Wow, that example about sums up the stories I hear about big companies
and lawsuits. They gain more by not dealing honestly if they can
dominate the markets, and have deep pockets to drive the squeaky wheels
into bankruptcy. If they get caught I get the feeling many are probably
extorted into civic duty by doing little humanitarian stuff that makes
the public feel all warm and fuzzy. Truth is the judge probably gave
them a deal, the people going bankrupt got a fraction of lost value and
damages and can't speak out due to a SLAPP suit. What a rosy picture, it
could be an industry standard! ;-)
On 1/31/2013 11:13 AM, archytas wrote:
> People like simplistic morality. In the real world it's different -
> see the discussion here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dirty-hands/
> on dirty hands. I abhor violence and torture - but friends could rely
> on me to use both in certain circumstances. Usual discussion here is
> stuff like the Allies bombing German civilians was justified at the
> beginning of the war (because the Nazis winning was unthinkable) but
> not the later bombing at the end of the war when Germany and Japan
> were all but defeated (the excuse then being merely saving our
> soldiers' lives rather than all civilisation).
> There are, in fact, multiple issues, at apparently inconsequential
> levels. As fullback at 5ft 9 and 12 stone 8 you face a rampaging 17
> stoner 6 ft 4 high as the last line of defence. If you take him high
> he will run over you and score - if you take him low you will bring
> him down but his momentum will take him to the line and score. An
> alternative is to take his head. This will incur and penalty (two
> points) and your sending off. There are two minutes left and you are
> winning 10 points to 7. Winning pay is £300 and losing pay £35. What
> do you do? What might be going through your mind?
>
> Most fullbacks in this position go for the head. The cheating and
> risk to the big guy are justified by such as:
> 1/. You won't play nest week if you don't stop him
> 2/. You won't be popular with your mates
> 3/. They would do the same to you and so on.
>
> I never did this. Dad would be in the crowd and his disapproval
> outweighed all other considerations. Morality is difficult and we lie
> to ourselves about it. We often won't even admit to the bad as in
> believing our foreign policies are ethical against all evidence.
>
> On Jan 31, 1:30 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I like the divine right analogy rigs. I don't favour capitalism for
>> much the same reason. Much discussion of right and wrong is stuck in
>> a past we need to escape. Origin is difficult. Born a Scot I might
>> revere our heritage - but 3000 years ago 'we' were likely German
>> farmers eating 'grass porridge'. Capitalism broke up much of
>> feudalism, but I suspect it was no more than a revision of Domesday
>> Book accounting and labour exploitation. Much of what actually goes
>> on is not capitalism but the establishment of rents through financial
>> manipulations - essentially a control fraud by the rentier-class.
>> We've been had on a butty - and need more modern argument based on
>> what we know, facts shared in a common language.
>> There is a literature suggesting our environmental knowledge is now
>> important in moral decision-making I think we have missed a lot
>> before this. Current technology is good enough for us to create self-
>> sustaining communities and give up on empire. We need to re-evaluate
>> our morality against this. I don't see this leading to socialism and
>> any aim seems to me to be about considerably more freedom - from such
>> things as war, work ethics formed in times of shortage and need for
>> hard labour and so on. The Soviet empire was much like the Tsars it
>> replaced - we used to call the KGB 'Checkists' after the Tsar's secret
>> police.
>> I suspect capitalism - unless used as a pejorative - is little more
>> than an accounting system. The problem lies in its corruption.
>> People cheat and cheats like crimogenic systems that allow work in the
>> dark. The umpire in cricket is now redundant - machines are better.
>> We could have had a machine accounting system on a global basis by now
>> - instead machines play a bigger role in cheating. Capitalism with
>> fair accounting presents few problems except for losers in the
>> competition. In sport we have competitions that allow losers first
>> draft picks and our course there is no competition if one eradicates
>> the competition. Wigan's dominance of the Rugby League was truly
>> horrible - it was hard t turn up to watch knowing every other team
>> would lose.
>> The pathway to Hell is lined with good intentions Gabby - we are
>> scared of change. Does anyone now believe that rule by the Guardians
>> of future socialist paradise can be established to wither away? Or
>> that the rentiers will wither away as Keynes hoped? And are such
>> matters not the same coin, merely opposite sides? Capitalism has run
>> up a lot of debt - are we so sure of it we can do away with time-
>> honoured debt jubilee? Would it not make more sense to give away what
>> we have built already to the people, have something of a leveling and
>> start again with a new focus on sustainability?
>> The genuine capitalist firm treats finance as a cost - it is difficult
>> to see from this how the vast transactions of financial services are
>> not parasitic on such firms and all of us. The bubbles created cause
>> much misery and form part of a vast Ponzi scheme we have no need of.
>> Beyond this, capitalism is really assumed to be a dirty game of beggar
>> thy neighbour we are ahead in and need to stay ahead in or we'll lose
>> military edge (and so on). We end up justifying doing bad things for
>> the greater end and rationalising this as moral.
>>
>> On Jan 31, 9:14 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The way you contrast socialism and capitalism is like contrasting
>>> creationism versus evolutionism. And by the natural law that the fittest
>>> will survive you are right to have decided for the evolutionary view.
>>> I don't think - and the exchange in this group has helped me a lot to see
>>> this clearer - we should forget how tempting the search for the right
>>> answers is.
>>> 2013/1/31 rigs <rigs...@gmail.com>
>>>> I am a fan of capitalism. I consider Marxism and Fascism as an
>>>> extension of socialism which is an extension of divine rights,etc.,
>>>> i.e. theft, redistribution of another's wealth and labor, weakening of
>>>> the body politic (a form of serfdom) which turns governments into
>>>> bloodsuckers via taxes and debt.//Do you think economics is a valid
>>>> science? Why, when it has flopped so many times.//We need production
>>>> and labor plus consumption so there is a need for immigrants into
>>>> white industrial countries to make up for the decline of white births
>>>> (55 million abortions plus birth control). But I wonder if illegals
>>>> will pay back taxes and bother to learn English. It might go smoother
>>>> if we learn Spanish and Europe learn Arabic.//Family can also hurt
>>>> people but sometimes that hurt teaches valuable lessons. It is easier
>>>> to leave some people and events to Heaven though it would probably
>>>> spell the end of the legal profession.
>>>> On Jan 30, 4:56 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I'm not sure the audience is as wide as your estimate rigs.
>>>>> Technically I am hospitable to any theoretical view from marxism to
>>>>> fascism - though I tend to dislike theoretical views - and hospitable
>>>>> to Islamic theory/s in business analysis - and to guests in my
>>>>> classrooms from all backgrounds. This is easy enough - as easy as
>>>>> offering to put you up if you were travelling in the UK. The
>>>>> difficult bit is in reciprocity - here we might think of the Maussian
>>>>> concept of the gift and many examples in 'stoneage economics' - what
>>>>> is expect of a guest in return. One gives freely - a few nights stay
>>>>> is not given for a return of a few nights stay and so on - yet one
>>>>> does not generally keep giving to inhospitable guests. One can
>>>>> discuss racism yet not tolerate racists - but to brand people
>>>>> concerned their opportunities for homes and work are disappearing in
>>>>> immigration flows as racist who raise these issues with some hatred on
>>>>> the people taking them is also wrong (particularly if done by
>>>>> politically correct idiots whose homes and jobs are not under such
>>>>> threat). Hospitality is sometimes easy, sometimes very hard work, can
>>>>> be a treat or pain - but is always already reciprocal in intent even
>>>>> if no commodity exchange is meant. I prefer to be hospitable to you
>>>>> rigs than tolerant - tolerance has pratronising aspects - and this is
>>>>> my general approach to things intellectual. It's easy with you as I
>>>>> like what I hear. I have lost hospitality to politics. Left to typo
>>>>> as it hits the meaning better than the word I intended!
>>>>> People hurt us Andrew. We hurt them. Some is intentional some not.
>>>>> Gossip is often vicious from the pub to academic cloister.
>>>>> Transactional analysis isn't a bad place to look at how rigs'
>>>>> "balanced score card" builds up in personal relationships - Eric
>>>>> Berne's 'Games People Play' is still. the best book. Only friends can
>>>>> generally hurt us as we come to expect better from them, value them
>>>>> and so on. Friendship is easily mimicked and sometimes that small
>>>>> thing you mention may reveal the charade. Sometimes we take things
>>>>> too hard and should just let an incident wash away. This can be
>>>>> particularly hard if you've been collecting brown stamps (been shit
>>>>> on) in too many recent encounters. I used to go to the pub every
>>>>> Friday to get rid of my collection - but this habit itself became a
>>>>> brown stamp. I'm not religious but there's lots in forgiveness and
>>>>> 'there but for the grace of god go I'.
>>>>> On 29 Jan, 19:11, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Please define what you mean by "hospitality"- of the individual, the
>>>>>> group, nations. Thanks. :-)
>>>>>> On Jan 29, 5:22 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I think the first consideration is hospitality rigs.
>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 12:10 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> At least some had good intentions re empires- maybe that should be
>>>>>>>> noted. And I believe in good intentions, myself- don't you? It's
>>>>>>>> likely a project for those two columCouldns of thinking and
>>>> sorting.
>>>>>>>> On Jan 28, 6:41 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Good question Andrew - though we could wonder why most people
>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> rosy views of the US and British empires, pretty much against
>>>> the real
>>>>>>>>> history.
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 28, 11:19 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Try being Pollyanna for a day and see how far you get. Or Dr.
>>>> Pangloss
>>>>>>>>>> ("Candide")
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 28, 5:11 am, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Why do so many of us remember negative feelings easier than
>>>> positive ones.
>>>>>>>>>>> Pain over pleasure. Bad news over good news. Why does "bad"
>>>> overshadow
>>>>>>>>>>> "good", immorality over morality, despair over hope,
>>>> pessimism over
>>>>>>>>>>> optimism. Why does hate appear to be more powerful than
>>>> love? Why is greed
>>>>>>>>>>> louder than generosity. Why is destruction of war so much
>>>> faster than the
>>>>>>>>>>> building power of peace. Why can one little lie destroy a
>>>> lifetime of
>>>>>>>>>>> trust. Why are lies more influential than truth. It all
>>>> seems so one sided.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why is that?- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> --
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>>> ""Minds Eye"" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>>> email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
The good with the bad can be a hard one, most here have likely heard the
theory: evolutionary fitness of pattern recognition that results in
anxiety and seeing phantoms in the darkness as a preemptive adaptation.
One I've been toying with is that the distribution of prestige in an
egalitarian tribal setting may have been regulated by these fixations,
an irrelevant leader is finished, a discredited and dishonored leader
will lose influence and alliances. It is a work in progress.
The first is something I feel a bond in with our canine companion when
just watching the woods, he is usually doing the same thing I am (even
if I usually hear things first), he has a hell of a nose- neither of us
can turn it off, straining at the boundaries of the senses. It is fun,
validating and honest. A positive side. I've been attacked by dogs
several times when younger. Once in highschool I helped someone moving
and sat in the back with their ketamine drugged large lab, long story
short I had to stick my hand in his mouth and hold on to hold him off my
neck. Set it myself, wrapped up and it swelled up like a pro baseball
for a week. We adopted a beaten dog around that time that would
completely flip if you moved wrong (almost any move really) so we became
friends by sparring, him gnashing teeth and spit like a total spaz I
knew he was nuts but never hit or kicked him if he snagged me good.
Eventually he showed care and remorse if I got hurt, we would stop and
talk and even have mild contact like a stroke or two but keeping space
or he'd have my face. I look to things sometimes, and find compassion is
powerful, you can trick the brain into allowing a little to shine back
in too. How many people watch the water running down a drain and hope
they don't badly need that little bit someday? Someone reading this mail
is not likely to. Apprehension is enough to drive one to religion! I'm
not into Pascal's wager, but I've got a healthy respect for the fates.
Enough to be grateful I'm not like that dog, and even some people. I'm
just a bit like my dog, which is good, even if he listens about as well
as my two boys. *chuckles
Bittersweet?
My writing is getting worse, I think, meh..
On 1/28/2013 6:11 AM, andrew vecsey wrote:
> Why do so many of us remember negative feelings easier than positive
> ones. Pain over pleasure. Bad news over good news. Why does "bad"
> overshadow "good", immorality over morality, despair over hope,
> pessimism over optimism. Why does hate appear to be more powerful than
> love? Why is greed louder than generosity. Why is destruction of war
> so much faster than the building power of peace. Why can one little
> lie destroy a lifetime of trust. Why are lies more influential than
> truth. It all seems so one sided. Why is that?
> --
>
>
>
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
theory: evolutionary fitness of pattern recognition that results in
anxiety and seeing phantoms in the darkness as a preemptive adaptation.
One I've been toying with is that the distribution of prestige in an
egalitarian tribal setting may have been regulated by these fixations,
an irrelevant leader is finished, a discredited and dishonored leader
will lose influence and alliances. It is a work in progress.
The first is something I feel a bond in with our canine companion when
just watching the woods, he is usually doing the same thing I am (even
if I usually hear things first), he has a hell of a nose- neither of us
can turn it off, straining at the boundaries of the senses. It is fun,
validating and honest. A positive side. I've been attacked by dogs
several times when younger. Once in highschool I helped someone moving
and sat in the back with their ketamine drugged large lab, long story
short I had to stick my hand in his mouth and hold on to hold him off my
neck. Set it myself, wrapped up and it swelled up like a pro baseball
for a week. We adopted a beaten dog around that time that would
completely flip if you moved wrong (almost any move really) so we became
friends by sparring, him gnashing teeth and spit like a total spaz I
knew he was nuts but never hit or kicked him if he snagged me good.
Eventually he showed care and remorse if I got hurt, we would stop and
talk and even have mild contact like a stroke or two but keeping space
or he'd have my face. I look to things sometimes, and find compassion is
powerful, you can trick the brain into allowing a little to shine back
in too. How many people watch the water running down a drain and hope
they don't badly need that little bit someday? Someone reading this mail
is not likely to. Apprehension is enough to drive one to religion! I'm
not into Pascal's wager, but I've got a healthy respect for the fates.
Enough to be grateful I'm not like that dog, and even some people. I'm
just a bit like my dog, which is good, even if he listens about as well
as my two boys. *chuckles
Bittersweet?
My writing is getting worse, I think, meh..
On 1/28/2013 6:11 AM, andrew vecsey wrote:
> Why do so many of us remember negative feelings easier than positive
> ones. Pain over pleasure. Bad news over good news. Why does "bad"
> overshadow "good", immorality over morality, despair over hope,
> pessimism over optimism. Why does hate appear to be more powerful than
> love? Why is greed louder than generosity. Why is destruction of war
> so much faster than the building power of peace. Why can one little
> lie destroy a lifetime of trust. Why are lies more influential than
> truth. It all seems so one sided. Why is that?
> --
>
>
>
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Motive might be considered as something a bit like ongoing
brainwashing in the production of docile bodies - and a consequence is
we rate subjectivism and the individual too strongly.
On 31 Jan, 19:13, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's in the work of Michel Foucault and others. In essence I suppose
> its the creation of docile bodies and govern-mentality through
> propaganda and ADMASS culture - so people think voting occasionally in
> elections with no real choice is important. One of the books was
> called 'Governing The Soul' (Nikolas Rose).
>
> On 6 Jan, 10:23, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Neil , what is ' docile body production ? Would you care to elaborate ?
>
> >in election
>
> > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:40 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If what you are saying Pol wasn't true there would be no advertising.
> > > What might be more important than free will questions are those on
> > > resisting govern-mentality and docile body production. I am more
> > > interested in how we might stop mass manipulation in order more might
> > > be free in action.
>
> > > The correct salute, if I was too patronising Allan is two-fingered.
>
> > > On 3 Jan, 18:14, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Does it matter if we are free..or if we are not... philosophically i
> > >> mean... i think its significant the level of importance we are willing to
> > >> allow to the unconscious affecting the conscious... things affect people
> > >> differently... so isnt it kinda predetermined..the effect some externality
> > >> will have on someone... like saying i wish i was like so and so... then you
> > >> wouldn't be you..you would be that person... theres no point made here cos
> > >> im just thinking out loud..in text.. ;) ...
>
> > >> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > >> > If it was all so simple, my attempts to simplify everything would not be
> > >> > so much fun. Man is a very complex being made up of both conscious and
> > >> > unconscious aspects that give him both freedoms and limitations. That is
> > >> > the reason we should try to avoid judging other people. Our unconscious
> > >> > intuitions come from external sources, but we are free to listen and obey
> > >> > them and free to refuse to believe them. Our freedom lies in choosing the
> > >> > many choices we are continuously confronted with. And we decide using our
> > >> > free will - our desire. You can`t always get what you want, but in the end
> > >> > you will always get what you need. Psychologists are scientists and what
> > >> > scientists say should be taken with a grain of salt. Like all of us, they
> > >> > are free to beleive anything they want to believe. And like all of us, they
> > >> > are free to change their mind when ever they want to.
>
> > >> > On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:31:28 PM UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
>
> > >> >> Psychologists say that a person's conscious motives are not the real
> > >> >> determinants of behavior but one's real motives lie in the unconscious and
> > >> >> one is not aware of them. A person who is obsessed with cleanliness is
> > >> >> ostensibly a very clean person but in reality he has strong instinctive sex
> > >> >> drive which get repressed as he cannot accept them.
> > >> >> The question is that are we to judge ourselves or judged by others for
> > >> >> our behavior by the conscious motives or the repressed unconscious motives
> > >> >> ? Clearly we cannot be judged for factors of which we are not even aware
> > >> >> even though they are the real determinants of our actions.
> > >> >> The question now arises of our will , is our will free ? Consciously we
> > >> >> are free , we think and act as we want , we can open or close our hand
> > >> >> freely. So , we have freedom of choice , and if our will is bound by
> > >> >> unconscious determinants we cannot be held accountable for them. If
> > >> >> unconsciously we are selfish and consciously generous , it is our
> > >> >> generosity for which we can be judged and not the unconscious motive. So ,
> > >> >> the phantom of Bondage evaporates into thin air !
>
> > >> > --
>
> > >> --
> > >> EverComing
>
> > > --
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
brainwashing in the production of docile bodies - and a consequence is
we rate subjectivism and the individual too strongly.
On 31 Jan, 19:13, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's in the work of Michel Foucault and others. In essence I suppose
> its the creation of docile bodies and govern-mentality through
> propaganda and ADMASS culture - so people think voting occasionally in
> elections with no real choice is important. One of the books was
> called 'Governing The Soul' (Nikolas Rose).
>
> On 6 Jan, 10:23, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Neil , what is ' docile body production ? Would you care to elaborate ?
>
> >in election
>
> > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:40 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If what you are saying Pol wasn't true there would be no advertising.
> > > What might be more important than free will questions are those on
> > > resisting govern-mentality and docile body production. I am more
> > > interested in how we might stop mass manipulation in order more might
> > > be free in action.
>
> > > The correct salute, if I was too patronising Allan is two-fingered.
>
> > > On 3 Jan, 18:14, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Does it matter if we are free..or if we are not... philosophically i
> > >> mean... i think its significant the level of importance we are willing to
> > >> allow to the unconscious affecting the conscious... things affect people
> > >> differently... so isnt it kinda predetermined..the effect some externality
> > >> will have on someone... like saying i wish i was like so and so... then you
> > >> wouldn't be you..you would be that person... theres no point made here cos
> > >> im just thinking out loud..in text.. ;) ...
>
> > >> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > >> > If it was all so simple, my attempts to simplify everything would not be
> > >> > so much fun. Man is a very complex being made up of both conscious and
> > >> > unconscious aspects that give him both freedoms and limitations. That is
> > >> > the reason we should try to avoid judging other people. Our unconscious
> > >> > intuitions come from external sources, but we are free to listen and obey
> > >> > them and free to refuse to believe them. Our freedom lies in choosing the
> > >> > many choices we are continuously confronted with. And we decide using our
> > >> > free will - our desire. You can`t always get what you want, but in the end
> > >> > you will always get what you need. Psychologists are scientists and what
> > >> > scientists say should be taken with a grain of salt. Like all of us, they
> > >> > are free to beleive anything they want to believe. And like all of us, they
> > >> > are free to change their mind when ever they want to.
>
> > >> > On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:31:28 PM UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
>
> > >> >> Psychologists say that a person's conscious motives are not the real
> > >> >> determinants of behavior but one's real motives lie in the unconscious and
> > >> >> one is not aware of them. A person who is obsessed with cleanliness is
> > >> >> ostensibly a very clean person but in reality he has strong instinctive sex
> > >> >> drive which get repressed as he cannot accept them.
> > >> >> The question is that are we to judge ourselves or judged by others for
> > >> >> our behavior by the conscious motives or the repressed unconscious motives
> > >> >> ? Clearly we cannot be judged for factors of which we are not even aware
> > >> >> even though they are the real determinants of our actions.
> > >> >> The question now arises of our will , is our will free ? Consciously we
> > >> >> are free , we think and act as we want , we can open or close our hand
> > >> >> freely. So , we have freedom of choice , and if our will is bound by
> > >> >> unconscious determinants we cannot be held accountable for them. If
> > >> >> unconsciously we are selfish and consciously generous , it is our
> > >> >> generosity for which we can be judged and not the unconscious motive. So ,
> > >> >> the phantom of Bondage evaporates into thin air !
>
> > >> > --
>
> > >> --
> > >> EverComing
>
> > > --
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
a docile body is defined by Michel Foucault "one that may be
subjected, used, transformed, and improved. and that this docile body
can only be achieved through strict regiment of disciplinary acts".
Foucault argues that we cannot choose to enter modern society; we are
controlled utterly by it through it technologies of power.
My own analysis starts from modern terror and goes back to Hobbes and
I see more room for resistance.- though I want to see literature and
film find ways for people to get involved.
On 6 Jan, 10:23, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Neil , what is ' docile body production ? Would you care to elaborate ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:40 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If what you are saying Pol wasn't true there would be no advertising.
> > What might be more important than free will questions are those on
> > resisting govern-mentality and docile body production. I am more
> > interested in how we might stop mass manipulation in order more might
> > be free in action.
>
> > The correct salute, if I was too patronising Allan is two-fingered.
>
> > On 3 Jan, 18:14, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Does it matter if we are free..or if we are not... philosophically i
> >> mean... i think its significant the level of importance we are willing to
> >> allow to the unconscious affecting the conscious... things affect people
> >> differently... so isnt it kinda predetermined..the effect some externality
> >> will have on someone... like saying i wish i was like so and so... then you
> >> wouldn't be you..you would be that person... theres no point made here cos
> >> im just thinking out loud..in text.. ;) ...
>
> >> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> > If it was all so simple, my attempts to simplify everything would not be
> >> > so much fun. Man is a very complex being made up of both conscious and
> >> > unconscious aspects that give him both freedoms and limitations. That is
> >> > the reason we should try to avoid judging other people. Our unconscious
> >> > intuitions come from external sources, but we are free to listen and obey
> >> > them and free to refuse to believe them. Our freedom lies in choosing the
> >> > many choices we are continuously confronted with. And we decide using our
> >> > free will - our desire. You can`t always get what you want, but in the end
> >> > you will always get what you need. Psychologists are scientists and what
> >> > scientists say should be taken with a grain of salt. Like all of us, they
> >> > are free to beleive anything they want to believe. And like all of us, they
> >> > are free to change their mind when ever they want to.
>
> >> > On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:31:28 PM UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
>
> >> >> Psychologists say that a person's conscious motives are not the real
> >> >> determinants of behavior but one's real motives lie in the unconscious and
> >> >> one is not aware of them. A person who is obsessed with cleanliness is
> >> >> ostensibly a very clean person but in reality he has strong instinctive sex
> >> >> drive which get repressed as he cannot accept them.
> >> >> The question is that are we to judge ourselves or judged by others for
> >> >> our behavior by the conscious motives or the repressed unconscious motives
> >> >> ? Clearly we cannot be judged for factors of which we are not even aware
> >> >> even though they are the real determinants of our actions.
> >> >> The question now arises of our will , is our will free ? Consciously we
> >> >> are free , we think and act as we want , we can open or close our hand
> >> >> freely. So , we have freedom of choice , and if our will is bound by
> >> >> unconscious determinants we cannot be held accountable for them. If
> >> >> unconsciously we are selfish and consciously generous , it is our
> >> >> generosity for which we can be judged and not the unconscious motive. So ,
> >> >> the phantom of Bondage evaporates into thin air !
>
> >> > --
>
> >> --
> >> EverComing
>
> > --
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
subjected, used, transformed, and improved. and that this docile body
can only be achieved through strict regiment of disciplinary acts".
Foucault argues that we cannot choose to enter modern society; we are
controlled utterly by it through it technologies of power.
My own analysis starts from modern terror and goes back to Hobbes and
I see more room for resistance.- though I want to see literature and
film find ways for people to get involved.
On 6 Jan, 10:23, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Neil , what is ' docile body production ? Would you care to elaborate ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:40 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If what you are saying Pol wasn't true there would be no advertising.
> > What might be more important than free will questions are those on
> > resisting govern-mentality and docile body production. I am more
> > interested in how we might stop mass manipulation in order more might
> > be free in action.
>
> > The correct salute, if I was too patronising Allan is two-fingered.
>
> > On 3 Jan, 18:14, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Does it matter if we are free..or if we are not... philosophically i
> >> mean... i think its significant the level of importance we are willing to
> >> allow to the unconscious affecting the conscious... things affect people
> >> differently... so isnt it kinda predetermined..the effect some externality
> >> will have on someone... like saying i wish i was like so and so... then you
> >> wouldn't be you..you would be that person... theres no point made here cos
> >> im just thinking out loud..in text.. ;) ...
>
> >> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> > If it was all so simple, my attempts to simplify everything would not be
> >> > so much fun. Man is a very complex being made up of both conscious and
> >> > unconscious aspects that give him both freedoms and limitations. That is
> >> > the reason we should try to avoid judging other people. Our unconscious
> >> > intuitions come from external sources, but we are free to listen and obey
> >> > them and free to refuse to believe them. Our freedom lies in choosing the
> >> > many choices we are continuously confronted with. And we decide using our
> >> > free will - our desire. You can`t always get what you want, but in the end
> >> > you will always get what you need. Psychologists are scientists and what
> >> > scientists say should be taken with a grain of salt. Like all of us, they
> >> > are free to beleive anything they want to believe. And like all of us, they
> >> > are free to change their mind when ever they want to.
>
> >> > On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:31:28 PM UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
>
> >> >> Psychologists say that a person's conscious motives are not the real
> >> >> determinants of behavior but one's real motives lie in the unconscious and
> >> >> one is not aware of them. A person who is obsessed with cleanliness is
> >> >> ostensibly a very clean person but in reality he has strong instinctive sex
> >> >> drive which get repressed as he cannot accept them.
> >> >> The question is that are we to judge ourselves or judged by others for
> >> >> our behavior by the conscious motives or the repressed unconscious motives
> >> >> ? Clearly we cannot be judged for factors of which we are not even aware
> >> >> even though they are the real determinants of our actions.
> >> >> The question now arises of our will , is our will free ? Consciously we
> >> >> are free , we think and act as we want , we can open or close our hand
> >> >> freely. So , we have freedom of choice , and if our will is bound by
> >> >> unconscious determinants we cannot be held accountable for them. If
> >> >> unconsciously we are selfish and consciously generous , it is our
> >> >> generosity for which we can be judged and not the unconscious motive. So ,
> >> >> the phantom of Bondage evaporates into thin air !
>
> >> > --
>
> >> --
> >> EverComing
>
> > --
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
It's in the work of Michel Foucault and others. In essence I suppose
its the creation of docile bodies and govern-mentality through
propaganda and ADMASS culture - so people think voting occasionally in
elections with no real choice is important. One of the books was
called 'Governing The Soul' (Nikolas Rose).
On 6 Jan, 10:23, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Neil , what is ' docile body production ? Would you care to elaborate ?
>
>
>
>in election
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:40 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If what you are saying Pol wasn't true there would be no advertising.
> > What might be more important than free will questions are those on
> > resisting govern-mentality and docile body production. I am more
> > interested in how we might stop mass manipulation in order more might
> > be free in action.
>
> > The correct salute, if I was too patronising Allan is two-fingered.
>
> > On 3 Jan, 18:14, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Does it matter if we are free..or if we are not... philosophically i
> >> mean... i think its significant the level of importance we are willing to
> >> allow to the unconscious affecting the conscious... things affect people
> >> differently... so isnt it kinda predetermined..the effect some externality
> >> will have on someone... like saying i wish i was like so and so... then you
> >> wouldn't be you..you would be that person... theres no point made here cos
> >> im just thinking out loud..in text.. ;) ...
>
> >> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> > If it was all so simple, my attempts to simplify everything would not be
> >> > so much fun. Man is a very complex being made up of both conscious and
> >> > unconscious aspects that give him both freedoms and limitations. That is
> >> > the reason we should try to avoid judging other people. Our unconscious
> >> > intuitions come from external sources, but we are free to listen and obey
> >> > them and free to refuse to believe them. Our freedom lies in choosing the
> >> > many choices we are continuously confronted with. And we decide using our
> >> > free will - our desire. You can`t always get what you want, but in the end
> >> > you will always get what you need. Psychologists are scientists and what
> >> > scientists say should be taken with a grain of salt. Like all of us, they
> >> > are free to beleive anything they want to believe. And like all of us, they
> >> > are free to change their mind when ever they want to.
>
> >> > On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:31:28 PM UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
>
> >> >> Psychologists say that a person's conscious motives are not the real
> >> >> determinants of behavior but one's real motives lie in the unconscious and
> >> >> one is not aware of them. A person who is obsessed with cleanliness is
> >> >> ostensibly a very clean person but in reality he has strong instinctive sex
> >> >> drive which get repressed as he cannot accept them.
> >> >> The question is that are we to judge ourselves or judged by others for
> >> >> our behavior by the conscious motives or the repressed unconscious motives
> >> >> ? Clearly we cannot be judged for factors of which we are not even aware
> >> >> even though they are the real determinants of our actions.
> >> >> The question now arises of our will , is our will free ? Consciously we
> >> >> are free , we think and act as we want , we can open or close our hand
> >> >> freely. So , we have freedom of choice , and if our will is bound by
> >> >> unconscious determinants we cannot be held accountable for them. If
> >> >> unconsciously we are selfish and consciously generous , it is our
> >> >> generosity for which we can be judged and not the unconscious motive. So ,
> >> >> the phantom of Bondage evaporates into thin air !
>
> >> > --
>
> >> --
> >> EverComing
>
> > --
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
its the creation of docile bodies and govern-mentality through
propaganda and ADMASS culture - so people think voting occasionally in
elections with no real choice is important. One of the books was
called 'Governing The Soul' (Nikolas Rose).
On 6 Jan, 10:23, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Neil , what is ' docile body production ? Would you care to elaborate ?
>
>
>
>in election
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:40 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If what you are saying Pol wasn't true there would be no advertising.
> > What might be more important than free will questions are those on
> > resisting govern-mentality and docile body production. I am more
> > interested in how we might stop mass manipulation in order more might
> > be free in action.
>
> > The correct salute, if I was too patronising Allan is two-fingered.
>
> > On 3 Jan, 18:14, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Does it matter if we are free..or if we are not... philosophically i
> >> mean... i think its significant the level of importance we are willing to
> >> allow to the unconscious affecting the conscious... things affect people
> >> differently... so isnt it kinda predetermined..the effect some externality
> >> will have on someone... like saying i wish i was like so and so... then you
> >> wouldn't be you..you would be that person... theres no point made here cos
> >> im just thinking out loud..in text.. ;) ...
>
> >> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> > If it was all so simple, my attempts to simplify everything would not be
> >> > so much fun. Man is a very complex being made up of both conscious and
> >> > unconscious aspects that give him both freedoms and limitations. That is
> >> > the reason we should try to avoid judging other people. Our unconscious
> >> > intuitions come from external sources, but we are free to listen and obey
> >> > them and free to refuse to believe them. Our freedom lies in choosing the
> >> > many choices we are continuously confronted with. And we decide using our
> >> > free will - our desire. You can`t always get what you want, but in the end
> >> > you will always get what you need. Psychologists are scientists and what
> >> > scientists say should be taken with a grain of salt. Like all of us, they
> >> > are free to beleive anything they want to believe. And like all of us, they
> >> > are free to change their mind when ever they want to.
>
> >> > On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:31:28 PM UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
>
> >> >> Psychologists say that a person's conscious motives are not the real
> >> >> determinants of behavior but one's real motives lie in the unconscious and
> >> >> one is not aware of them. A person who is obsessed with cleanliness is
> >> >> ostensibly a very clean person but in reality he has strong instinctive sex
> >> >> drive which get repressed as he cannot accept them.
> >> >> The question is that are we to judge ourselves or judged by others for
> >> >> our behavior by the conscious motives or the repressed unconscious motives
> >> >> ? Clearly we cannot be judged for factors of which we are not even aware
> >> >> even though they are the real determinants of our actions.
> >> >> The question now arises of our will , is our will free ? Consciously we
> >> >> are free , we think and act as we want , we can open or close our hand
> >> >> freely. So , we have freedom of choice , and if our will is bound by
> >> >> unconscious determinants we cannot be held accountable for them. If
> >> >> unconsciously we are selfish and consciously generous , it is our
> >> >> generosity for which we can be judged and not the unconscious motive. So ,
> >> >> the phantom of Bondage evaporates into thin air !
>
> >> > --
>
> >> --
> >> EverComing
>
> > --
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
We don't understand the homicide bombers well rigs - I suspect their
motivation is similar to that of those who do stuff like landing on an
enemy airstrip and shooting it up. We revere similar acts of heroism
or madness. And forget what perversions of Christianity are
perpetrated in crusade. Who is even to say human purpose is human?
We may be the forerunner of something very different. Purpose may lie
in looking after RP's examples.
On 29 Jan, 19:39, rigs <rigs.'t .@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is an oft repeated saying that the road to Hell is paved with
> good intentions. (St. Bernard, Herbert, Shaw, Samuel Johnson) Is there
> a difference between purpose and intention?
> don> On Jan 28, 6:54 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I think this is a useful split RP - though I tend to wonder on purpose
> > in evolution. There are many examples of animal altruism coming to
> > light - I mentioned the 'slave ants in rebellion' recently but one
> > finds similar even amongst algae that live, for the most part, as
> > single-celled, but gang together when resources run out to 'flip' some
> > of the community to parts elsewhere by forming a stem with a flippable
> > node on top - those in the stem remain behind and die. We might
> > achieve world peace in human affairs (long overdue) only to be hit and
> > killed by a massive gamma burst from deep space. I wonder beyond this
> > as to a potential human purpose in a spiritual world - perhaps beyond
> > biological intelligence, perhaps with life embodied in machines and
> > later in the universe itself as 'we' really learn more. Against long-
> > term history 'we' are unlikely to survive as humans (though the algae
> > have been around much longer) and I suspect 'we' are deluded on human
> > individuality other than in the human world.
>
> > On Jan 28, 11:57 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > To me there is human-purpose , yes , but no spiritual purpose. I was
> > > just using rhetoric in my original post.
>
> > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hahah ohh RP you are one confusing fellow.
>
> > > > Let me see if I follow this correctly. You define spiritual purpose as
> > > > being something that takes you beyond death, but your own belief is that
> > > > nobody goes beyond death, so then to you spiritual purpose is what, an
> > > > oxymoron?
>
> > > > On Monday, 28 January 2013 09:58:43 UTC, RP Singh wrote:
>
> > > >> I look after my children because I love them , I am moral because I
> > > >> want to remain a good person , but all these are human purposes. The
> > > >> spiritual purpose would be to take you beyond death. In my opinion
> > > >> nobody goes beyond death.
>
> > > >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Lee Douglas <leerev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > Umm maybe there is none RP.
>
> > > >> > What do you mean by spiritual purpose?
>
> > > >> > On Monday, 21 January 2013 12:31:34 UTC, RP Singh wrote:
>
> > > >> >> An old man suffers a stroke and becomes a vegetable for the rest of his
> > > >> >> life , a one year old child becomes sick and dies. What is the purpose
> > > >> >> , the
> > > >> >> spiritual purpose for the old man or the child ?
>
> > > >> > --
>
> > > > --- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
motivation is similar to that of those who do stuff like landing on an
enemy airstrip and shooting it up. We revere similar acts of heroism
or madness. And forget what perversions of Christianity are
perpetrated in crusade. Who is even to say human purpose is human?
We may be the forerunner of something very different. Purpose may lie
in looking after RP's examples.
On 29 Jan, 19:39, rigs <rigs.'t .@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is an oft repeated saying that the road to Hell is paved with
> good intentions. (St. Bernard, Herbert, Shaw, Samuel Johnson) Is there
> a difference between purpose and intention?
> don> On Jan 28, 6:54 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I think this is a useful split RP - though I tend to wonder on purpose
> > in evolution. There are many examples of animal altruism coming to
> > light - I mentioned the 'slave ants in rebellion' recently but one
> > finds similar even amongst algae that live, for the most part, as
> > single-celled, but gang together when resources run out to 'flip' some
> > of the community to parts elsewhere by forming a stem with a flippable
> > node on top - those in the stem remain behind and die. We might
> > achieve world peace in human affairs (long overdue) only to be hit and
> > killed by a massive gamma burst from deep space. I wonder beyond this
> > as to a potential human purpose in a spiritual world - perhaps beyond
> > biological intelligence, perhaps with life embodied in machines and
> > later in the universe itself as 'we' really learn more. Against long-
> > term history 'we' are unlikely to survive as humans (though the algae
> > have been around much longer) and I suspect 'we' are deluded on human
> > individuality other than in the human world.
>
> > On Jan 28, 11:57 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > To me there is human-purpose , yes , but no spiritual purpose. I was
> > > just using rhetoric in my original post.
>
> > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hahah ohh RP you are one confusing fellow.
>
> > > > Let me see if I follow this correctly. You define spiritual purpose as
> > > > being something that takes you beyond death, but your own belief is that
> > > > nobody goes beyond death, so then to you spiritual purpose is what, an
> > > > oxymoron?
>
> > > > On Monday, 28 January 2013 09:58:43 UTC, RP Singh wrote:
>
> > > >> I look after my children because I love them , I am moral because I
> > > >> want to remain a good person , but all these are human purposes. The
> > > >> spiritual purpose would be to take you beyond death. In my opinion
> > > >> nobody goes beyond death.
>
> > > >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Lee Douglas <leerev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > Umm maybe there is none RP.
>
> > > >> > What do you mean by spiritual purpose?
>
> > > >> > On Monday, 21 January 2013 12:31:34 UTC, RP Singh wrote:
>
> > > >> >> An old man suffers a stroke and becomes a vegetable for the rest of his
> > > >> >> life , a one year old child becomes sick and dies. What is the purpose
> > > >> >> , the
> > > >> >> spiritual purpose for the old man or the child ?
>
> > > >> > --
>
> > > > --- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
People like simplistic morality. In the real world it's different -
see the discussion here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dirty-hands/
on dirty hands. I abhor violence and torture - but friends could rely
on me to use both in certain circumstances. Usual discussion here is
stuff like the Allies bombing German civilians was justified at the
beginning of the war (because the Nazis winning was unthinkable) but
not the later bombing at the end of the war when Germany and Japan
were all but defeated (the excuse then being merely saving our
soldiers' lives rather than all civilisation).
There are, in fact, multiple issues, at apparently inconsequential
levels. As fullback at 5ft 9 and 12 stone 8 you face a rampaging 17
stoner 6 ft 4 high as the last line of defence. If you take him high
he will run over you and score - if you take him low you will bring
him down but his momentum will take him to the line and score. An
alternative is to take his head. This will incur and penalty (two
points) and your sending off. There are two minutes left and you are
winning 10 points to 7. Winning pay is £300 and losing pay £35. What
do you do? What might be going through your mind?
Most fullbacks in this position go for the head. The cheating and
risk to the big guy are justified by such as:
1/. You won't play nest week if you don't stop him
2/. You won't be popular with your mates
3/. They would do the same to you and so on.
I never did this. Dad would be in the crowd and his disapproval
outweighed all other considerations. Morality is difficult and we lie
to ourselves about it. We often won't even admit to the bad as in
believing our foreign policies are ethical against all evidence.
On Jan 31, 1:30 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like the divine right analogy rigs. I don't favour capitalism for
> much the same reason. Much discussion of right and wrong is stuck in
> a past we need to escape. Origin is difficult. Born a Scot I might
> revere our heritage - but 3000 years ago 'we' were likely German
> farmers eating 'grass porridge'. Capitalism broke up much of
> feudalism, but I suspect it was no more than a revision of Domesday
> Book accounting and labour exploitation. Much of what actually goes
> on is not capitalism but the establishment of rents through financial
> manipulations - essentially a control fraud by the rentier-class.
> We've been had on a butty - and need more modern argument based on
> what we know, facts shared in a common language.
> There is a literature suggesting our environmental knowledge is now
> important in moral decision-making I think we have missed a lot
> before this. Current technology is good enough for us to create self-
> sustaining communities and give up on empire. We need to re-evaluate
> our morality against this. I don't see this leading to socialism and
> any aim seems to me to be about considerably more freedom - from such
> things as war, work ethics formed in times of shortage and need for
> hard labour and so on. The Soviet empire was much like the Tsars it
> replaced - we used to call the KGB 'Checkists' after the Tsar's secret
> police.
> I suspect capitalism - unless used as a pejorative - is little more
> than an accounting system. The problem lies in its corruption.
> People cheat and cheats like crimogenic systems that allow work in the
> dark. The umpire in cricket is now redundant - machines are better.
> We could have had a machine accounting system on a global basis by now
> - instead machines play a bigger role in cheating. Capitalism with
> fair accounting presents few problems except for losers in the
> competition. In sport we have competitions that allow losers first
> draft picks and our course there is no competition if one eradicates
> the competition. Wigan's dominance of the Rugby League was truly
> horrible - it was hard t turn up to watch knowing every other team
> would lose.
> The pathway to Hell is lined with good intentions Gabby - we are
> scared of change. Does anyone now believe that rule by the Guardians
> of future socialist paradise can be established to wither away? Or
> that the rentiers will wither away as Keynes hoped? And are such
> matters not the same coin, merely opposite sides? Capitalism has run
> up a lot of debt - are we so sure of it we can do away with time-
> honoured debt jubilee? Would it not make more sense to give away what
> we have built already to the people, have something of a leveling and
> start again with a new focus on sustainability?
> The genuine capitalist firm treats finance as a cost - it is difficult
> to see from this how the vast transactions of financial services are
> not parasitic on such firms and all of us. The bubbles created cause
> much misery and form part of a vast Ponzi scheme we have no need of.
> Beyond this, capitalism is really assumed to be a dirty game of beggar
> thy neighbour we are ahead in and need to stay ahead in or we'll lose
> military edge (and so on). We end up justifying doing bad things for
> the greater end and rationalising this as moral.
>
> On Jan 31, 9:14 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The way you contrast socialism and capitalism is like contrasting
> > creationism versus evolutionism. And by the natural law that the fittest
> > will survive you are right to have decided for the evolutionary view.
>
> > I don't think - and the exchange in this group has helped me a lot to see
> > this clearer - we should forget how tempting the search for the right
> > answers is.
>
> > 2013/1/31 rigs <rigs...@gmail.com>
>
> > > I am a fan of capitalism. I consider Marxism and Fascism as an
> > > extension of socialism which is an extension of divine rights,etc.,
> > > i.e. theft, redistribution of another's wealth and labor, weakening of
> > > the body politic (a form of serfdom) which turns governments into
> > > bloodsuckers via taxes and debt.//Do you think economics is a valid
> > > science? Why, when it has flopped so many times.//We need production
> > > and labor plus consumption so there is a need for immigrants into
> > > white industrial countries to make up for the decline of white births
> > > (55 million abortions plus birth control). But I wonder if illegals
> > > will pay back taxes and bother to learn English. It might go smoother
> > > if we learn Spanish and Europe learn Arabic.//Family can also hurt
> > > people but sometimes that hurt teaches valuable lessons. It is easier
> > > to leave some people and events to Heaven though it would probably
> > > spell the end of the legal profession.
>
> > > On Jan 30, 4:56 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure the audience is as wide as your estimate rigs.
> > > > Technically I am hospitable to any theoretical view from marxism to
> > > > fascism - though I tend to dislike theoretical views - and hospitable
> > > > to Islamic theory/s in business analysis - and to guests in my
> > > > classrooms from all backgrounds. This is easy enough - as easy as
> > > > offering to put you up if you were travelling in the UK. The
> > > > difficult bit is in reciprocity - here we might think of the Maussian
> > > > concept of the gift and many examples in 'stoneage economics' - what
> > > > is expect of a guest in return. One gives freely - a few nights stay
> > > > is not given for a return of a few nights stay and so on - yet one
> > > > does not generally keep giving to inhospitable guests. One can
> > > > discuss racism yet not tolerate racists - but to brand people
> > > > concerned their opportunities for homes and work are disappearing in
> > > > immigration flows as racist who raise these issues with some hatred on
> > > > the people taking them is also wrong (particularly if done by
> > > > politically correct idiots whose homes and jobs are not under such
> > > > threat). Hospitality is sometimes easy, sometimes very hard work, can
> > > > be a treat or pain - but is always already reciprocal in intent even
> > > > if no commodity exchange is meant. I prefer to be hospitable to you
> > > > rigs than tolerant - tolerance has pratronising aspects - and this is
> > > > my general approach to things intellectual. It's easy with you as I
> > > > like what I hear. I have lost hospitality to politics. Left to typo
> > > > as it hits the meaning better than the word I intended!
>
> > > > People hurt us Andrew. We hurt them. Some is intentional some not.
> > > > Gossip is often vicious from the pub to academic cloister.
> > > > Transactional analysis isn't a bad place to look at how rigs'
> > > > "balanced score card" builds up in personal relationships - Eric
> > > > Berne's 'Games People Play' is still. the best book. Only friends can
> > > > generally hurt us as we come to expect better from them, value them
> > > > and so on. Friendship is easily mimicked and sometimes that small
> > > > thing you mention may reveal the charade. Sometimes we take things
> > > > too hard and should just let an incident wash away. This can be
> > > > particularly hard if you've been collecting brown stamps (been shit
> > > > on) in too many recent encounters. I used to go to the pub every
> > > > Friday to get rid of my collection - but this habit itself became a
> > > > brown stamp. I'm not religious but there's lots in forgiveness and
> > > > 'there but for the grace of god go I'.
>
> > > > On 29 Jan, 19:11, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Please define what you mean by "hospitality"- of the individual, the
> > > > > group, nations. Thanks. :-)
>
> > > > > On Jan 29, 5:22 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I think the first consideration is hospitality rigs.
>
> > > > > > On Jan 29, 12:10 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > At least some had good intentions re empires- maybe that should be
> > > > > > > noted. And I believe in good intentions, myself- don't you? It's
> > > > > > > likely a project for those two columCouldns of thinking and
> > > sorting.
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 28, 6:41 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Good question Andrew - though we could wonder why most people
> > > have
> > > > > > > > rosy views of the US and British empires, pretty much against
> > > the real
> > > > > > > > history.
>
> > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 11:19 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Try being Pollyanna for a day and see how far you get. Or Dr.
> > > Pangloss
> > > > > > > > > ("Candide")
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 5:11 am, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Why do so many of us remember negative feelings easier than
> > > positive ones.
> > > > > > > > > > Pain over pleasure. Bad news over good news. Why does "bad"
> > > overshadow
> > > > > > > > > > "good", immorality over morality, despair over hope,
> > > pessimism over
> > > > > > > > > > optimism. Why does hate appear to be more powerful than
> > > love? Why is greed
> > > > > > > > > > louder than generosity. Why is destruction of war so much
> > > faster than the
> > > > > > > > > > building power of peace. Why can one little lie destroy a
> > > lifetime of
> > > > > > > > > > trust. Why are lies more influential than truth. It all
> > > seems so one sided.
> > > > > > > > > > Why is that?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > --
>
> > > ---
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > ""Minds Eye"" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > > email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
see the discussion here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dirty-hands/
on dirty hands. I abhor violence and torture - but friends could rely
on me to use both in certain circumstances. Usual discussion here is
stuff like the Allies bombing German civilians was justified at the
beginning of the war (because the Nazis winning was unthinkable) but
not the later bombing at the end of the war when Germany and Japan
were all but defeated (the excuse then being merely saving our
soldiers' lives rather than all civilisation).
There are, in fact, multiple issues, at apparently inconsequential
levels. As fullback at 5ft 9 and 12 stone 8 you face a rampaging 17
stoner 6 ft 4 high as the last line of defence. If you take him high
he will run over you and score - if you take him low you will bring
him down but his momentum will take him to the line and score. An
alternative is to take his head. This will incur and penalty (two
points) and your sending off. There are two minutes left and you are
winning 10 points to 7. Winning pay is £300 and losing pay £35. What
do you do? What might be going through your mind?
Most fullbacks in this position go for the head. The cheating and
risk to the big guy are justified by such as:
1/. You won't play nest week if you don't stop him
2/. You won't be popular with your mates
3/. They would do the same to you and so on.
I never did this. Dad would be in the crowd and his disapproval
outweighed all other considerations. Morality is difficult and we lie
to ourselves about it. We often won't even admit to the bad as in
believing our foreign policies are ethical against all evidence.
On Jan 31, 1:30 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like the divine right analogy rigs. I don't favour capitalism for
> much the same reason. Much discussion of right and wrong is stuck in
> a past we need to escape. Origin is difficult. Born a Scot I might
> revere our heritage - but 3000 years ago 'we' were likely German
> farmers eating 'grass porridge'. Capitalism broke up much of
> feudalism, but I suspect it was no more than a revision of Domesday
> Book accounting and labour exploitation. Much of what actually goes
> on is not capitalism but the establishment of rents through financial
> manipulations - essentially a control fraud by the rentier-class.
> We've been had on a butty - and need more modern argument based on
> what we know, facts shared in a common language.
> There is a literature suggesting our environmental knowledge is now
> important in moral decision-making I think we have missed a lot
> before this. Current technology is good enough for us to create self-
> sustaining communities and give up on empire. We need to re-evaluate
> our morality against this. I don't see this leading to socialism and
> any aim seems to me to be about considerably more freedom - from such
> things as war, work ethics formed in times of shortage and need for
> hard labour and so on. The Soviet empire was much like the Tsars it
> replaced - we used to call the KGB 'Checkists' after the Tsar's secret
> police.
> I suspect capitalism - unless used as a pejorative - is little more
> than an accounting system. The problem lies in its corruption.
> People cheat and cheats like crimogenic systems that allow work in the
> dark. The umpire in cricket is now redundant - machines are better.
> We could have had a machine accounting system on a global basis by now
> - instead machines play a bigger role in cheating. Capitalism with
> fair accounting presents few problems except for losers in the
> competition. In sport we have competitions that allow losers first
> draft picks and our course there is no competition if one eradicates
> the competition. Wigan's dominance of the Rugby League was truly
> horrible - it was hard t turn up to watch knowing every other team
> would lose.
> The pathway to Hell is lined with good intentions Gabby - we are
> scared of change. Does anyone now believe that rule by the Guardians
> of future socialist paradise can be established to wither away? Or
> that the rentiers will wither away as Keynes hoped? And are such
> matters not the same coin, merely opposite sides? Capitalism has run
> up a lot of debt - are we so sure of it we can do away with time-
> honoured debt jubilee? Would it not make more sense to give away what
> we have built already to the people, have something of a leveling and
> start again with a new focus on sustainability?
> The genuine capitalist firm treats finance as a cost - it is difficult
> to see from this how the vast transactions of financial services are
> not parasitic on such firms and all of us. The bubbles created cause
> much misery and form part of a vast Ponzi scheme we have no need of.
> Beyond this, capitalism is really assumed to be a dirty game of beggar
> thy neighbour we are ahead in and need to stay ahead in or we'll lose
> military edge (and so on). We end up justifying doing bad things for
> the greater end and rationalising this as moral.
>
> On Jan 31, 9:14 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The way you contrast socialism and capitalism is like contrasting
> > creationism versus evolutionism. And by the natural law that the fittest
> > will survive you are right to have decided for the evolutionary view.
>
> > I don't think - and the exchange in this group has helped me a lot to see
> > this clearer - we should forget how tempting the search for the right
> > answers is.
>
> > 2013/1/31 rigs <rigs...@gmail.com>
>
> > > I am a fan of capitalism. I consider Marxism and Fascism as an
> > > extension of socialism which is an extension of divine rights,etc.,
> > > i.e. theft, redistribution of another's wealth and labor, weakening of
> > > the body politic (a form of serfdom) which turns governments into
> > > bloodsuckers via taxes and debt.//Do you think economics is a valid
> > > science? Why, when it has flopped so many times.//We need production
> > > and labor plus consumption so there is a need for immigrants into
> > > white industrial countries to make up for the decline of white births
> > > (55 million abortions plus birth control). But I wonder if illegals
> > > will pay back taxes and bother to learn English. It might go smoother
> > > if we learn Spanish and Europe learn Arabic.//Family can also hurt
> > > people but sometimes that hurt teaches valuable lessons. It is easier
> > > to leave some people and events to Heaven though it would probably
> > > spell the end of the legal profession.
>
> > > On Jan 30, 4:56 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure the audience is as wide as your estimate rigs.
> > > > Technically I am hospitable to any theoretical view from marxism to
> > > > fascism - though I tend to dislike theoretical views - and hospitable
> > > > to Islamic theory/s in business analysis - and to guests in my
> > > > classrooms from all backgrounds. This is easy enough - as easy as
> > > > offering to put you up if you were travelling in the UK. The
> > > > difficult bit is in reciprocity - here we might think of the Maussian
> > > > concept of the gift and many examples in 'stoneage economics' - what
> > > > is expect of a guest in return. One gives freely - a few nights stay
> > > > is not given for a return of a few nights stay and so on - yet one
> > > > does not generally keep giving to inhospitable guests. One can
> > > > discuss racism yet not tolerate racists - but to brand people
> > > > concerned their opportunities for homes and work are disappearing in
> > > > immigration flows as racist who raise these issues with some hatred on
> > > > the people taking them is also wrong (particularly if done by
> > > > politically correct idiots whose homes and jobs are not under such
> > > > threat). Hospitality is sometimes easy, sometimes very hard work, can
> > > > be a treat or pain - but is always already reciprocal in intent even
> > > > if no commodity exchange is meant. I prefer to be hospitable to you
> > > > rigs than tolerant - tolerance has pratronising aspects - and this is
> > > > my general approach to things intellectual. It's easy with you as I
> > > > like what I hear. I have lost hospitality to politics. Left to typo
> > > > as it hits the meaning better than the word I intended!
>
> > > > People hurt us Andrew. We hurt them. Some is intentional some not.
> > > > Gossip is often vicious from the pub to academic cloister.
> > > > Transactional analysis isn't a bad place to look at how rigs'
> > > > "balanced score card" builds up in personal relationships - Eric
> > > > Berne's 'Games People Play' is still. the best book. Only friends can
> > > > generally hurt us as we come to expect better from them, value them
> > > > and so on. Friendship is easily mimicked and sometimes that small
> > > > thing you mention may reveal the charade. Sometimes we take things
> > > > too hard and should just let an incident wash away. This can be
> > > > particularly hard if you've been collecting brown stamps (been shit
> > > > on) in too many recent encounters. I used to go to the pub every
> > > > Friday to get rid of my collection - but this habit itself became a
> > > > brown stamp. I'm not religious but there's lots in forgiveness and
> > > > 'there but for the grace of god go I'.
>
> > > > On 29 Jan, 19:11, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Please define what you mean by "hospitality"- of the individual, the
> > > > > group, nations. Thanks. :-)
>
> > > > > On Jan 29, 5:22 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I think the first consideration is hospitality rigs.
>
> > > > > > On Jan 29, 12:10 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > At least some had good intentions re empires- maybe that should be
> > > > > > > noted. And I believe in good intentions, myself- don't you? It's
> > > > > > > likely a project for those two columCouldns of thinking and
> > > sorting.
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 28, 6:41 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Good question Andrew - though we could wonder why most people
> > > have
> > > > > > > > rosy views of the US and British empires, pretty much against
> > > the real
> > > > > > > > history.
>
> > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 11:19 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Try being Pollyanna for a day and see how far you get. Or Dr.
> > > Pangloss
> > > > > > > > > ("Candide")
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 5:11 am, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Why do so many of us remember negative feelings easier than
> > > positive ones.
> > > > > > > > > > Pain over pleasure. Bad news over good news. Why does "bad"
> > > overshadow
> > > > > > > > > > "good", immorality over morality, despair over hope,
> > > pessimism over
> > > > > > > > > > optimism. Why does hate appear to be more powerful than
> > > love? Why is greed
> > > > > > > > > > louder than generosity. Why is destruction of war so much
> > > faster than the
> > > > > > > > > > building power of peace. Why can one little lie destroy a
> > > lifetime of
> > > > > > > > > > trust. Why are lies more influential than truth. It all
> > > seems so one sided.
> > > > > > > > > > Why is that?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > --
>
> > > ---
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > ""Minds Eye"" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > > email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
divine right = selfishness and greed often a justification for
stealing and enslaving..
Economy is for taking care of all the people not just the select few..
and the Scottish are a distant branch of German as are the English and Irish..
Every one finds the truth eventually most later than sooner.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:30 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like the divine right analogy rigs. I don't favour capitalism for
> much the same reason. Much discussion of right and wrong is stuck in
> a past we need to escape. Origin is difficult. Born a Scot I might
> revere our heritage - but 3000 years ago 'we' were likely German
> farmers eating 'grass porridge'. Capitalism broke up much of
> feudalism, but I suspect it was no more than a revision of Domesday
> Book accounting and labour exploitation. Much of what actually goes
> on is not capitalism but the establishment of rents through financial
> manipulations - essentially a control fraud by the rentier-class.
> We've been had on a butty - and need more modern argument based on
> what we know, facts shared in a common language.
> There is a literature suggesting our environmental knowledge is now
> important in moral decision-making I think we have missed a lot
> before this. Current technology is good enough for us to create self-
> sustaining communities and give up on empire. We need to re-evaluate
> our morality against this. I don't see this leading to socialism and
> any aim seems to me to be about considerably more freedom - from such
> things as war, work ethics formed in times of shortage and need for
> hard labour and so on. The Soviet empire was much like the Tsars it
> replaced - we used to call the KGB 'Checkists' after the Tsar's secret
> police.
> I suspect capitalism - unless used as a pejorative - is little more
> than an accounting system. The problem lies in its corruption.
> People cheat and cheats like crimogenic systems that allow work in the
> dark. The umpire in cricket is now redundant - machines are better.
> We could have had a machine accounting system on a global basis by now
> - instead machines play a bigger role in cheating. Capitalism with
> fair accounting presents few problems except for losers in the
> competition. In sport we have competitions that allow losers first
> draft picks and our course there is no competition if one eradicates
> the competition. Wigan's dominance of the Rugby League was truly
> horrible - it was hard t turn up to watch knowing every other team
> would lose.
> The pathway to Hell is lined with good intentions Gabby - we are
> scared of change. Does anyone now believe that rule by the Guardians
> of future socialist paradise can be established to wither away? Or
> that the rentiers will wither away as Keynes hoped? And are such
> matters not the same coin, merely opposite sides? Capitalism has run
> up a lot of debt - are we so sure of it we can do away with time-
> honoured debt jubilee? Would it not make more sense to give away what
> we have built already to the people, have something of a leveling and
> start again with a new focus on sustainability?
> The genuine capitalist firm treats finance as a cost - it is difficult
> to see from this how the vast transactions of financial services are
> not parasitic on such firms and all of us. The bubbles created cause
> much misery and form part of a vast Ponzi scheme we have no need of.
> Beyond this, capitalism is really assumed to be a dirty game of beggar
> thy neighbour we are ahead in and need to stay ahead in or we'll lose
> military edge (and so on). We end up justifying doing bad things for
> the greater end and rationalising this as moral.
>
> On Jan 31, 9:14 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The way you contrast socialism and capitalism is like contrasting
>> creationism versus evolutionism. And by the natural law that the fittest
>> will survive you are right to have decided for the evolutionary view.
>>
>> I don't think - and the exchange in this group has helped me a lot to see
>> this clearer - we should forget how tempting the search for the right
>> answers is.
>>
>> 2013/1/31 rigs <rigs...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > I am a fan of capitalism. I consider Marxism and Fascism as an
>> > extension of socialism which is an extension of divine rights,etc.,
>> > i.e. theft, redistribution of another's wealth and labor, weakening of
>> > the body politic (a form of serfdom) which turns governments into
>> > bloodsuckers via taxes and debt.//Do you think economics is a valid
>> > science? Why, when it has flopped so many times.//We need production
>> > and labor plus consumption so there is a need for immigrants into
>> > white industrial countries to make up for the decline of white births
>> > (55 million abortions plus birth control). But I wonder if illegals
>> > will pay back taxes and bother to learn English. It might go smoother
>> > if we learn Spanish and Europe learn Arabic.//Family can also hurt
>> > people but sometimes that hurt teaches valuable lessons. It is easier
>> > to leave some people and events to Heaven though it would probably
>> > spell the end of the legal profession.
>>
>> > On Jan 30, 4:56 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > I'm not sure the audience is as wide as your estimate rigs.
>> > > Technically I am hospitable to any theoretical view from marxism to
>> > > fascism - though I tend to dislike theoretical views - and hospitable
>> > > to Islamic theory/s in business analysis - and to guests in my
>> > > classrooms from all backgrounds. This is easy enough - as easy as
>> > > offering to put you up if you were travelling in the UK. The
>> > > difficult bit is in reciprocity - here we might think of the Maussian
>> > > concept of the gift and many examples in 'stoneage economics' - what
>> > > is expect of a guest in return. One gives freely - a few nights stay
>> > > is not given for a return of a few nights stay and so on - yet one
>> > > does not generally keep giving to inhospitable guests. One can
>> > > discuss racism yet not tolerate racists - but to brand people
>> > > concerned their opportunities for homes and work are disappearing in
>> > > immigration flows as racist who raise these issues with some hatred on
>> > > the people taking them is also wrong (particularly if done by
>> > > politically correct idiots whose homes and jobs are not under such
>> > > threat). Hospitality is sometimes easy, sometimes very hard work, can
>> > > be a treat or pain - but is always already reciprocal in intent even
>> > > if no commodity exchange is meant. I prefer to be hospitable to you
>> > > rigs than tolerant - tolerance has pratronising aspects - and this is
>> > > my general approach to things intellectual. It's easy with you as I
>> > > like what I hear. I have lost hospitality to politics. Left to typo
>> > > as it hits the meaning better than the word I intended!
>>
>> > > People hurt us Andrew. We hurt them. Some is intentional some not.
>> > > Gossip is often vicious from the pub to academic cloister.
>> > > Transactional analysis isn't a bad place to look at how rigs'
>> > > "balanced score card" builds up in personal relationships - Eric
>> > > Berne's 'Games People Play' is still. the best book. Only friends can
>> > > generally hurt us as we come to expect better from them, value them
>> > > and so on. Friendship is easily mimicked and sometimes that small
>> > > thing you mention may reveal the charade. Sometimes we take things
>> > > too hard and should just let an incident wash away. This can be
>> > > particularly hard if you've been collecting brown stamps (been shit
>> > > on) in too many recent encounters. I used to go to the pub every
>> > > Friday to get rid of my collection - but this habit itself became a
>> > > brown stamp. I'm not religious but there's lots in forgiveness and
>> > > 'there but for the grace of god go I'.
>>
>> > > On 29 Jan, 19:11, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Please define what you mean by "hospitality"- of the individual, the
>> > > > group, nations. Thanks. :-)
>>
>> > > > On Jan 29, 5:22 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > I think the first consideration is hospitality rigs.
>>
>> > > > > On Jan 29, 12:10 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > At least some had good intentions re empires- maybe that should be
>> > > > > > noted. And I believe in good intentions, myself- don't you? It's
>> > > > > > likely a project for those two columCouldns of thinking and
>> > sorting.
>>
>> > > > > > On Jan 28, 6:41 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > Good question Andrew - though we could wonder why most people
>> > have
>> > > > > > > rosy views of the US and British empires, pretty much against
>> > the real
>> > > > > > > history.
>>
>> > > > > > > On Jan 28, 11:19 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > Try being Pollyanna for a day and see how far you get. Or Dr.
>> > Pangloss
>> > > > > > > > ("Candide")
>>
>> > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 5:11 am, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > Why do so many of us remember negative feelings easier than
>> > positive ones.
>> > > > > > > > > Pain over pleasure. Bad news over good news. Why does "bad"
>> > overshadow
>> > > > > > > > > "good", immorality over morality, despair over hope,
>> > pessimism over
>> > > > > > > > > optimism. Why does hate appear to be more powerful than
>> > love? Why is greed
>> > > > > > > > > louder than generosity. Why is destruction of war so much
>> > faster than the
>> > > > > > > > > building power of peace. Why can one little lie destroy a
>> > lifetime of
>> > > > > > > > > trust. Why are lies more influential than truth. It all
>> > seems so one sided.
>> > > > > > > > > Why is that?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > --
>>
>> > ---
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> > ""Minds Eye"" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> > email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
--
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
Of course I talk to myself,
Sometimes I need expert advice..
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
stealing and enslaving..
Economy is for taking care of all the people not just the select few..
and the Scottish are a distant branch of German as are the English and Irish..
Every one finds the truth eventually most later than sooner.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:30 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like the divine right analogy rigs. I don't favour capitalism for
> much the same reason. Much discussion of right and wrong is stuck in
> a past we need to escape. Origin is difficult. Born a Scot I might
> revere our heritage - but 3000 years ago 'we' were likely German
> farmers eating 'grass porridge'. Capitalism broke up much of
> feudalism, but I suspect it was no more than a revision of Domesday
> Book accounting and labour exploitation. Much of what actually goes
> on is not capitalism but the establishment of rents through financial
> manipulations - essentially a control fraud by the rentier-class.
> We've been had on a butty - and need more modern argument based on
> what we know, facts shared in a common language.
> There is a literature suggesting our environmental knowledge is now
> important in moral decision-making I think we have missed a lot
> before this. Current technology is good enough for us to create self-
> sustaining communities and give up on empire. We need to re-evaluate
> our morality against this. I don't see this leading to socialism and
> any aim seems to me to be about considerably more freedom - from such
> things as war, work ethics formed in times of shortage and need for
> hard labour and so on. The Soviet empire was much like the Tsars it
> replaced - we used to call the KGB 'Checkists' after the Tsar's secret
> police.
> I suspect capitalism - unless used as a pejorative - is little more
> than an accounting system. The problem lies in its corruption.
> People cheat and cheats like crimogenic systems that allow work in the
> dark. The umpire in cricket is now redundant - machines are better.
> We could have had a machine accounting system on a global basis by now
> - instead machines play a bigger role in cheating. Capitalism with
> fair accounting presents few problems except for losers in the
> competition. In sport we have competitions that allow losers first
> draft picks and our course there is no competition if one eradicates
> the competition. Wigan's dominance of the Rugby League was truly
> horrible - it was hard t turn up to watch knowing every other team
> would lose.
> The pathway to Hell is lined with good intentions Gabby - we are
> scared of change. Does anyone now believe that rule by the Guardians
> of future socialist paradise can be established to wither away? Or
> that the rentiers will wither away as Keynes hoped? And are such
> matters not the same coin, merely opposite sides? Capitalism has run
> up a lot of debt - are we so sure of it we can do away with time-
> honoured debt jubilee? Would it not make more sense to give away what
> we have built already to the people, have something of a leveling and
> start again with a new focus on sustainability?
> The genuine capitalist firm treats finance as a cost - it is difficult
> to see from this how the vast transactions of financial services are
> not parasitic on such firms and all of us. The bubbles created cause
> much misery and form part of a vast Ponzi scheme we have no need of.
> Beyond this, capitalism is really assumed to be a dirty game of beggar
> thy neighbour we are ahead in and need to stay ahead in or we'll lose
> military edge (and so on). We end up justifying doing bad things for
> the greater end and rationalising this as moral.
>
> On Jan 31, 9:14 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The way you contrast socialism and capitalism is like contrasting
>> creationism versus evolutionism. And by the natural law that the fittest
>> will survive you are right to have decided for the evolutionary view.
>>
>> I don't think - and the exchange in this group has helped me a lot to see
>> this clearer - we should forget how tempting the search for the right
>> answers is.
>>
>> 2013/1/31 rigs <rigs...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > I am a fan of capitalism. I consider Marxism and Fascism as an
>> > extension of socialism which is an extension of divine rights,etc.,
>> > i.e. theft, redistribution of another's wealth and labor, weakening of
>> > the body politic (a form of serfdom) which turns governments into
>> > bloodsuckers via taxes and debt.//Do you think economics is a valid
>> > science? Why, when it has flopped so many times.//We need production
>> > and labor plus consumption so there is a need for immigrants into
>> > white industrial countries to make up for the decline of white births
>> > (55 million abortions plus birth control). But I wonder if illegals
>> > will pay back taxes and bother to learn English. It might go smoother
>> > if we learn Spanish and Europe learn Arabic.//Family can also hurt
>> > people but sometimes that hurt teaches valuable lessons. It is easier
>> > to leave some people and events to Heaven though it would probably
>> > spell the end of the legal profession.
>>
>> > On Jan 30, 4:56 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > I'm not sure the audience is as wide as your estimate rigs.
>> > > Technically I am hospitable to any theoretical view from marxism to
>> > > fascism - though I tend to dislike theoretical views - and hospitable
>> > > to Islamic theory/s in business analysis - and to guests in my
>> > > classrooms from all backgrounds. This is easy enough - as easy as
>> > > offering to put you up if you were travelling in the UK. The
>> > > difficult bit is in reciprocity - here we might think of the Maussian
>> > > concept of the gift and many examples in 'stoneage economics' - what
>> > > is expect of a guest in return. One gives freely - a few nights stay
>> > > is not given for a return of a few nights stay and so on - yet one
>> > > does not generally keep giving to inhospitable guests. One can
>> > > discuss racism yet not tolerate racists - but to brand people
>> > > concerned their opportunities for homes and work are disappearing in
>> > > immigration flows as racist who raise these issues with some hatred on
>> > > the people taking them is also wrong (particularly if done by
>> > > politically correct idiots whose homes and jobs are not under such
>> > > threat). Hospitality is sometimes easy, sometimes very hard work, can
>> > > be a treat or pain - but is always already reciprocal in intent even
>> > > if no commodity exchange is meant. I prefer to be hospitable to you
>> > > rigs than tolerant - tolerance has pratronising aspects - and this is
>> > > my general approach to things intellectual. It's easy with you as I
>> > > like what I hear. I have lost hospitality to politics. Left to typo
>> > > as it hits the meaning better than the word I intended!
>>
>> > > People hurt us Andrew. We hurt them. Some is intentional some not.
>> > > Gossip is often vicious from the pub to academic cloister.
>> > > Transactional analysis isn't a bad place to look at how rigs'
>> > > "balanced score card" builds up in personal relationships - Eric
>> > > Berne's 'Games People Play' is still. the best book. Only friends can
>> > > generally hurt us as we come to expect better from them, value them
>> > > and so on. Friendship is easily mimicked and sometimes that small
>> > > thing you mention may reveal the charade. Sometimes we take things
>> > > too hard and should just let an incident wash away. This can be
>> > > particularly hard if you've been collecting brown stamps (been shit
>> > > on) in too many recent encounters. I used to go to the pub every
>> > > Friday to get rid of my collection - but this habit itself became a
>> > > brown stamp. I'm not religious but there's lots in forgiveness and
>> > > 'there but for the grace of god go I'.
>>
>> > > On 29 Jan, 19:11, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Please define what you mean by "hospitality"- of the individual, the
>> > > > group, nations. Thanks. :-)
>>
>> > > > On Jan 29, 5:22 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > I think the first consideration is hospitality rigs.
>>
>> > > > > On Jan 29, 12:10 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > At least some had good intentions re empires- maybe that should be
>> > > > > > noted. And I believe in good intentions, myself- don't you? It's
>> > > > > > likely a project for those two columCouldns of thinking and
>> > sorting.
>>
>> > > > > > On Jan 28, 6:41 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > Good question Andrew - though we could wonder why most people
>> > have
>> > > > > > > rosy views of the US and British empires, pretty much against
>> > the real
>> > > > > > > history.
>>
>> > > > > > > On Jan 28, 11:19 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > Try being Pollyanna for a day and see how far you get. Or Dr.
>> > Pangloss
>> > > > > > > > ("Candide")
>>
>> > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 5:11 am, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > Why do so many of us remember negative feelings easier than
>> > positive ones.
>> > > > > > > > > Pain over pleasure. Bad news over good news. Why does "bad"
>> > overshadow
>> > > > > > > > > "good", immorality over morality, despair over hope,
>> > pessimism over
>> > > > > > > > > optimism. Why does hate appear to be more powerful than
>> > love? Why is greed
>> > > > > > > > > louder than generosity. Why is destruction of war so much
>> > faster than the
>> > > > > > > > > building power of peace. Why can one little lie destroy a
>> > lifetime of
>> > > > > > > > > trust. Why are lies more influential than truth. It all
>> > seems so one sided.
>> > > > > > > > > Why is that?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > --
>>
>> > ---
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> > ""Minds Eye"" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> > email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
--
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
Of course I talk to myself,
Sometimes I need expert advice..
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
It will all end in tears! The rugby league season starts tonight.
On Jan 31, 3:39 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's too late- major sports are strrictly business and this model has
> even filtered down to school leagues.
>
> On Jan 30, 6:34 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Not only is that true Allan - but there are clear institutional forms
> > that would prevent the worst of it.
> > Eyes on Spain, as I understand, on a drugs expose. The best game of
> > rugby league I can think of is the 1978 Challenge Cup Final between
> > Leeds and St. Helens. The guys were all part-timers. The best soccer
> > - Newcastle beaten by amateurs Blythe Spartans on a mud heap with a
> > spectacular goal winning the third replay by a bloke named Radford.
> > Some mate reminded me the other day that my own spectacular length of
> > the field effort at Sheffield had two cigarette breaks in it and that
> > a modern team would have smashed me behind my own try line (this bit
> > true - I never smoked in the rugby season). I played against amateur
> > sides that could out-muscle us - typically mining teams. Now training
> > - legal or otherwise - has made professional teams massive in
> > comparison with the lower leagues. Every team had its Walter Peyton,
> > though we were usually smaller and even dodgier - now even the best of
> > all time (an Aussie exile called Brian Bevan) would be an accessory
> > no modern attritional team could afford. Our diets were often
> > restricted - now they are on 6,500 calories a day. I was only ever
> > any good in mud - so am inclined to think modern, dry, flat pitches
> > are not exactly 'level playing fields' in the spirit of the term.
> > This has been a mud week in the UK and several giant-killing feats
> > occurred in the soccer cup. I'm an old crank!
>
> > There should be no professional sport - match fees and a day job
> > should do. That we can spend fortunes on such as the Olympic freak
> > show should tell us something about economics, not least we can
> > organise stuff like that but not build decent homes, water
> > supplies ... I despise the situation Allan. I used to think the
> > question was how to achieve decent living conditions and fairness
> > without going Soviet (clearly a major spoiler) - but now I think we've
> > gone Soviet anyway. The Uk took more medals than the Germany that now
> > includes the DDR that used to 'outshine' all. One has to wonder why!
> > Our disabled athletes did even better - improving attitudes towards
> > the disabled so much we immediately shut Remploy factories that
> > employed them, dumping them into the individual, personal care of
> > shyster corporations associated with our jobcentres (a strange term
> > for places with no jobs in them). Needless to say there has been no
> > redeployment. Behind their backs the newly appreciated disabled are
> > being called idle, workshy scum ... and the new aware, caring
> > maojority don't give a flying rocking horse dropping.
>
> > On 30 Jan, 10:25, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In the US the american political system for the most part is sold to
> > > the highest bidder since regean sold off the country.. untill there
> > > is a major change in political output ending the greed and self
> > > centered activity putting america first rather than their pocket book
> > > or political gain..
>
> > > Sadly world wide self interest is placed before the interest of humanity
>
> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:08 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On the ignorance of the majority we have this -
> > > >http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-29/why-are-american-voters-so-u...
>
> > > > In research into he evaluation of management education I used to ask
> > > > individuals present in classes to rate the class from 0 - 10 within an
> > > > hour of finish (usually high) and then put a few questions on content
> > > > memory (usually low, sometimes zero). I repeated this after three and
> > > > six months - al ratings going down a little and content memories
> > > > evaporating. I sat through classes myself and it seemed people were
> > > > paying attention and sometimes actively engaged. The only book I saw
> > > > being used in the library was the comedic but accurate 'Up the
> > > > Organisation'. Memories of the content of that were very good, as was
> > > > memory of project work. I can remember (more accurately) the content
> > > > of a project on the life history of the turbot done aged 10 than the
> > > > content of management education books on the topics I teach.
>
> > > > I suspect the majority ignorance on politics has a lot to do with it
> > > > not being important or interesting - perhaps not even accessible - and
> > > > largely irrelevant to ordinary lives. Many of the people we vote in
> > > > are lawyers and we generally rate them as pond life.
>
> > > > On 29 Jan, 20:21, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> as steroids go the current home run king did it while on drugs,, the
> > > >> base ball of hall of fame said that was okay.. and put him in it
> > > >> making him a hero... drug use and all .. now where is the USADA
> > > >> and their stripping him of his record and banning him from sports for
> > > >> life?? Oh i forgot the Baseball officials paid them off.. so it is
> > > >> okay;; to big of money involved
>
> > > >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:16 PM, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > I consider myself an equal opportunity critic, Allan. Was quite
> > > >> > critical of Bush 41 and 43.
>
> > > >> > On Jan 29, 1:06 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> yes sports is dangerous stuff ,,steroids are not uncommon also
> > > >> >> carried on though pro sports oops I forgot they buy off the drug czar
>
> > > >> >> I do not see why you really don't look into what is going on instead
> > > >> >> of just spout republican rhetoric..
>
> > > >> >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:59 AM, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> > I should have added independence from family, sex and drinking though
> > > >> >> > the latter two are primed in highschool. Also, students can read and
> > > >> >> > write but many need (forgot the term) classes to improve their skills.
> > > >> >> > Not sure if handwriting/grammar is even a factor anymore. // Then
> > > >> >> > there's sports- though Obama thinks it is dangerous stuff along with
> > > >> >> > gun ownership so soon American men/women will be civilian wimps. But
> > > >> >> > the military is an alternative to college/poor employment
> > > >> >> > opportunities so there is always an answer unless one considers
> > > >> >> > military service a risk and who would do that?
>
> > > >> >> > On Jan 28, 8:57 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> Considering that many movers and shakers were lucky to get a
> > > >> >> >> highschool education back in the '20's and '30's and that some recent
> > > >> >> >> innovators dropped out of college one does start to question the
> > > >> >> >> process. Add up the loan debt, as well. College may be a form of the
> > > >> >> >> caste system, networking or opportunity/income leveler. I repeat my
> > > >> >> >> stated opinion that college is a respectable place to park ones
> > > >> >> >> children for some parents. It used to be a place to meet a mate but
> > > >> >> >> now a career is the object since two can no longer live as cheaply as
> > > >> >> >> one. Often college entrants still cannot read or write plus now they
> > > >> >> >> have expectations of a certain level of hype and bedazzlement.//
> > > >> >> >> Teachers burn out in some subjects because it's 24/7- just in
> > > >> >> >> correcting essay exams and term papers plus checking for plagiarizims,
> > > >> >> >> etc. and because they are expected to be sort of a pseudo-parent/
> > > >> >> >> nursemaid/sex-object/inspiration all while getting published to prove
> > > >> >> >> their value/worth to the institution.//Once one learns to read and
> > > >> >> >> comprehend they can teach themselves most anything. A library card
> > > >> >> >> will do...
>
> > > >> >> >> On Jan 28, 6:39 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> > Strangely enough Lee I do experience that! Brian Clough should have
> > > >> >> >> > been England manager! One finds a lot of arrogant ignorance in
> > > >> >> >> > classrooms and a lot of stereotyping by teachers and students.
> > > >> >> >> > Teaching is often a weird experience and difficult to drop from the
> > > >> >> >> > system - something pretty important to let learning take place. I
> > > >> >> >> > don't use textbooks unless I've given up on a class that won't fend
> > > >> >> >> > for itself (some demand spoonfeeding and find discovery learning
> > > >> >> >> > terrifying). It's easy enough to get classes round to looking at work
> > > >> >> >> > motivation in terms of the content and process theories of 'chapter
> > > >> >> >> > three' and regurgitate what's there. To a man jack they'd all give up
> > > >> >> >> > work if they won the lottery, suggesting a rather different theory.
> > > >> >> >> > I'm sure the books are mostly wrong and that more than that the need
> > > >> >> >> > for basic texts is a combination of bad teachers and commercial
> > > >> >> >> > pressures to get bums through seats. I try to met people do what
> > > >> >> >> > interests them, what they want to find and express - but as in all
> > > >> >> >> > human activity there is a problem with people promising 'your own way'
> > > >> >> >> > who don't mean it. And it's much more difficult today to defend
> > > >> >> >> > students who don't toe to the party line. Is it possible to 'respect
> > > >> >> >> > ignorance' but at the same time fail it? What is a person who wants
> > > >> >> >> > to stay ignorant doing in a learning environment? Further down the
> > > >> >> >> > line one often finds research leads one to the conclusion that what's
> > > >> >> >> > taught is rubbish - something one might also achieve just in reacting
> > > >> >> >> > to a teacher one doesn't like without doing the hard work! Our
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
On Jan 31, 3:39 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's too late- major sports are strrictly business and this model has
> even filtered down to school leagues.
>
> On Jan 30, 6:34 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Not only is that true Allan - but there are clear institutional forms
> > that would prevent the worst of it.
> > Eyes on Spain, as I understand, on a drugs expose. The best game of
> > rugby league I can think of is the 1978 Challenge Cup Final between
> > Leeds and St. Helens. The guys were all part-timers. The best soccer
> > - Newcastle beaten by amateurs Blythe Spartans on a mud heap with a
> > spectacular goal winning the third replay by a bloke named Radford.
> > Some mate reminded me the other day that my own spectacular length of
> > the field effort at Sheffield had two cigarette breaks in it and that
> > a modern team would have smashed me behind my own try line (this bit
> > true - I never smoked in the rugby season). I played against amateur
> > sides that could out-muscle us - typically mining teams. Now training
> > - legal or otherwise - has made professional teams massive in
> > comparison with the lower leagues. Every team had its Walter Peyton,
> > though we were usually smaller and even dodgier - now even the best of
> > all time (an Aussie exile called Brian Bevan) would be an accessory
> > no modern attritional team could afford. Our diets were often
> > restricted - now they are on 6,500 calories a day. I was only ever
> > any good in mud - so am inclined to think modern, dry, flat pitches
> > are not exactly 'level playing fields' in the spirit of the term.
> > This has been a mud week in the UK and several giant-killing feats
> > occurred in the soccer cup. I'm an old crank!
>
> > There should be no professional sport - match fees and a day job
> > should do. That we can spend fortunes on such as the Olympic freak
> > show should tell us something about economics, not least we can
> > organise stuff like that but not build decent homes, water
> > supplies ... I despise the situation Allan. I used to think the
> > question was how to achieve decent living conditions and fairness
> > without going Soviet (clearly a major spoiler) - but now I think we've
> > gone Soviet anyway. The Uk took more medals than the Germany that now
> > includes the DDR that used to 'outshine' all. One has to wonder why!
> > Our disabled athletes did even better - improving attitudes towards
> > the disabled so much we immediately shut Remploy factories that
> > employed them, dumping them into the individual, personal care of
> > shyster corporations associated with our jobcentres (a strange term
> > for places with no jobs in them). Needless to say there has been no
> > redeployment. Behind their backs the newly appreciated disabled are
> > being called idle, workshy scum ... and the new aware, caring
> > maojority don't give a flying rocking horse dropping.
>
> > On 30 Jan, 10:25, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In the US the american political system for the most part is sold to
> > > the highest bidder since regean sold off the country.. untill there
> > > is a major change in political output ending the greed and self
> > > centered activity putting america first rather than their pocket book
> > > or political gain..
>
> > > Sadly world wide self interest is placed before the interest of humanity
>
> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:08 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On the ignorance of the majority we have this -
> > > >http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-29/why-are-american-voters-so-u...
>
> > > > In research into he evaluation of management education I used to ask
> > > > individuals present in classes to rate the class from 0 - 10 within an
> > > > hour of finish (usually high) and then put a few questions on content
> > > > memory (usually low, sometimes zero). I repeated this after three and
> > > > six months - al ratings going down a little and content memories
> > > > evaporating. I sat through classes myself and it seemed people were
> > > > paying attention and sometimes actively engaged. The only book I saw
> > > > being used in the library was the comedic but accurate 'Up the
> > > > Organisation'. Memories of the content of that were very good, as was
> > > > memory of project work. I can remember (more accurately) the content
> > > > of a project on the life history of the turbot done aged 10 than the
> > > > content of management education books on the topics I teach.
>
> > > > I suspect the majority ignorance on politics has a lot to do with it
> > > > not being important or interesting - perhaps not even accessible - and
> > > > largely irrelevant to ordinary lives. Many of the people we vote in
> > > > are lawyers and we generally rate them as pond life.
>
> > > > On 29 Jan, 20:21, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> as steroids go the current home run king did it while on drugs,, the
> > > >> base ball of hall of fame said that was okay.. and put him in it
> > > >> making him a hero... drug use and all .. now where is the USADA
> > > >> and their stripping him of his record and banning him from sports for
> > > >> life?? Oh i forgot the Baseball officials paid them off.. so it is
> > > >> okay;; to big of money involved
>
> > > >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:16 PM, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > I consider myself an equal opportunity critic, Allan. Was quite
> > > >> > critical of Bush 41 and 43.
>
> > > >> > On Jan 29, 1:06 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> yes sports is dangerous stuff ,,steroids are not uncommon also
> > > >> >> carried on though pro sports oops I forgot they buy off the drug czar
>
> > > >> >> I do not see why you really don't look into what is going on instead
> > > >> >> of just spout republican rhetoric..
>
> > > >> >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:59 AM, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> > I should have added independence from family, sex and drinking though
> > > >> >> > the latter two are primed in highschool. Also, students can read and
> > > >> >> > write but many need (forgot the term) classes to improve their skills.
> > > >> >> > Not sure if handwriting/grammar is even a factor anymore. // Then
> > > >> >> > there's sports- though Obama thinks it is dangerous stuff along with
> > > >> >> > gun ownership so soon American men/women will be civilian wimps. But
> > > >> >> > the military is an alternative to college/poor employment
> > > >> >> > opportunities so there is always an answer unless one considers
> > > >> >> > military service a risk and who would do that?
>
> > > >> >> > On Jan 28, 8:57 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> Considering that many movers and shakers were lucky to get a
> > > >> >> >> highschool education back in the '20's and '30's and that some recent
> > > >> >> >> innovators dropped out of college one does start to question the
> > > >> >> >> process. Add up the loan debt, as well. College may be a form of the
> > > >> >> >> caste system, networking or opportunity/income leveler. I repeat my
> > > >> >> >> stated opinion that college is a respectable place to park ones
> > > >> >> >> children for some parents. It used to be a place to meet a mate but
> > > >> >> >> now a career is the object since two can no longer live as cheaply as
> > > >> >> >> one. Often college entrants still cannot read or write plus now they
> > > >> >> >> have expectations of a certain level of hype and bedazzlement.//
> > > >> >> >> Teachers burn out in some subjects because it's 24/7- just in
> > > >> >> >> correcting essay exams and term papers plus checking for plagiarizims,
> > > >> >> >> etc. and because they are expected to be sort of a pseudo-parent/
> > > >> >> >> nursemaid/sex-object/inspiration all while getting published to prove
> > > >> >> >> their value/worth to the institution.//Once one learns to read and
> > > >> >> >> comprehend they can teach themselves most anything. A library card
> > > >> >> >> will do...
>
> > > >> >> >> On Jan 28, 6:39 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> > Strangely enough Lee I do experience that! Brian Clough should have
> > > >> >> >> > been England manager! One finds a lot of arrogant ignorance in
> > > >> >> >> > classrooms and a lot of stereotyping by teachers and students.
> > > >> >> >> > Teaching is often a weird experience and difficult to drop from the
> > > >> >> >> > system - something pretty important to let learning take place. I
> > > >> >> >> > don't use textbooks unless I've given up on a class that won't fend
> > > >> >> >> > for itself (some demand spoonfeeding and find discovery learning
> > > >> >> >> > terrifying). It's easy enough to get classes round to looking at work
> > > >> >> >> > motivation in terms of the content and process theories of 'chapter
> > > >> >> >> > three' and regurgitate what's there. To a man jack they'd all give up
> > > >> >> >> > work if they won the lottery, suggesting a rather different theory.
> > > >> >> >> > I'm sure the books are mostly wrong and that more than that the need
> > > >> >> >> > for basic texts is a combination of bad teachers and commercial
> > > >> >> >> > pressures to get bums through seats. I try to met people do what
> > > >> >> >> > interests them, what they want to find and express - but as in all
> > > >> >> >> > human activity there is a problem with people promising 'your own way'
> > > >> >> >> > who don't mean it. And it's much more difficult today to defend
> > > >> >> >> > students who don't toe to the party line. Is it possible to 'respect
> > > >> >> >> > ignorance' but at the same time fail it? What is a person who wants
> > > >> >> >> > to stay ignorant doing in a learning environment? Further down the
> > > >> >> >> > line one often finds research leads one to the conclusion that what's
> > > >> >> >> > taught is rubbish - something one might also achieve just in reacting
> > > >> >> >> > to a teacher one doesn't like without doing the hard work! Our
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
I like the divine right analogy rigs. I don't favour capitalism for
much the same reason. Much discussion of right and wrong is stuck in
a past we need to escape. Origin is difficult. Born a Scot I might
revere our heritage - but 3000 years ago 'we' were likely German
farmers eating 'grass porridge'. Capitalism broke up much of
feudalism, but I suspect it was no more than a revision of Domesday
Book accounting and labour exploitation. Much of what actually goes
on is not capitalism but the establishment of rents through financial
manipulations - essentially a control fraud by the rentier-class.
We've been had on a butty - and need more modern argument based on
what we know, facts shared in a common language.
There is a literature suggesting our environmental knowledge is now
important in moral decision-making I think we have missed a lot
before this. Current technology is good enough for us to create self-
sustaining communities and give up on empire. We need to re-evaluate
our morality against this. I don't see this leading to socialism and
any aim seems to me to be about considerably more freedom - from such
things as war, work ethics formed in times of shortage and need for
hard labour and so on. The Soviet empire was much like the Tsars it
replaced - we used to call the KGB 'Checkists' after the Tsar's secret
police.
I suspect capitalism - unless used as a pejorative - is little more
than an accounting system. The problem lies in its corruption.
People cheat and cheats like crimogenic systems that allow work in the
dark. The umpire in cricket is now redundant - machines are better.
We could have had a machine accounting system on a global basis by now
- instead machines play a bigger role in cheating. Capitalism with
fair accounting presents few problems except for losers in the
competition. In sport we have competitions that allow losers first
draft picks and our course there is no competition if one eradicates
the competition. Wigan's dominance of the Rugby League was truly
horrible - it was hard t turn up to watch knowing every other team
would lose.
The pathway to Hell is lined with good intentions Gabby - we are
scared of change. Does anyone now believe that rule by the Guardians
of future socialist paradise can be established to wither away? Or
that the rentiers will wither away as Keynes hoped? And are such
matters not the same coin, merely opposite sides? Capitalism has run
up a lot of debt - are we so sure of it we can do away with time-
honoured debt jubilee? Would it not make more sense to give away what
we have built already to the people, have something of a leveling and
start again with a new focus on sustainability?
The genuine capitalist firm treats finance as a cost - it is difficult
to see from this how the vast transactions of financial services are
not parasitic on such firms and all of us. The bubbles created cause
much misery and form part of a vast Ponzi scheme we have no need of.
Beyond this, capitalism is really assumed to be a dirty game of beggar
thy neighbour we are ahead in and need to stay ahead in or we'll lose
military edge (and so on). We end up justifying doing bad things for
the greater end and rationalising this as moral.
On Jan 31, 9:14 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The way you contrast socialism and capitalism is like contrasting
> creationism versus evolutionism. And by the natural law that the fittest
> will survive you are right to have decided for the evolutionary view.
>
> I don't think - and the exchange in this group has helped me a lot to see
> this clearer - we should forget how tempting the search for the right
> answers is.
>
> 2013/1/31 rigs <rigs...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am a fan of capitalism. I consider Marxism and Fascism as an
> > extension of socialism which is an extension of divine rights,etc.,
> > i.e. theft, redistribution of another's wealth and labor, weakening of
> > the body politic (a form of serfdom) which turns governments into
> > bloodsuckers via taxes and debt.//Do you think economics is a valid
> > science? Why, when it has flopped so many times.//We need production
> > and labor plus consumption so there is a need for immigrants into
> > white industrial countries to make up for the decline of white births
> > (55 million abortions plus birth control). But I wonder if illegals
> > will pay back taxes and bother to learn English. It might go smoother
> > if we learn Spanish and Europe learn Arabic.//Family can also hurt
> > people but sometimes that hurt teaches valuable lessons. It is easier
> > to leave some people and events to Heaven though it would probably
> > spell the end of the legal profession.
>
> > On Jan 30, 4:56 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm not sure the audience is as wide as your estimate rigs.
> > > Technically I am hospitable to any theoretical view from marxism to
> > > fascism - though I tend to dislike theoretical views - and hospitable
> > > to Islamic theory/s in business analysis - and to guests in my
> > > classrooms from all backgrounds. This is easy enough - as easy as
> > > offering to put you up if you were travelling in the UK. The
> > > difficult bit is in reciprocity - here we might think of the Maussian
> > > concept of the gift and many examples in 'stoneage economics' - what
> > > is expect of a guest in return. One gives freely - a few nights stay
> > > is not given for a return of a few nights stay and so on - yet one
> > > does not generally keep giving to inhospitable guests. One can
> > > discuss racism yet not tolerate racists - but to brand people
> > > concerned their opportunities for homes and work are disappearing in
> > > immigration flows as racist who raise these issues with some hatred on
> > > the people taking them is also wrong (particularly if done by
> > > politically correct idiots whose homes and jobs are not under such
> > > threat). Hospitality is sometimes easy, sometimes very hard work, can
> > > be a treat or pain - but is always already reciprocal in intent even
> > > if no commodity exchange is meant. I prefer to be hospitable to you
> > > rigs than tolerant - tolerance has pratronising aspects - and this is
> > > my general approach to things intellectual. It's easy with you as I
> > > like what I hear. I have lost hospitality to politics. Left to typo
> > > as it hits the meaning better than the word I intended!
>
> > > People hurt us Andrew. We hurt them. Some is intentional some not.
> > > Gossip is often vicious from the pub to academic cloister.
> > > Transactional analysis isn't a bad place to look at how rigs'
> > > "balanced score card" builds up in personal relationships - Eric
> > > Berne's 'Games People Play' is still. the best book. Only friends can
> > > generally hurt us as we come to expect better from them, value them
> > > and so on. Friendship is easily mimicked and sometimes that small
> > > thing you mention may reveal the charade. Sometimes we take things
> > > too hard and should just let an incident wash away. This can be
> > > particularly hard if you've been collecting brown stamps (been shit
> > > on) in too many recent encounters. I used to go to the pub every
> > > Friday to get rid of my collection - but this habit itself became a
> > > brown stamp. I'm not religious but there's lots in forgiveness and
> > > 'there but for the grace of god go I'.
>
> > > On 29 Jan, 19:11, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Please define what you mean by "hospitality"- of the individual, the
> > > > group, nations. Thanks. :-)
>
> > > > On Jan 29, 5:22 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I think the first consideration is hospitality rigs.
>
> > > > > On Jan 29, 12:10 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > At least some had good intentions re empires- maybe that should be
> > > > > > noted. And I believe in good intentions, myself- don't you? It's
> > > > > > likely a project for those two columCouldns of thinking and
> > sorting.
>
> > > > > > On Jan 28, 6:41 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Good question Andrew - though we could wonder why most people
> > have
> > > > > > > rosy views of the US and British empires, pretty much against
> > the real
> > > > > > > history.
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 28, 11:19 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Try being Pollyanna for a day and see how far you get. Or Dr.
> > Pangloss
> > > > > > > > ("Candide")
>
> > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 5:11 am, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Why do so many of us remember negative feelings easier than
> > positive ones.
> > > > > > > > > Pain over pleasure. Bad news over good news. Why does "bad"
> > overshadow
> > > > > > > > > "good", immorality over morality, despair over hope,
> > pessimism over
> > > > > > > > > optimism. Why does hate appear to be more powerful than
> > love? Why is greed
> > > > > > > > > louder than generosity. Why is destruction of war so much
> > faster than the
> > > > > > > > > building power of peace. Why can one little lie destroy a
> > lifetime of
> > > > > > > > > trust. Why are lies more influential than truth. It all
> > seems so one sided.
> > > > > > > > > Why is that?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
>
> > ---
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > ""Minds Eye"" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
much the same reason. Much discussion of right and wrong is stuck in
a past we need to escape. Origin is difficult. Born a Scot I might
revere our heritage - but 3000 years ago 'we' were likely German
farmers eating 'grass porridge'. Capitalism broke up much of
feudalism, but I suspect it was no more than a revision of Domesday
Book accounting and labour exploitation. Much of what actually goes
on is not capitalism but the establishment of rents through financial
manipulations - essentially a control fraud by the rentier-class.
We've been had on a butty - and need more modern argument based on
what we know, facts shared in a common language.
There is a literature suggesting our environmental knowledge is now
important in moral decision-making I think we have missed a lot
before this. Current technology is good enough for us to create self-
sustaining communities and give up on empire. We need to re-evaluate
our morality against this. I don't see this leading to socialism and
any aim seems to me to be about considerably more freedom - from such
things as war, work ethics formed in times of shortage and need for
hard labour and so on. The Soviet empire was much like the Tsars it
replaced - we used to call the KGB 'Checkists' after the Tsar's secret
police.
I suspect capitalism - unless used as a pejorative - is little more
than an accounting system. The problem lies in its corruption.
People cheat and cheats like crimogenic systems that allow work in the
dark. The umpire in cricket is now redundant - machines are better.
We could have had a machine accounting system on a global basis by now
- instead machines play a bigger role in cheating. Capitalism with
fair accounting presents few problems except for losers in the
competition. In sport we have competitions that allow losers first
draft picks and our course there is no competition if one eradicates
the competition. Wigan's dominance of the Rugby League was truly
horrible - it was hard t turn up to watch knowing every other team
would lose.
The pathway to Hell is lined with good intentions Gabby - we are
scared of change. Does anyone now believe that rule by the Guardians
of future socialist paradise can be established to wither away? Or
that the rentiers will wither away as Keynes hoped? And are such
matters not the same coin, merely opposite sides? Capitalism has run
up a lot of debt - are we so sure of it we can do away with time-
honoured debt jubilee? Would it not make more sense to give away what
we have built already to the people, have something of a leveling and
start again with a new focus on sustainability?
The genuine capitalist firm treats finance as a cost - it is difficult
to see from this how the vast transactions of financial services are
not parasitic on such firms and all of us. The bubbles created cause
much misery and form part of a vast Ponzi scheme we have no need of.
Beyond this, capitalism is really assumed to be a dirty game of beggar
thy neighbour we are ahead in and need to stay ahead in or we'll lose
military edge (and so on). We end up justifying doing bad things for
the greater end and rationalising this as moral.
On Jan 31, 9:14 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The way you contrast socialism and capitalism is like contrasting
> creationism versus evolutionism. And by the natural law that the fittest
> will survive you are right to have decided for the evolutionary view.
>
> I don't think - and the exchange in this group has helped me a lot to see
> this clearer - we should forget how tempting the search for the right
> answers is.
>
> 2013/1/31 rigs <rigs...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am a fan of capitalism. I consider Marxism and Fascism as an
> > extension of socialism which is an extension of divine rights,etc.,
> > i.e. theft, redistribution of another's wealth and labor, weakening of
> > the body politic (a form of serfdom) which turns governments into
> > bloodsuckers via taxes and debt.//Do you think economics is a valid
> > science? Why, when it has flopped so many times.//We need production
> > and labor plus consumption so there is a need for immigrants into
> > white industrial countries to make up for the decline of white births
> > (55 million abortions plus birth control). But I wonder if illegals
> > will pay back taxes and bother to learn English. It might go smoother
> > if we learn Spanish and Europe learn Arabic.//Family can also hurt
> > people but sometimes that hurt teaches valuable lessons. It is easier
> > to leave some people and events to Heaven though it would probably
> > spell the end of the legal profession.
>
> > On Jan 30, 4:56 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm not sure the audience is as wide as your estimate rigs.
> > > Technically I am hospitable to any theoretical view from marxism to
> > > fascism - though I tend to dislike theoretical views - and hospitable
> > > to Islamic theory/s in business analysis - and to guests in my
> > > classrooms from all backgrounds. This is easy enough - as easy as
> > > offering to put you up if you were travelling in the UK. The
> > > difficult bit is in reciprocity - here we might think of the Maussian
> > > concept of the gift and many examples in 'stoneage economics' - what
> > > is expect of a guest in return. One gives freely - a few nights stay
> > > is not given for a return of a few nights stay and so on - yet one
> > > does not generally keep giving to inhospitable guests. One can
> > > discuss racism yet not tolerate racists - but to brand people
> > > concerned their opportunities for homes and work are disappearing in
> > > immigration flows as racist who raise these issues with some hatred on
> > > the people taking them is also wrong (particularly if done by
> > > politically correct idiots whose homes and jobs are not under such
> > > threat). Hospitality is sometimes easy, sometimes very hard work, can
> > > be a treat or pain - but is always already reciprocal in intent even
> > > if no commodity exchange is meant. I prefer to be hospitable to you
> > > rigs than tolerant - tolerance has pratronising aspects - and this is
> > > my general approach to things intellectual. It's easy with you as I
> > > like what I hear. I have lost hospitality to politics. Left to typo
> > > as it hits the meaning better than the word I intended!
>
> > > People hurt us Andrew. We hurt them. Some is intentional some not.
> > > Gossip is often vicious from the pub to academic cloister.
> > > Transactional analysis isn't a bad place to look at how rigs'
> > > "balanced score card" builds up in personal relationships - Eric
> > > Berne's 'Games People Play' is still. the best book. Only friends can
> > > generally hurt us as we come to expect better from them, value them
> > > and so on. Friendship is easily mimicked and sometimes that small
> > > thing you mention may reveal the charade. Sometimes we take things
> > > too hard and should just let an incident wash away. This can be
> > > particularly hard if you've been collecting brown stamps (been shit
> > > on) in too many recent encounters. I used to go to the pub every
> > > Friday to get rid of my collection - but this habit itself became a
> > > brown stamp. I'm not religious but there's lots in forgiveness and
> > > 'there but for the grace of god go I'.
>
> > > On 29 Jan, 19:11, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Please define what you mean by "hospitality"- of the individual, the
> > > > group, nations. Thanks. :-)
>
> > > > On Jan 29, 5:22 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I think the first consideration is hospitality rigs.
>
> > > > > On Jan 29, 12:10 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > At least some had good intentions re empires- maybe that should be
> > > > > > noted. And I believe in good intentions, myself- don't you? It's
> > > > > > likely a project for those two columCouldns of thinking and
> > sorting.
>
> > > > > > On Jan 28, 6:41 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Good question Andrew - though we could wonder why most people
> > have
> > > > > > > rosy views of the US and British empires, pretty much against
> > the real
> > > > > > > history.
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 28, 11:19 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Try being Pollyanna for a day and see how far you get. Or Dr.
> > Pangloss
> > > > > > > > ("Candide")
>
> > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 5:11 am, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Why do so many of us remember negative feelings easier than
> > positive ones.
> > > > > > > > > Pain over pleasure. Bad news over good news. Why does "bad"
> > overshadow
> > > > > > > > > "good", immorality over morality, despair over hope,
> > pessimism over
> > > > > > > > > optimism. Why does hate appear to be more powerful than
> > love? Why is greed
> > > > > > > > > louder than generosity. Why is destruction of war so much
> > faster than the
> > > > > > > > > building power of peace. Why can one little lie destroy a
> > lifetime of
> > > > > > > > > trust. Why are lies more influential than truth. It all
> > seems so one sided.
> > > > > > > > > Why is that?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
>
> > ---
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > ""Minds Eye"" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)