Free education is the decentralized system of information exchange and certification that develop as a natural result of conscious collaboration between independent entities.
There is no purpose to free education other than humanity achieving more clarity, both individually and collectively.
We don't learn for degrees or for others to consider us smart; we learn because we wish to see the universe more clearly.
There's no reason to learn anything that you don't find interesting or important.
Now of course, people may recommend that you check yourself before your wreck yourself if they catch you being dumb. But it's up to you if and how you do.
With administrative credentialing, you need to have a single, fair standard that creates an unnatural rigidity in the learning & assessment process.
Free education allows standards to shift to the circumstance in what ever way supports growth the most.
Free education is the method of knowledge, skill, and attribute transfer from one person to another. We're all studying reality, and reality connects everything and everyone, so all studies are inherently connected, even if the connection isn't clear at first.
Since everything is connected, you can start your education anywhere and still get everywhere. There is no need to have everyone start their education in the same spot; that's how current education systems maintain their competitive conditioning regiments, not anything that helps individual pupils.
I have worked with a variety of clients, from startups to large corporations, helping them to grow their online presence and drive more leads and sales. I am always looking for new challenges and opportunities to learn.
Real education doesn't start because someone tells you that you need it.
It starts with an experience; either an epiphany or a moment of confusion. Either growth to be tested or a gap to be filled.
It's critical for a genuine education for it to come from a real desire for clarity, as experienced by the pupil.
Once you have an experience that you'd like to explore more, ask a shit ton of questions.
There are different frameworks for this; official research and citation methods and things of the like.
But the most critical thing for the learner is to explore these experiences critically and without assuming more than is necessary to get to the next step.
After reflection, you should either have an idea you're confident in and are eager to prove or you have absolutely nothing and just need to throw shit at the wall to see what sticks.
Either way, experimental actions are intentional interactions that help you either produce novel experiences or prove a causal relationship.
After which, you are back at the beginning of the cycle~
Free education isn't about conquering the one truth that all of society must force themselves to adhere to.
It's about the free and open exchange of perspectives, even if they differ, and seeing those difference as opportunities for even further clarity, not failures relative to a perfection that's unobtainable.
The critical difference between real education and traditional education is that you're not aiming for some teacher or administrator to tell you that you're right as your only metric.
When you can influence the reality around you intentionally, or when other people can understand your abstractions you know that you're onto something.
The most important part of free education is that it's free. You're learning what works for you while others are doing the same.
While we all share a reality, and we need some form of consensus for a functionality society, we don't need to all come to the same conclusions for every single claim. Free education is sustained by people who can collaboratively explore truth without imposing monist worldviews.
Education without administrators can feel strange at first.
No one telling you what to learn next. No one telling you which explanation is the "best" when several are available.
Having a strong philosophical understanding is essential to managing your free understanding as your own authority.
While true or real have some descriptive weight to them in any free, open-ended exploration of reality, correct can only be defined relative to arbitrary authority.
This isn't to say that being correct is useless; humanity can and should define authoritative sources to represent stable bodies of knowledge or social practices.
It just should
While true or real have some descriptive weight to them in any free, open-ended exploration of reality, correct can only be defined relative to arbitrary authority.
This isn't to say that being correct is useless; humanity can and should define authoritative sources to represent stable bodies of knowledge or social practices.
It just shouldn't represent such arbitrary authorities as anything but such.
"I have no doubts about this" sounds confident enough, but there's something that makes it fundamental shaky in a way that doesn't seem obvious at first:
The confidence of a statement like this depends on the confidence in the speaker's ability to recognize and admit to unknowns and inconsistencies.
"I have considered all of these known unk
"I have no doubts about this" sounds confident enough, but there's something that makes it fundamental shaky in a way that doesn't seem obvious at first:
The confidence of a statement like this depends on the confidence in the speaker's ability to recognize and admit to unknowns and inconsistencies.
"I have considered all of these known unknowns, and I still think this is best" indicates a realer confidence.
Free education starts with accepting the hard truth; humanity has never and will never be anywhere close to actually knowing what's going on here with the level of detail that people currently pursue.
The reward for learning isn't conclusive certainty and a "I'm done."
It's the inevitable realization that something didn't quite line up as e
Free education starts with accepting the hard truth; humanity has never and will never be anywhere close to actually knowing what's going on here with the level of detail that people currently pursue.
The reward for learning isn't conclusive certainty and a "I'm done."
It's the inevitable realization that something didn't quite line up as expected. Or that now that we know this, we can try that. It never actually ends.
Liminal perception is a form of understanding where you're not worried about remembering claims as true or false. Knowing what was thought in the past is only so relevant to now.
Instead of trying to only focus on the one "correct" viewpoint, liminal perception is about trying to consider all viewpoints to see what's correct in the bad takes and incorrect in the good ones. The result is a persistence of perception where your intuition can be contextually creative and response in genuinely unique ways.
Traditional epistemology is about gatekeeping. There are systems and citations that need to be passed before a belief is considered true enough to pass into active understanding.
With liminal perception, you're accepting the claim as it is, including claims about the claim, like where it came from, what context it's meant to be used in (practical expression of task vs technical explanation, etc), and related claims.
Persistence of vision is how film and those cool led wand clocks work. It's when a light source is moving so fast that we perceive a light trail. Liminal perception allows you to do something similar.
Persistence of perception is the kaleidoscope of all the claims and contexts you've experienced, constantly shifting to discover patterns in the whole of what's occuring.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.