You must have heard of Billy Bob Town, population: 1 Sheriff: "your speeding through my town son and I'm going to have to write you up"
Driver: "But I was only going 45 mph" Sheriff: "well you tell it to the judge, your court appearance is in 15 minutes" (sheriff changes his clothes and becomes the judge) Judge: "now let's see here, you have been charged with speeding" Driver: "I was only going 45mph" Judge: "yeah I know, fine will be set at $350." Driver: "But your Honor that is really high" Judge: "Well that's nothing compared to what it's going to cost to get your car out of impound" Driver: "this is outrageous! I refuse to pay such a ridiculous amount" Judge: "You are under arrest for contempt of court, please stand over by the door and wait for the Sheriff" On Jun 28, 6:03 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Pretty much anything can be faked Gabby - but then perhaps I knock > about with the wrong women? Very few corruption cases even make it to > court in the UK Molly, and I'm afraid this is a sure sign we have a > lot of it. > > On 27 June, 22:01, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The divine by definition cannot be guessed or faked. But yes, writing > > or teaching about it makes room for more. > > > On 27 Jun., 06:55, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I would guess we are all troubled by that focus on words that leads to > > > a myriad of books that only help in obscure ways and which makes an > > > industry out of the clutter. I'm at the end of a long experiment I > > > need to write up. Orn's a bit older than me, but we have both harked > > > back to a time when jobs could pay pretty well and didn't seem to be > > > in short supply. These days, I despair that the main industry is > > > about providing useless training for jobs that aren't there. I do see > > > a case for us all to need to be able to 'see the Emperor naked' and > > > further to be able to talk about the madness and not inventions about > > > the 'clothes'. > > > I was at a two-day training event this week, based on utter cock > > > derived from a book called 'Chicken Soup for the Soul' - all homilies > > > around being rejected 132 times before publication and the success of > > > self-made men and women who have triumphed over adversity. Everyone > > > there could see this within minutes of the start. All anyone there > > > wanted was a job that would bring some security - this being the very > > > thing not on offer. All the stories were known to me to be as false > > > as claims made at pyramid selling events. The book of invisible > > > thread had apparently sold 195 million copies - very scary. The > > > trainer seemed to be a believer, though a fairly good egg who reminded > > > me of my Auntie Jean. What capitalism offered once was the chance of > > > a decent wage and the ability to move on to another - my guess is that > > > what we liked about it was the freedom from the overbearing authority > > > of people with riches and the ranking system of education and > > > equivalents of the Domesday Book. > > > On my way home, I saw one of the idiots who was allowed to cause so > > > much grief to me and Sue when they lived next door. He was driving a > > > car. He is nearly always drunk or drugged and can't have a licence, > > > is probably disqualified, the vehicle probably unsafe and so on. He > > > and his partner have lived by defrauding benefits and crime for over > > > 20 years. She is on trial for arson and awaiting sentence for a > > > serious assault. They are an industry - every year they cost around > > > £100,000 in benefits and in the legal system around their 'petty' > > > crimes (like throwing a fire-bomb at a family home). One of the women > > > on the course applied for a gardening programme only to be told it was > > > only for people who had committed crimes. One could go on, but this > > > is the problem - what is going on is so obvious we shouldn't have to > > > explain and describe it, but already be working on putting things > > > right. > > > My guess is that we need control of the small things that make life > > > reasonably free, and that we have actually become cowed by authority > > > systems we won't see. The 'Baby P' case in the UK is a classic. It's > > > clear none of the participants in this baby's cruel life and death was > > > prepared to act on the obvious evidence of eye and good sense. These > > > people were cops, social workers, doctors and so on, all caught up in > > > cowardly kow-tow. The whistle-blowers were all crudely stamped down, > > > as surely as the young child shouting out the 'Emperor is naked' would > > > be hung as a witch. Our systems are already 'sacred' in that they > > > have eliminated fair criticism through a taboo of fear. I am > > > materialist only in believing that anything divine should not simply > > > be attained by averting eyes, though I believe something more > > > spiritual has to be part of our daily affairs. I believe it can be > > > organised - though the rub is we need control of the organising > > > through a system in which integrity is demonstrated, not made sacred > > > in a regime of truth. The divine may be fine, but sadly it can be > > > faked. Somewhere, somehow, we need to be able to contribute, have > > > this recognised and be left alone yet not isolated from support we > > > should expect from our contributions. We probably have the technology > > > to organise this for the first time. > > > We now have two cats and an interloper called Arbuthnot with a > > > magnetic collar who sneaks in and sleeps on the spare bed. My plan is > > > a little job that pays the bills and to write. > > > > On 26 June, 23:21, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “Orn, Neil spoke of practical levels of transparency, meaning 'who is > > > > governing what' in down to earth English. You are guessing your way > > > > to > > > > the domain of the divine and the new tools of deception. Calling this > > > > a parallel conversation would be an euphemism for lifting up the > > > > thinking lazy on the one hand of the scales.” – gabby > > > > > Again, I’m glad to hear from you gabby; however, the above troubled me > > > > enough for a re-read of neil’s posts. I did find personal and read > > > > observations about the term transparency as well as preferences. > > > > > I assume that we all have similar preferences…at least there has been, > > > > over the years, a lot of lip service to the same. So, since there was > > > > nothing that I could find that was practical in the sense of changing > > > > the status quo, unless perhaps one includes pointing out things to see/ > > > > observe, I followed suit. In this sense, yes, it is parallel. > > > > > As for guessing, I used the term because of course, not having lived > > > > as long ago as my surmising was looking at, it is all I can do…guess. > > > > > However, when it comes to how humans are, today at least, including > > > > myself, this I can say I do know about and did project this throughout > > > > much of history (as a guess). > > > > > Oh, I did offer a suggestion too at the end about the need for the, > > > > perhaps obvious?.., observation this all started out with. > > > > > So, all in all, I guess I don’t find the intellectual butcher shop you > > > > do…perhaps it is a Deutsch thing? > > > > > On Jun 26, 1:05 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Orn, Neil spoke of practical levels of transparency, meaning 'who is > > > > > governing what' in down to earth English. You are guessing your way to > > > > > the domain of the divine and the new tools of deception. Calling this > > > > > a parallel conversation would be an euphemism for lifting up the > > > > > thinking lazy on the one hand of the scales. > > > > > > On 26 Jun., 18:33, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > "...I fear this is on the decline." - ARCHY > > > > > > > ..not so sure myself. I do know that the art of deception has a lot > > > > > > of > > > > > > new technology (tools) these days. My guess is that the nature of > > > > > > this > > > > > > aspect of how one presents them self to others hasn't changed much > > > > > > if > > > > > > at all for centuries, perhaps longer. > > > > > > > This sort of ego image seems to be an innate aspect of our > > > > > > psyche...wishing to present a good or at least 'practical' "self" to > > > > > > perceived others. The practical aspect of course has to do with how > > > > > > one adapts to their environment, humans included. > > > > > > > For us all to be able to say the emperor is wearing no clothes means > > > > > > we all must see this clearly and not project other things upon it. > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 8:27 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > A lot of people are certainly very disturbed by transparency - > > > > > > > one can > > > > > > > read Freud as saying we push most of what's pretty obvious out of > > > > > > > consciousness or Norbert Elias as saying we sweep it all under the > > > > > > > carpet of manners. Makes me queasy to be honest Orn, partly > > > > > > > because I > > > > > > > think there are some basics where we shouldn't let deception rule. > > > > > > > The bugbear is the thought of bad government - power rarely allows > > > > > > > transparency. I tend to like countervailing structures and to > > > > > > > know > > > > > > > who is governing what. I fear this is on the decline. > > > > > > > > On 26 June, 15:33, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > "...more practical levels of transparency." - archy > > > > > > > > > Not so sure how much I would have to do with such a > > > > > > > > state...seems more > > > > > > > > to be the domain of the divine. > > > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 3:59 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Some quite old sociology probably would help if we could > > > > > > > > > recognise it > > > > > > > > > in our thinking and action more often. Goffman talked about > > > > > > > > > 'total > > > > > > > > > organisations' - from which we might recognise that many have > > > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > little choice and all of us should be wary of total thinking. > > > > > > > > > Just as > > > > > > > > > we yearn for integrity, someone is using the ploy of > > > > > > > > > sincerity on us - > > > > > > > > > just as we may realise this we may be using the shell of > > > > > > > > > scepticism in > > > > > > > > > order to certainly not be able to trust. In the end thinking > > > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > > have to be this piss-poor and we could have more practical > > > > > > > > > levels of > > > > > > > > > transparency. > > > > > > > > > > On 25 June, 23:24, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It's a tough job, but someone has to do it! ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2:00 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Orny, what would I do - what would the world do - > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
