“There are only two options: Humanity’s leaders take responsibility to manage evolution in a sustainable manner following the path of the Archetypes of the Soul, or the failures and systemic fissures will crush mankind within 20-35 years and the planet will degenerate until humanity chokes from no air.”
Only TWO options? UPLIFT and Societal Metamorphosis excluded without consideration. And what is this “Archetypes of the Soul”?
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 My initial intent was to message the author pointing out there were more options. But, exploring deeper I began to uncover a mystery, I call the SCHELLHAMMER PHENOMENON for the author: Prof. Dr. Edward Schellhammer. As I explored deeper the hair began to rise on the back of my neck. Who was this guy, whom I will call Ed ? How was he both so like me and so different from me? Might others view Larry and his views as similar to Ed and his views? How does Ed expose such radical ideas about the current state of the world and yet seemingly gets establishment support?
“Human evolution requires economic freedom, non-restrictive education, absence of compulsive bureaucratic nonsense, an absolute minimum of regulations, easy proceedings to set up a business, low taxes, absence of corruption, and lowest long-term interest rates (2%, understood as administrative costs) for sustainable businesses and mortgages. Only holistically well-trained business people, workers and employees with excellent working attitudes can contribute to evolution. Human evolution can only be realized and managed by very mature, reliable, transparent, and competent educational, political and economic leaders with integrity. Respecting and promoting the genuine human values is an additional concomitant condition. But the entire Western public education, including universities, is a marsh of brainwashing, manipulations, fabrications and lies. Behind the word ‘democracy’ and ‘humanitarian’ is a de facto dictatorship, a total exploitation of humans and other nations, a collective dehumanization, a perverse decadence and social insanity. Jurisdiction has become an abettor of these developments. And the masses are blinded, lazy-minded, greedy, stupid, and unwilling to learn for personal development and for making a sustainable living. They always want a kind of ‘mother-breast’ and ‘father authority’ to be satisfied and happy. They want illusions and perversions of human values. Theses masses can’t live without tormentors and they even love them despite of all suffering and misery. They never want to learn for the truth or to see their own truth. This will logically lead to dire collective disasters with consequences for a millennium.“
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 1) Larry and Ed both present as individuals with valuable insights they believe essential for our future survival. But, even here there are strong differences. Ed appears to have a very strong ego and assurance in his individual ability to accomplish much, and he does appear to be successful in established domains. Ed’s objective is to teach others about what to do. Larry, on the other hand has low confidence in his personal abilities and even credits the power of his insights to his unique disabilities (which appear to be inhibiting him from success in even having a few evaluate his insights). Larry’s objective is to share his insights and catalyze others to accept, modify, and possibly make manifest actions based partly on his insights. Initially Larry seeks evaluation and feedback and not immediate implementation, which will be actualized in the context of a revised worldview resulting from the creative actions of others. Ed appears to seek implementation of his worldview and doesn’t appear to seek feedback or evaluation.
¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 2) Ed says his ideas came to him in 12,000 or more dreams; descriptions of a few are given. Ed also has a very rational mind as evidenced by the finely detailed organization of his books (see his expanded Table of Contents). Ed has a strong academic background, founded in the study and practice of different psychotherapies. He has lectured at universities in “Psychology, Methodology and Statistics of Social Sciences, Philosophical Anthropology, and Innovation in social institutions”. He claims to have published 21 books and is founder and leader of four education institutions – all based on his theories of education. In contrast Larry has few meaningful dreams and his insights emerged through a mix of intuitive/rational processes. Although Larry has proposed new educational processes he has yet been able to put any into practice beyond his own teaching.
¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 3) Ed is explicit and “out front” in his books and materials for his educational institutions on the deeply dysfunctional nature of contemporary societal systems. Here, on the surface Ed and Larry share their assessment of contemporary reality. However, I expect that on deeper analysis major differences in causal hypotheses may appear between Larry and Ed. Ed’s descriptions are even more strident than Larry’s.
¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 Larry and Ed differ greatly in what they believe can be done. Ed believes his educational process can actually make “Humanity’s leaders” behave radically differently and his educational institutions are designed to accomplish this. That one of Ed’s institutions is the EUROPEAN BUSINESS COLLEGE and he offers an MBA in his MARBELLA UNIVERSITY (Schellhammer Business School) implies that he believes the key is to change the minds and behaviors of leaders WITHOUT substantially changing our societal systems. Larry, to the far extreme views our problems as systemic in fundamental structures/processes of “civilization” and calls for an uplift of competencies in the whole population and the replacement (not transformation) of contemporary societal orders.
¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 What is mysterious is how Ed can attract students with his strident attacks on contemporary business life. He offers special consulting programs for world leaders. His institutions offer degree programs in such topics as fashion and tourism, as well as in the traditional disciplines. From my initial online study I find no reference to enrollments or graduates. I find no information about funding (the institutions look very modern and well equipped). He mentions other faculty in general, but one gets the impression that Ed teaches everything – or strongly directs all instruction (as does the University of Phoenix in the USA). So far I have found no testimonials or promotion from another specific person.
¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 4) Larry and Ed are alike in their focus on “education” as the key to our future changes. Each has a well developed “theory” for education. Ed’s educational mission reads well; I have no objections. What I find missing are his methods – which appear to be traditional (when done properly). Key to this is his INDIVIDUATION ACADEMY where he calls for a radical transformation of the whole person (but seemingly weak on networking and how persons are to a great part determined by their settings). “Archetypes of the Soul” are strong on a person’s “soul” in relationship to God – probably emergent from Ed’s background in Jungian thought.
¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 Larry has a deeper critique of all variations of education and attempts to integrate more aspects related to organizing for learning & learning for organizing and more recent scientific research – along with a belief in the potential of all humans, in their diversity (Ed makes no mention of diversity), to emerge a planetary educational process not dictated by “leaders” or ideologies.
¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 I call this a phenomenon. It is there floating on The Internet, with its many paradoxes. I can’t seem to easily probe any deeper. It would be a significant fact if some contemporary world leaders are involved with Ed – given his critique. If this is actually a viable enterprise and growing in influence it would be important to know. Indeed, Ed’s process may be able to tame the societal caterpillar making it easier for the societal butterfly to emerge.
¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 I also have a tinge of familiarity between Edward Schellhammer’s vision of that of Alan Yelsey’s Y-World vision. Do they know each other? Although their methods differ, they both assume that the contemporary dysfunctional societal systems can be transformed from within and are actively working to implement their visions; doing more than just “talking”. Both present unique, personal idiosyncratic conceptual views as foundation for their worldview – although their actions appear independent of these views. For Ed it is his “Archetypes of the Soul”; for Alan it is his NETS structure.