Mind's Eye Re: A Book At Xmas or two

One sense of it I have is the move from coal through oil to another
form of carbon democracy - and a change from sabotage economics (where
democratic claims could be advanced by worker power and large rents
could be made from oil by preventing this and ensuring sales at high
mark-up to production cost) to something new. Human thinking is still
massively parochial and remaining so despite new technology - my hope
is what we have called argument since the Greeks will collapse in the
face of new opportunities to do stuff. I suspect the hard part will be
recognising much of what we think is work is neurotic. The thing now
is looking past the tipping point to see what of what we can imagine
is supported by fact and direction now - and what this reveals of what
ideology holds us in trance now. If we move to greater equality past
the tipping point we can't really understand what this might be in
current terms. I often wonder what it would be to write other than as
a functionary (to an organisation, audience, for sales and so on). I
have as little clue on what spirituality would be in a world free of
material want or in a more directly honest world in which, say, a
bullshit bell rang when we engage rationalisation.
Turkey dinner, washing up done, settled to watch some television - now
searching for the link to a friend who has recorded some French films
for me and the cat brush!

On 25 Dec, 18:28, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suspect you are right about that brink, with quantum computing, graphene
> product development, and all the other game changers coming down the pike,
> a revolution in human relations would seem imminent. Discussing the
> possibilities here, a real pleasure.  Time to watch Leonard Cohen in his
> London concert.  Santa was good.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:32:28 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>
> > Max had a good time with a 6 year-old sheep dog (who insisted I threw
> > her ball) whilst I had a chat with a nice guy 'escaping' family.
> > Daughters have entered Xmas spirit - I 'forced' them to read some
> > Molly - and ended 30 year war!  Max is a massive treat with hardly a
> > bad bone in him - grandson much the same.
>
> > There's free economics book here -
> >http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
> > - it's faulty but at least throws some alternatives our way.  The guy
> > is more rigs' side of the political fence than me but anyone with any
> > sense surely knows GOP/Demo Left/Right is the problem not about
> > alternative solutions.
>
> > On 25 Dec, 15:55, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What I'm after is is something better than virtue ethics Molly - the
> > > psychologists miss the point that language already posits multiple
> > > meanings.  People rely on assessment of character and this turns out
> > > to be a dreadful fiction..  We end up in fantasies of the competitive
> > > advantage of creativity Allan describes (or Habermas).  Ariely gives
> > > me a big feeling that we already knew his 'discovery' and Molly's
> > > critique above - in short we could do better than this in here.  My
> > > own feeling is we're on the brink of cracking the arguments open to
> > > see new outcomes.  In most of the games played in classrooms like
> > > 'negotiation' someone reasonably bright (there turn out not to be
> > > many) can see the fault lines in the game - much as in Molly's 'kind
> > > of rubbish' above.
>
> > > My thesis is we may be far enough down the road to a human science now
> > > for the material and its thinking to challenge the current status quo
> > > as science once challenged 'the church'.   Much academic work seems
> > > part of the wrong side to me in insisting we have to be so ludicrously
> > > clever to do it and basing what can be done in politesse and etiquette
> > > that prevent us calling a spade a spade to distinguish such from a
> > > shovel (important as shovels serve a different purpose). I think we
> > > can already embody a lot of clever work in machines that can't break
> > > rules and would encourage us to move away from chronic worship of the
> > > golden calf and fear that cleverness is just how we are governed by
> > > flim-flam.  Must walk dog.
>
> > > On 25 Dec, 12:25, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I wonder if the researchers took into account that a truly ethical
> > person
> > > > would not participate in the kind of rubbish that presents predictable
> > > > limited outcomes as fact.  There may, indeed, be a correlation between
> > > > creativity and ethics, but I suspect it is more inclusive and requires
> > > > examination without the limits designed to define results. I keep
> > going
> > > > back to the model of spiral dynamics, one that allows and understands
> > that
> > > > we all move up and down and between memes during our lives given the
> > > > circumstances of our experience.  Someone who does not have enough
> > money
> > > > for food may cheat in this experiment more than someone who has never
> > > > known financial stress or hunger.  Here is a pretty good explanation
> > of the
> > > > original Graves material, although I've seen better, its the best I
> > could
> > > > find online this
> > > > morning.
> >http://www.edumar.cl/documentos/SD_version_for_constellation5.pdf
>
> > > > On Monday, December 24, 2012 5:58:21 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>
> > > > > A free paper with the ideas is at
> > > > >http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/11-064.pdf
> > > > > I was interested because I find professional ethics and religious
> > > > > morality collapse under circumstances of self-interest and become
> > > > > rationalisation.  WE need creative solutions - but there is a dark
> > > > > side to creativity.
>
> > > > > On 24 Dec, 22:03, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >  "The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone —
> > > > > > Especially Ourselves" by Dan Ariely asks a seemingly simple
> > question —
> > > > > > "is dishonesty largely restricted to a few bad apples, or is it a
> > more
> > > > > > widespread problem?" — and goes on to reveal the surprising,
> > > > > > illuminating, often unsettling truths that underpin the
> > uncomfortable
> > > > > > answer. Like cruelty, dishonesty turns out to be a remarkably
> > > > > > prevalent phenomenon better explained by circumstances and
> > cognitive
> > > > > > processes than by concepts like character.
>
> > > > > > Work like this is challenging traditional economics - the genre is
> > > > > > 'behavioural economics'.  My own take on this book and a lot of
> > work
> > > > > > from brain science and history is that we are at a tipping point
> > in
> > > > > > respect of the possibility of a human science.  I'd like to see a
> > > > > > broader literature take up this challenge beyond current drivel on
> > > > > > black and white hats.
>
> > > > > > So what are you guys reading?

--