you say is true. Schools provide an environment that is not at all conducive to teaching and learning, so it is not surprising that students do not choose by their free-will to act in a manner appropriate to a learning situation. Schools provide an environment that rewards inappropriate behaviour then use that inappropriate behaviour as an excuse to rigidly control the behaviour of students. If schools provided a right atmosphere for teaching and learning to take place the management of students' behaviour would become unnecessary. Students in this right educational environment would choose by their free-will to act in a manner appropriate to the teaching-learning situation.
