The video was very interesting actually watched it all the way trough.. In part I agree with it.. yet I do not think like all things that are absolute,, and the graphics were doctored to try and emphasis what is not always correct.
I am left wondering what the motives of the writer.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
Part of the problem - which I think Molly gets at well - concerns our
lack of sensitivity to trust. James talks a bit about the dark side
above - the organisations we work in are often not very nice. One
argument doing the rounds concerns sociopathology - an introductory
video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd6P1Ue2aGg
We trust both too much and too little. Even people trained not to be
deluded by psychopaths generally fail - psychos are three times more
likely to convince parole boards they have or intend to reform. Our
brains change (physically) as we get older towards more trusting, yet
most of us also get more cynical from the kind of experience James
touches on. Younger people in organisations are much more likely to
believe management promises as a rule - the rest of us have seen them
vapourise more often
I am resistant to people who claim to have seen the light. This is a
general mistrust based on the long history of no change emerging from
such 'experience' and plenty of examples of con-people making this
claim. I have never met a soul, but can't deny wondering that there
'must' be more than clinging to this rock waiting for species
extinction. I am broadly materialist in that I believe our living
conditions have a lot to do with the potentials of spirituality.
Religion is control fraud for me - but this has nothing to do with
Allan on souls or RP drifting to what I think of as the long view or
even Molly's Catholicism. Such meets a basic trust criteria that it's
not being forced down my throat and is an attempt to share the
ineffable. There's a complex trust issue in religion in that it's
hard to see how religious freedom can be maintained without a
democratic, secular state (Spinoza) - so I have trust issues on
religion from religious groups seizing power (even if by ballot) and
killing what democracy we have through to revelational claims not
supported by any evidence other than testimony (which has a history of
being bollocks in every sense of the word - with no testes to cling to
one could not once give testimony). We need to move to more
fellowship and ability to act in conscience. I think we could get
quite a long way there through biology - but almost no one knows much
on this subject.
On 21 May, 14:26, 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:> >>>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Allan H <allanh1...@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 ?
>
>
> >>>>>>> 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 Argyris is probably the major writer in this area -
> >>>>>>>>>> essentially
> >>>>>>>>>> we need to work with theories-in-use rather than espoused
> >>>>>>>>>> theories.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 20 May, 12:11, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, indeed. our first basic trust lessons come early. I was
> >>>>>>>>>>> always
> >>>>>>>>>>> interested to see how ruthless children can be. I suppose they
> >>>>>>>>>>> learn
> >>>>>>>>>>> it somewhere. Left unchecked, it can grow into the now cliche
> >>>>>>>>>>> bullying that they tell us is part of growing up. Part of life,
> >>>>>>>>>>> actually, as my mother in law was a bully, and I watched he
> >>>>>>>>>>> methods
> >>>>>>>>>>> become more subtle as time went after her overt methods were no
> >>>>>>>>>>> longer
> >>>>>>>>>>> taken seriously. I think we learn, as time goes on, the currency
> >>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> trust - the exchange of trust and trustworthiness. It is as
> >>>>>>>>>>> misused
> >>>>>>>>>>> as any other currency, but when used efficiently, brings quality
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> life.
> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 19, 10:22 am, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Re children and trust- a good test is to slice the pie and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> watch their
> >>>>>>>>>>>> eyes judging if each piece is exactly the same size or who got
> >>>>>>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Christmas presents, etc.= sibling whining-rivalry. It may be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> traced to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> self-interest over-riding trust in the family or group. Check
> >>>>>>>>>>>> out
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Probate Court! The first sins of Genesis display this quite
> >>>>>>>>>>>> well- to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the point of expulsion and the first human murder.//Alert
> >>>>>>>>>>>> citizens
> >>>>>>>>>>>> know the games being played in their cultures- do they accept
> >>>>>>>>>>>> or avoid
> >>>>>>>>>>>> them? And what exactly is glorified in the various cultures of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> human
> >>>>>>>>>>>> history? I think that's where the answer lies.//As for the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> media/news-
> >>>>>>>>>>>> there is something warped that becomes intoxicated with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> violence,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> crime, bad weather, Hollywood breasts, etc. Now local tweets
> >>>>>>>>>>>> play
> >>>>>>>>>>>> under the news so we can get the immediate and ignorant
> >>>>>>>>>>>> reaction of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> every tom-dick and harry which has supplanted the ancient water
> >>>>>>>>>>>> well
> >>>>>>>>>>>> or tavern for gossipy opinion.//On the other hand, children
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> good reason to distrust if they are unfortunate to be born to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> twisted
> >>>>>>>>>>>> parents. Even animals are trained on how to survive in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wild...and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the world is wild (Rollo May called it psychotic, I believe).
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On May 17, 3:24 pm, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that fear is a big part of the inability to trust.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Fear of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> what can become blurry. A general fear expressed as a lack of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> self
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> trust - no trust that you can act and prevail, or preserver
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> through
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the suffering...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 17, 3:17 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can not help but wonder of how much are news media is at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fault.. It seems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if they work at instilling fear.. it seems all that is on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the news is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> extreme dramatic footage and it is taken to the extreme
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> always trying for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most dramatic footage and continuing to hammer it home
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never letting it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> go until the next terror story comes along.. a recent example
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be the Boston bombing.. 24 hr day coverage no let up ..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with that kind of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> coverage how can you expect people not to be frightened..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:09 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trust is subject to wobbly definition Moll - I've been
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dire stuff on neuroeconomics of late. Sue always has it
>
>
> 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.
(
)
|_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.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário