• 229
  • More

kids out of school before covid?

Even in Europe way before this and the previous century, there was restriction due to diseases. It is not a modern idea.

I remember growing up in a domestic environment where at time when there was flu, a family member would tell another not to come near because of not wanting to catch the runny nose or throat infection or whatever was passing around. This was not being dictated by the government or any health officials or conspiracy people who wanted to rule the world.

At school someone would say, "Don't sit near me.", if another person exhibited symptoms which were suspected.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/history-outdoor-schooling-180975696/?utm_source=smithsoniandaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20220107-daily-responsive&spMailingID=46216501&spUserID=OTE5NDcwNzM1NjY3S0&spJobID=2160777478&spReportId=MjE2MDc3NzQ3OAS2

Replies (4)
    • Absolutely!But now in the internet age, there are echo chambers that amplify everybit of whatever they select to run with. That creates disorientation.

      Something happens in one classroom and potentially the whole world can find out, and start reacting to it according whatever part of the big elephant they are touching.

      • Investing in French windows and going outside is certainly smarter, healthier and less creepy than masking. 

        But….just to be clear, is your (Michael) point here to compare natural human instinctive distancing behaviors for purposes of avoiding illness contagions, with the current forced, dangerous (just look even at VAERS on the CDC website people are dropping dead and injured) medical procedure? 

        You feel this is a just comparison? 

        I myself, like most, avoid sickly people and it’s served me well - but after that I don’t then somehow bridge this behavior over into a justification, or comparison, of government enforced restrictions and mandated dangerous, ineffective, medical injections. Or else. Can you imagine what It could be that I missed the overlying, or underlying, point. If so, please disregard. 

        In regard to Surya’s reply, I’d just like to comment that, even though I agree that the majority of people do live in an echo chamber - human commitment to herd thinking and mass formation proves this undoubtedly - we still cannot pretend that also present in this dimension aren’t the seers, transcendental interpreters, visionaries (I don’t mean artists), people with higher perceptional capacity and understanding of information. 

        Those who can see, and ADMIT, that the emperor is wearing no clothes. 

        There ARE those people in whom information is digested through a higher intuition filter. Who have an ability to scrutinize information, as well as the informer.  The message and it’s medium.

        Not everyone is completely lost to the chaos.

        Not everyone is disoriented.

        Ones lack of perception may come from ones own disorientation within the individual psyche. Such a psyche may incorrectly assume that all perceptions are the same when in fact all perceptions are unique and varied depending on the vibration and equipment of the perceiver. 

        All knowledge, vedanta, is like spiritual food to one who has a knack for balanced perception AND research. Whether it’s books, internet, satsang, or in contemplative meditative states of heightened understanding, these types of researchers, who live outside the echo chamber, are like miners mining through giant rocks of layered propaganda - yet still able to find and sort out the gold, detail it’s characteristics - and move on. We can’t just crap on the internet.  For some souls it’s served as a kick in the pants forward in the quest for higher knowledge.  

        All is not lost to the echo chamber, seems that some souls are kicked out of it whether they like it or not. They’re just not allowed into that level of consciousness where information is redundant, dishonest, and low energy. They are movers and shakers and ready to learn the next bite of vedanta. I’m amazed at the numbers of people currently transcending from the echo consciousness. Not that they are going to change anything but it’s still good that they are evolving and learning.  

        It’s a big, fascinating, albeit frightening, world outside the echo consciousness, but it’s also exhilarating and inspiring. Kind of like the Universal Form. Makes you want to shoot for the stars! 

        • Erinn Earth - devaPriya Yogini,

          The first situation is family, then there is family and relatives, then there is clan, then there is a nation or country, then there is global control. In that order control happens.

          Control has to be here and cannot be eliminated by anyone. Resenting it will not change this.

          In the family, the parents are the dictators. In the family and relatives or the extended family, the elderly ones generally are the dictators.

          In the clan, a group of elders serve as the dictators such that for instance, one can be banished from the tribe or killed or imprisoned, restricted by the elders’ orders.

          In the nation or country, you have elders again of various clans running things with one person having the major influence as the dictator. This person may or may not have massive power depending on the history of the clan.Then there is global control which only means one nation as the planet itself being one country which is what the world will evolve to being in the near future.

          Some people did not like that the States join together as the United States and have laws which are federal which override local laws. Similarly, some persons will resist the formation of one nation for the entire planet.

          The Brits, some of them, wanted to split from the (EU) European Union. That happened but only superficially. History shows that it is an evolution to move from tribes or clans to a nation. And in all cases some specific tribe or clan or group will lose, as how for instance the South lost their human property (slaves) by the Union of the United States and laws enforced at gun point even by one group which claimed that they were right and the slavers were wrong.It does not matter what it is, the point is that some will control and stipulate and there will always be one group which does not like something and does not agree to something. Therefore, in the democratic way, they say people should vote to decide who will have his way. As soon as that decision is made the minority group will be offended and will want to take up arms to fight for what they want.

          But the question is:What is the way of history or nature?What is practical?

          Is it right or wrong? That is not the question because there will always be someone who feels that an action should or should not be imposed. Everyone will never agree all together. Hence agreeing to disagree, one has to fall under some rule of some system. Total freedom for everyone is not practical.

          The idea about the constitution giving everyone rights to do what they want, makes no sense because not every person in the country at the time when it was written and proposed originally, agreed to it. But what happens is that those who disagreed were effectively suppressed, squeezed out, and to this day, those voices are not even mentioned in the history. The other misleading thing is that the people who wrote it were either Brits or descendants of Brits who were informed of and progressive on the history of Britain. They used that history to present their idea. It was on the basis of Brit history and particularly French history that the freedom from tyranny ideas flourished. It was not an American idea originally.And we must remember that these same freedom people killed off and disenfranchised the native Americans. The whole proposal to use the constitution makes no sense because the morals of those people are put to question when we considered how they seized the land of the indigenous people they found here. And how did they use their guns? What is the example there for us to follow?

          There will be those in control who dictate much of what we do or do not do. That is gong to happen. If we get guns and kill those who want to control us, we, as the rebels, will then have to face down each other and fight again to determine who among us dominate. It is best in my view to make the best of this human development by accepting the reality that some of us have to rule over some of us and in that there will be things some who are governed do not want to do,

           

        • Yes, it is about streams of consciousness! 

          And, they are but only reflecting in the echo-chambers. In their diversity and complexity different streams of consciousnesses are naturally and conveniently exploiting available mediums or environments, in order to reneact their past lives in the present setting(s). And so things cannot be easily contrasted, especially since an overall broader perception is necessary.

          So the neonazis today for the most part are individuals who in past lives were also invested in such movements, the same goes for religious folks, and pretty much anything else. The Natives Americans who were defending their land, being offended at the core of their ways of life are also of the same mindset that are primarily born amongs them now … 

          Those who lynched Africans back then still harbor such instincts and can easily repeat the act even in most abhorrent ways, as depicted in the recent trial of Ahmaud Arbery, kind of a repeat of Emmet Till’s barbaric lynching.  

          And, we can notice now openly that there are extreme right wing organizations online. There are many different organizations online for any and all sorts of topics, issues and concerns. It seems that as all organism instinctively form groups since the beginning of life, that now the same tendency is replicated on the subtle level with the aid of the internet of all things.

          There have always been those who also stood against science and its dictates on reality; initially scientists were persecuted. Those two tendencies are still in the human spyche! There is always polarity or divergence (aside from convergence), and so the same goes for vaccine refusal, hesitancy and acceptance

          So long as there been any concepts there have been different considerations, so long as vaccines existed there also was its rejection. The norms will always be challenged by its corresponding conspiratorial theories. History repeats itself, and we seem as a species very connected to its ebbs and flows as well as mostly helpless. 

          One can only attempt and hopefully be victorious in not becoming overwhelmingly swayed by such waves or greatly minimize their pull one way or the other. And, this should not and does not have to be out of neglect or incapacity but consideration, understanding and evolution from within the spyche.

          -----------

          17 moments in the long, turbulent history of vaccine skepticism

          -----------

          Vaccine hesitancy is nothing new. Here’s the damage it’s done over centuries

          Disclaimer: “I do not vouch for these editorials ad their narratives, they are used as illustrations. I do not advise whether to believe or not the facts or fake facts they relate. ”

          Login or Join to comment.