It's a very old argument Slip and the ancient world was full of your question on it. Crude honesty is really a ploy in an age of deception. The Sophists acted as though culture was all and could be invented and manipulated, truth being much more limited and often serving merely to be ridiculed. We have moved, in limited form towards empirical (originally meaning almost 'trivial') methods with the successes of science, yet these are used in a cultural sphere of power in which knowledge is little used as a development tool. There is no point in playing chess against people who cheat, but also little point in playing to win against people better suited to understand the rules because of their better fitted cognitive make-up. Most simulations I'm aware of show that 'honesty' can become the best strategy once actors are aware of what other strategies are being used and become aware of their defects. You only have to look at competitive sport to see we have to put massive control in (referees) to prevent cheating and see a considerable extent of it even under this control. Molly is talking about possibility and what I would like to see happen. In sport, we are now seeing umpires subject to public scrutiny through action replays and technology. They are often found wanting. Honesty could be given such a boost in the political world, but those in power try to prevent transparency. In club cricket matches you usually know whether you are out or not when batting. Ideally, the decision should be left to the batsman, but we are nearly all so bent this would be a disaster. We try to have independent umpires, but often your fate lies in the hands of an opponent who just happens to be wearing the white coat. The new technologies (if available) would show many decisions to be wrong. I played in a championship winning game in which the last ball of the season either struck their last man (a young kid) on the pad and was out, hit his bat and went for four (which it did in my view as the closest fielder and it did go for four). The given decision was 'out', the umpire being the bowler's father. This left us trooping off having 'won' the last game and the championship. We talked it through and offered their captain the game. He declined, largely over joint hatred of the team who would otherwise have won the league, having telephoned to discover they had won elsewhere. The point about honesty as a strategy is that it can only win where there is transparency. We could now have much more in public life. We seem to be getting less. Naive assertions of honesty are not much good for the obvious reason liars can make them. Political strategies to combat this are ancient (Aristotle's 'Politics' etc.) and not well known. These days we could be doing a great deal more with new technological means, but questions remain about why we should bother and how this might be better. We might also ask why so many of us just don't side with the big battalions and suffer depression because of it (Rigsby's posted a link on this that hasn't attracted much attention yet). This too is noted long before Aristotle. I have little hope we could 'dream' this up. What I would say is that all science I know has to be done under strict hygiene. We need to do something about social conditions for something like honesty to work. Your questions are right, but have to be part of the wider dreaming if we are not just to abandon to might. My suspicion is that the Macht- politik is failing us. Orn may be counting chickens, Nero fiddling away, Blair hiding his depression over Iraq and so on. We do have new technologies. I'd like to see a considered attempt to use them. And an action replay of an incident at Knutsford when I was given out first ball! Even God was ignored on that one, unleashing a thunderstorm before another ball was bowled, sending me a wonder bat (via PF Ward's) with which to smite the enemy in the replayed game!
On 28 Feb, 15:27, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > All roads seem to lead to the honesty issue, the magnetic carousel > that spins endlessly. The what good is anything without honesty > mantra. It will never be a reality because what is honest to one is > dishonest to another and the other is honestly dishonest. Science > pursuits can be honest but then it comes down to how to use the data > and how can it be successfully manipulated to utilize it for the > maximum benefit or profit. Can honesty survive in a dishonest world? > Its like honor among thieves. > > On Feb 28, 1:47 am, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This line of thinking, err, counting, serves to distract. > > > The operative spirit is stated by Neil : " ... how we might live and > > what we could be ... " If our start is honest, we'll have the answers > > for ourself. > > > That's the rub, though. Honesty ! Animals are rarely dishonest, but > > experience tells me, it's a very evolved attribute for us to have. How > > many crooks will admit that they seek, value and expect their people > > to be honest to them, that honesty is therefore the more fundamental > > and superceding a value even among the dishonest, and that they must > > therefore embrace it fully in their own life and not give in to these > > dishonest ways in thought and deed ? ! > > > Honesty is difficult because it demands a consistent core within > > ourself. That needs investment from us ... an Honesty Foundation, to > > seed and nurture and promote honesty as the preferred value in our > > pragmatic and expedience filled lives, on a massive scale. It would > > have to be planned, organised for and executed. But, seeming so > > uneconomic and non viable, who's to fund it ? I believe, it is for the > > world of business and the government to step in, simply because they > > have the money and the power, and the mandate. > > > Our connectivity program would initiate from there. > > > On Feb 28, 10:56 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Archy, the operative word there is ‘gratuitous’. Where is the line > > > drawn? There are limited resources and mankind is apt to deal in terms > > > of power. Is one chicken in every pot enouth?....two?...three? > > > > On Feb 27, 7:07 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The question in science for me concerns how we might live and what we > > > > could be if we could escape gratuitous competition. I can see some > > > > personal ways to escape, but these seem to lack connectivity with > > > > others that seems the route we are cast on. > > > > > On 28 Feb, 02:14, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I don't know that a divisibility issue thread would go all that far. > > > > > Thurman's reference to the collider basically is demonstrative of > > > > > man's desire to reach an end that can be held on to, owned and > > > > > possessed. Problem being that even with the Hadron establishing the > > > > > first successful particle collision and supposed gathering of sub > > > > > atomic information pertaining to universe origin and/or the > > > > > fundamental nature of matter seems hardly the end of the line or the > > > > > point of conclusion with regard to infinite divisibility. This > > > > > basically renders the LHC experiment a 5 billion dollar playstation > > > > > game. How can the science of infinite divisibility be carried out > > > > > without infinite experimentation. Will we, even can we, get past this > > > > > point of atomic particles? There remains the unresolved enigmas of > > > > > dark matter/energy and the Higgs Boson. I find the phrase God > > > > > Particle a bit entertaining but who knows what we'll discover over the > > > > > next 500 years if we don't accidentally cause a planetary implosion. > > > > > > On Feb 27, 9:58 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Oh, and the issue of infinite divisibility… perhaps ripe for a new > > > > > > topic? Or would it be appropriate here? I know I’ve approached this > > > > > > analysis a few times here at ME and so far find it sound. Of course > > > > > > on > > > > > > one level, not having completed the science (most likely an > > > > > > impossibility), “we” do not know as you point out Slip. Yet on other > > > > > > levels including thought experiments and analysis, it most assuredly > > > > > > points to the nature of reality. > > > > > > > On Feb 27, 6:08 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > It was interesting but not sure it adds to or lends any > > > > > > > credibility to > > > > > > > Buddism. Its just another view I guess. Not sure about > > > > > > > everything > > > > > > > being infinitely divisible. I'd visit Tibet but my lungs won't > > > > > > > go. > > > > > > > > On Feb 27, 12:59 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Robert Thurman > > > > > > > > > Topics include: > > > > > > > > The Growing popularity of Atheism > > > > > > > > Buddhism’s Stance on Deism > > > > > > > > Buddhism and the Meaning of Life > > > > > > > > Hyperrealism in Buddhism > > > > > > > > Backstage interview > > > > > > > > Obama and the History of Christianity in America > > > > > > > > The Chinese Occupation of Tibet > > > > > > > > Why the Dalai Lama Matters > > > > > > > > The Source of the Dalai Lama’s Popularity > > > > > > > > > Many points here…most are quite interesting. What do you think? > > > > > > > > >http://fora.tv/2009/02/09/Robert_Thurman_at_City_Arts__Lectures > > > > > > > > > I studied w/Bob back in the mid 80s.- 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 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.
