Re: Mind's Eye Re: Good and bad

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.

Re: Mind's Eye Good and bad

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.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Motive

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.