Re: Mind's Eye trust

I could also play being gullible to see what kind of a bloke you
were.//Yes- read Laing's books. To me, the message was that the
mentally ill were often having an honest reaction to life-sometimes-
while the rest of the so-called normals just took the horrifics in
stride and repressed or reacted sideways. But read him decades ago-
please don't interrupt my trip through the Inferno! :-)//I think I
would make a lousey crook or a funny one- turn it into a caper.//I
think our first strategies begin at home but may or may not adapt to
subsequent settings- like boarding school, the military, etc. later
on. Some things are hard wired based on experience- others may be
genetic- but it is learned and rewarded even if the reward is
negative.

On May 22, 2:25 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That fits with a lot of biology RP.  The idea of humans as rational,
> conscious beings is a part story overdone.  Rigs gets to some of the
> wider trust issues.  A lot of studies were done in an attempt to
> understand what happens to us in families, growing up generally - one
> of the most famous was by RD Laing.  One strand we can pull from this
> is that families are not necessarily very nice places - but this tends
> to get overblown into nothing being other than a manipulation strategy
> and even linked to game theory.
>
> Game theory is pretty dumb, perhaps because of its proof through
> maths.  A classic example is the prisoners' dilemma.  One might think
> here that I have stolen a valuable diamond and rigs is going to fence
> it for me, exchanging it for a big bag of cash.  The problem is that
> rigs and I are vicious reprobates and suspect we will kill each other
> at the exchange.  We thus come up with a plan to bury the diamond and
> cash hundreds of miles apart and ring each other to say where they
> are.  But this is dumb as I  might lie to rigs, collect the cash and
> keep the diamond - or vice verse.  The maths on this is that it is
> always best to cheat because you always keep what you had to start
> with and it the other party is gullible you get the diamond and the
> cash.  Frankly, on such a dumb problem, even maths that gave us access
> to RP's unconscious, would be useless.
>
> I take it as read everyone can see how dumb the scenario is.  For a
> start neither rigs or me would want to spend the rest of our lives
> with the diamond, cash and fear of the other emerging from the shadows
> with an ice pick!  I'm also quite sure as an ex-cop that criminal
> networks do establish trust.  Rigs' fencing business would suffer
> reputational damage if she ripped me off - etc.
>
> In days when milk was delivered to the door, the milkman 'trusted'
> people to pay at the end of the week and people often left the cash
> with the empty bottles.  In other trading systems it was common to
> leave blood relative hostages until the deal was complete.  Trust in
> fact is a complex system.  Indeed, our biology has trust, cheating,
> deception, selfishness, cooperation and much more built-in.  The idiot
> right with its vaunted selfish individual finding equilibrium in a
> collectivity of dirty rotten scoundrels is as dumb as love-trust
> anarchic syndicalism or the existential union of egoists.
>
> My own feeling is we have trapped ourselves in regulation that suits
> sociopathic strategies.
>
> On 22 May, 03:48, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Consciousness limits the spirit , it creates boundaries , no matter how
> > large, whereas the unconscious is limitless. It explains its omnipotence as
> > it is the source of all thoughts , decisions and actions.The myriads of
> > universes are upheld by that unconscious spirit and arise and vanish into
> > it.
>
> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > believing in and unconscious God and pre-determinism actually makes a lot
> > > of sense  it is very clear cut RP..  why do you need a rational discourse..
> > >  my question is how do you arrive at an unconscious God?   have not heard
> > > it put that way before..
>
> > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> This group is not meant for blunt admissions but for discussions
> > >> regarding individual beliefs and ideas. If I bluntly say that I believe in
> > >> an unconscious God and predeterminism , it amounts to nothing. I have to
> > >> put forward logic and rational discourse in support of my beliefs , and if
> > >> that does not convince you , so be it as I am not here to convert you to my
> > >> belief system.
>
> > >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> why don't you bluntly say just what you do believe.
>
> > >>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:26 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> I have never talked about religion , if I have used such terminology it
> > >>>> is just to express myself. I have never tried to convert anybody , only
> > >>>> laying down my belief and it has nothing to do with religion. Examining my
> > >>>> beliefs from different angles is not meant to coax you but simply a method
> > >>>> of examination. We are here to discus our ideas , and if you think I am
> > >>>> talking from a book , you are mistaken. All religions believe in human
> > >>>> souls whereas I don't , so where is the book thumping that you are accusing
> > >>>> me of all the time.
>
> > >>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> No not at all ,,,   you asked a simple question  and I gave the
> > >>>>> reference point,,  nothing more ..  I also refereed to the
> > >>>>> guideline source for you the Hindi beliefs..  If I tried hammering home
> > >>>>> christian fundamentalism beliefs on you,,  again and again trying to
> > >>>>> convince you I am right that is bible thumping,,
>
> > >>>>> I do know that one of the Islamic sect has beliefs relating to Zombies
> > >>>>>  talking about their beliefs does not constitute         book thumping..
> > >>>>>  or referring to gospel of Buddha  is just a reference.   If you are
> > >>>>> showing how a religious concept works is one thing..  trying to convert
> > >>>>> people to your belief  you are into the realm of thumping..
>
> > >>>>> I have my own beliefs  some of which evolved from discussions right
> > >>>>> here on Minds Eye..  The idea of the group is to share knowledge not to
> > >>>>> make converts..  it is hard to explain beliefs,, examining them can be very
> > >>>>> interesting..  like I thought my comments relating to Zombies and souls..
> > >>>>> RP  it is strange to find out that you are saying and thought to be
> > >>>>> original has already been said and part of a sects beliefs..
>
> > >>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:22 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> When you quote the Bible it is a simple religious answer , but when
> > >>>>>> others refer from a book you call them book thumpers. Aren't you
> > >>>>>> contradicting yourself or maybe you are playing  with two set of
> > >>>>>> rules---one for yourself and your cronies and the other for the rest of us.
>
> > >>>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>> Not really RP  you asked a question and I gave you the simple answer
> > >>>>>>> guideline are of a religious nature..
>
> > >>>>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:58 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>> Now , aren't we being book-thumpers , Allan ?
>
> > >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>> In the western world it basically known as the 10 commandments or
> > >>>>>>>>> above all do know harm..  as for India RP I would ask vam he is far better
> > >>>>>>>>> versed in Hindi than I am.
>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:08 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>>> " the importance staying within guidelines God laid down to
> > >>>>>>>>>> follow.."
>
> > >>>>>>>>>> What are those guidelines and when and where did God lay them
> > >>>>>>>>>> down ?
>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I have been thinking about trust,  it seems we lose it via lies,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> dishonesty and distortion of the truth.  It is difficult to trust when
> > >>>>>>>>>>> those a person or organizations a persons trusts are constantly violating
> > >>>>>>>>>>> that trust. I seriously think that people's souls have forgotten they are
> > >>>>>>>>>>> accountable for even the small dishonesty or the importance staying within
> > >>>>>>>>>>> guidelines God laid down to follow..  Sad really
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:57 AM, James <ashkas...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Machiavellian intelligence has been a useful concept for me in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> dealing with manipulative, intelligent, and dominating personalities. How
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> this relates to trust, in my view prominently, is in reciprocation of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> honesty and mutual respect. Identifying a bully in one of the three above
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> is easy as pie but can get confusing as skill increases across them all, it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> can leave one questioning themselves, which most of the tactics are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> targeting vulnerability or creating through unease. In turn what can be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> gained is an immunity to those tactics and self recognition, as the rules
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> of the schoolground go or older siblings learning regret for toughening up
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> their little brother. The chaffing and soreness just isn't worth the rub
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> though, I am wondering why so many find themselves in a position beneath
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> such, and think a good many rules are in place to keep a balance. If one
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> lacks trust of self it seems they would have to endure and persevere at the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> mercy of the games Molly. I mean that winceingly.
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> There is a great and well-guided side to it also! :) I am
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> curious why I keep thinking of 'motivation' when I try to place this into a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> psychodynamic (unintended redundancy) context.
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2013 4:28 PM, Molly wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure those models help us if we find ourselves witholding
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> trust
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> although not sure why.  theories are great, but if I cannot
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> trust, but
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> want to, the theories aren't all that helpful.
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 12:24 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of us in organisational development gave up on the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> love-trust
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> model because we saw it as dangerous.  The reality is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Machiavellian.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris
>
> ...
>
> read more »- 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.