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

Same with robbery. :-) Not sure people get away with sins or flaws- I
think they either deal with them or suffer somehow or way.

On Dec 26, 3:48 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't and semi do know where it originated there is an old saying,,
> "If you are going to tell a lie  tell a big one, It is easier for
> people to believe."  or something like that   I have not thought of it
> for years..  not picking on beliefs,,  in severe fundamentalism 'if
> you accept jesus christ as your personal savior you all your sins are
> forgiven and you will go to heaven'  personally I doubt that it is
> true yet it can easily allow a person to avoid taking responsibility
> for their actions..
>
> Now people are avoiding taking responsibility by using beliefs..  no
> one is really wanting to look at the golden calf  ,,  a doctrine that
> is religiously avoided and never discussed,,  after all it would take
> a lot of so called activities off the books people do not want to go
> against the God.. the Golden calf story is well known....  I think
> people need to bring it to the forefront  especially in looking at
> beliefs..  the best way to combat a lie is with the truth  if people
> begin to see the harm they are doing in worshiping the golden calf and
> taking the profits offer by these actions  who know some might
> change..
> Allan
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 7:29 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Psychology can seem very trivial when it tells us we lie a lot and try
> > to fell we are still the good guys via internal rationalisation.    In
> > many ways it is.  Ariely's paper is full of sings of the golden calf -
> > attempts to position the author/s as key researchers to be followed,
> > leading to large numbers of citations that bring research money,
> > professorial status and reward - papers and books are often dishonest
> > in this respect.  'Character reading' has been dismissed for longer
> > than they suggest, a typical academic ploy in establishing new ground
> > is being broken.
> > The big lies told to us tend to be control frauds.  My guess is we can
> > reduce finance to programs embodied iin machines in a way that would
> > bring itt under democratic control.  Instead we have the nonsense of
> > Merton-Black-Scholes and Gaussian copula used as magic wands by an
> > esoteric circle to keep real democratic scrutiny away.  Neither is
> > really more complex in eliminating risk than Tote betting.  They
> > remind me of Latin mass or English  poseurs at German opera.  I know
> > they don't and can't work.  In practice they form part of a common
> > accounting system that hjave allowed 24hr profit and loss to 'justify'
> > big payments from the future now (all very Enron).  I'm suer the
> > 'maths' is a con and have ordered a few books on this aspect.
> > The real problem is a mix of our gullibility towards and fear of power
> > and lots of stuff to do with ownership and the ease with which we re
> > bought off real democratic communion.  If there are time travellers
> > amongst us they are fastbucks from the future pretending to be the
> > rewards from investment.  We are not bankrupting our as yet unborn
> > kids through government borrowing but rather indenturing them to
> > bonuses being taken now for non-work by parasites.
>
> > People don't really follow argument - too much teaching on my part -
> > because you can't wake most from ideology.  To be free of the chains
> > of illusion you need to know the complexities of lying and self-lying
> > - a process that feels clanky and metallic itself - a further burden.
> > Machiavelli told us about argument and we let them turn our attention
> > to his evil.
>
> > On 25 Dec, 23:08, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--