Same with robbery. :-) Not sure people get away with sins or flaws- I think they either deal with them or suffer somehow or way.
On Dec 26, 3:48 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't and semi do know where it originated there is an old saying,, > "If you are going to tell a lie tell a big one, It is easier for > people to believe." or something like that I have not thought of it > for years.. not picking on beliefs,, in severe fundamentalism 'if > you accept jesus christ as your personal savior you all your sins are > forgiven and you will go to heaven' personally I doubt that it is > true yet it can easily allow a person to avoid taking responsibility > for their actions.. > > Now people are avoiding taking responsibility by using beliefs.. no > one is really wanting to look at the golden calf ,, a doctrine that > is religiously avoided and never discussed,, after all it would take > a lot of so called activities off the books people do not want to go > against the God.. the Golden calf story is well known.... I think > people need to bring it to the forefront especially in looking at > beliefs.. the best way to combat a lie is with the truth if people > begin to see the harm they are doing in worshiping the golden calf and > taking the profits offer by these actions who know some might > change.. > Allan > > > > On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 7:29 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Psychology can seem very trivial when it tells us we lie a lot and try > > to fell we are still the good guys via internal rationalisation. In > > many ways it is. Ariely's paper is full of sings of the golden calf - > > attempts to position the author/s as key researchers to be followed, > > leading to large numbers of citations that bring research money, > > professorial status and reward - papers and books are often dishonest > > in this respect. 'Character reading' has been dismissed for longer > > than they suggest, a typical academic ploy in establishing new ground > > is being broken. > > The big lies told to us tend to be control frauds. My guess is we can > > reduce finance to programs embodied iin machines in a way that would > > bring itt under democratic control. Instead we have the nonsense of > > Merton-Black-Scholes and Gaussian copula used as magic wands by an > > esoteric circle to keep real democratic scrutiny away. Neither is > > really more complex in eliminating risk than Tote betting. They > > remind me of Latin mass or English poseurs at German opera. I know > > they don't and can't work. In practice they form part of a common > > accounting system that hjave allowed 24hr profit and loss to 'justify' > > big payments from the future now (all very Enron). I'm suer the > > 'maths' is a con and have ordered a few books on this aspect. > > The real problem is a mix of our gullibility towards and fear of power > > and lots of stuff to do with ownership and the ease with which we re > > bought off real democratic communion. If there are time travellers > > amongst us they are fastbucks from the future pretending to be the > > rewards from investment. We are not bankrupting our as yet unborn > > kids through government borrowing but rather indenturing them to > > bonuses being taken now for non-work by parasites. > > > People don't really follow argument - too much teaching on my part - > > because you can't wake most from ideology. To be free of the chains > > of illusion you need to know the complexities of lying and self-lying > > - a process that feels clanky and metallic itself - a further burden. > > Machiavelli told us about argument and we let them turn our attention > > to his evil. > > > On 25 Dec, 23:08, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> One sense of it I have is the move from coal through oil to another > >> form of carbon democracy - and a change from sabotage economics (where > >> democratic claims could be advanced by worker power and large rents > >> could be made from oil by preventing this and ensuring sales at high > >> mark-up to production cost) to something new. Human thinking is still > >> massively parochial and remaining so despite new technology - my hope > >> is what we have called argument since the Greeks will collapse in the > >> face of new opportunities to do stuff. I suspect the hard part will be > >> recognising much of what we think is work is neurotic. The thing now > >> is looking past the tipping point to see what of what we can imagine > >> is supported by fact and direction now - and what this reveals of what > >> ideology holds us in trance now. If we move to greater equality past > >> the tipping point we can't really understand what this might be in > >> current terms. I often wonder what it would be to write other than as > >> a functionary (to an organisation, audience, for sales and so on). I > >> have as little clue on what spirituality would be in a world free of > >> material want or in a more directly honest world in which, say, a > >> bullshit bell rang when we engage rationalisation. > >> Turkey dinner, washing up done, settled to watch some television - now > >> searching for the link to a friend who has recorded some French films > >> for me and the cat brush! > > >> On 25 Dec, 18:28, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > I suspect you are right about that brink, with quantum computing, > >> > graphene > >> > product development, and all the other game changers coming down the > >> > pike, > >> > a revolution in human relations would seem imminent. Discussing the > >> > possibilities here, a real pleasure. Time to watch Leonard Cohen in his > >> > London concert. Santa was good. > > >> > On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:32:28 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > >> > > Max had a good time with a 6 year-old sheep dog (who insisted I threw > >> > > her ball) whilst I had a chat with a nice guy 'escaping' family. > >> > > Daughters have entered Xmas spirit - I 'forced' them to read some > >> > > Molly - and ended 30 year war! Max is a massive treat with hardly a > >> > > bad bone in him - grandson much the same. > > >> > > There's free economics book here - > >> > >http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf > >> > > - it's faulty but at least throws some alternatives our way. The guy > >> > > is more rigs' side of the political fence than me but anyone with any > >> > > sense surely knows GOP/Demo Left/Right is the problem not about > >> > > alternative solutions. > > >> > > On 25 Dec, 15:55, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > What I'm after is is something better than virtue ethics Molly - the > >> > > > psychologists miss the point that language already posits multiple > >> > > > meanings. People rely on assessment of character and this turns out > >> > > > to be a dreadful fiction.. We end up in fantasies of the competitive > >> > > > advantage of creativity Allan describes (or Habermas). Ariely gives > >> > > > me a big feeling that we already knew his 'discovery' and Molly's > >> > > > critique above - in short we could do better than this in here. My > >> > > > own feeling is we're on the brink of cracking the arguments open to > >> > > > see new outcomes. In most of the games played in classrooms like > >> > > > 'negotiation' someone reasonably bright (there turn out not to be > >> > > > many) can see the fault lines in the game - much as in Molly's 'kind > >> > > > of rubbish' above. > > >> > > > My thesis is we may be far enough down the road to a human science > >> > > > now > >> > > > for the material and its thinking to challenge the current status quo > >> > > > as science once challenged 'the church'. Much academic work seems > >> > > > part of the wrong side to me in insisting we have to be so > >> > > > ludicrously > >> > > > clever to do it and basing what can be done in politesse and > >> > > > etiquette > >> > > > that prevent us calling a spade a spade to distinguish such from a > >> > > > shovel (important as shovels serve a different purpose). I think we > >> > > > can already embody a lot of clever work in machines that can't break > >> > > > rules and would encourage us to move away from chronic worship of the > >> > > > golden calf and fear that cleverness is just how we are governed by > >> > > > flim-flam. Must walk dog. > > >> > > > On 25 Dec, 12:25, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > I wonder if the researchers took into account that a truly ethical > >> > > person > >> > > > > would not participate in the kind of rubbish that presents > >> > > > > predictable > >> > > > > limited outcomes as fact. There may, indeed, be a correlation > >> > > > > between > >> > > > > creativity and ethics, but I suspect it is more inclusive and > >> > > > > requires > >> > > > > examination without the limits designed to define results. I keep > >> > > going > >> > > > > back to the model of spiral dynamics, one that allows and > >> > > > > understands > >> > > that > >> > > > > we all move up and down and between memes during our lives given > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > circumstances of our experience. Someone who does not have enough > >> > > money > >> > > > > for food may cheat in this experiment more than someone who has > >> > > > > never > >> > > > > known financial stress or hunger. Here is a pretty good > >> > > > > explanation > >> > > of the > >> > > > > original Graves material, although I've seen better, its the best I > >> > > could > >> > > > > find online this > >> > > > > morning. > >> > >http://www.edumar.cl/documentos/SD_version_for_constellation5.pdf > > >> > > > > On Monday, December 24, 2012 5:58:21 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > >> > > > > > A free paper with the ideas is at > >> > > > > >http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/11-064.pdf > >> > > > > > I was interested because I find professional ethics and religious > >> > > > > > morality collapse under circumstances of self-interest and become > >> > > > > > rationalisation. WE need creative solutions - but there is a > >> > > > > > dark > >> > > > > > side to creativity. > > >> > > > > > On 24 Dec, 22:03, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > > > "The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone — > >> > > > > > > Especially Ourselves" by Dan Ariely asks a seemingly simple > >> > > question — > >> > > > > > > “is dishonesty largely restricted to a few bad > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --
