Have we been insulted or complimented? On Dec 28, 3:25 pm, Gabby <[email protected]> wrote: > I didn't get any books for Christmas, but Amazon and Douglas gift vouchers. > That's great! I'll be able to use them when I need something. > > I like reading here. No author could have come up with such an anarchic > plot, ghostly setting and high amount of under-performers and be able to > sell it as a product. :) > > I wouldn't be able to sign this thievery is the root of all evil theory. > The possessive 'have' causes wanted and unwanted effects, that's right > though. Control comes into play. The Golden Calf never to become an > ordinary cow or bull. > > Put back perspective in context and try again, I say. > > Am Freitag, 28. Dezember 2012 17:34:01 UTC+1 schrieb archytas: > > > > > > > I finally have my own copy of David Graeber's 'Debt: the first 5000 > > years', Hann and Hart's 'Economic Anthropology' and David Orell's > > 'Economyths' - I've been dip[ping in and already know they don't offer > > much I don't know or how to frame economics problems so enough of us > > could understand them. It's good to know others, like me, think > > thievery is the root and that the science alleged to be involved is > > counterfeit stuff from the 19th century. Graeber finishes by saying > > we should have a debt jubilee and start again (after historical > > analysis). I'll get through the books by posting them in the toilet > > and bathroom as relief from the day job. My guess is we are really as > > stuck in a confrontation with power as Burmese peasants stuck with a > > Chinese copper mine on their land. Graeber, an anarchist, sounds > > rather like Molly or Gabby or Allan in hoping love might usurp self- > > interest. I don't drink that soup for the soul! I rather see such > > condition as dessert after we grind out a materialist solution after > > we realise the rich have been having us on a butty. > > > On 28 Dec, 12:34, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Interesting, achy, my husband and I are in the same boat. I keep going > > > back to the classics on my shelf and the rare books yet uncovered that I > > > can find for a song at the internet bookseller. Mostly, we surf the web > > > for shreds of what is new in the research and come up short, as this is > > > passed on at a need to know basis and posted on the Internet after the > > > party or at the risk of indiscretion. Reading has been more interesting > > > during other phases of life for me. > > > > On Thursday, December 27, 2012 7:08:50 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > > > I do something similar to Molly. Reading is largely about trying to > > > > fly with ideas for me, different to the day-to-day. I suspect most > > > > people in here would like anyone who wants to to be able to access > > > > universities. I'd do this by changing what the university is. What > > > > we have actually been doing seems to be madness. We are graduating > > > > half our population without increasing 'working smarter' jobs or even > > > > considering whether this is really possible - the probability is we > > > > are devaluing graduate advantage just as we force kids into large debt > > > > to get the qualifications. Finance, traditionally an unwanted cost > > > > against production and sales, now leeches massive amounts from > > > > production we used to retain as wages and liquid capital amongst our > > > > 50% least well off (this was about 20% of GDP when I left school ans > > > > is down to less than 1%). What I find in reading is consistent > > > > distraction from what really matters. There isn't much difference > > > > between watch mainstream news, whatever entertainment is on offer and > > > > the academic vanity publishing. It feels as though there is nothing > > > > to read or watch. > > > > > On 27 Dec, 23:19, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I don't agree on the body language or behavioural cues rigs - all > > the > > > > > tests done show we are about as reliable as the toss of a coin. The > > > > > people who are best at making us think we can read them are > > > > > psychopaths - three times more likely to secure parole from > > 'experts'. > > > > > > On 27 Dec, 09:15, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes the rich have more opportunities and exposure to make more > > > > > > wealth.. why would you say that is Rigsy?? Why are not these > > > > > > opportunities and exposure created for the poor? .. they are the > > ones > > > > > > that need it. or could it be part of the perks of worshiping at > > the > > > > > > feet of the golden calf?? > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:49 AM, rigs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > It may be the rich have more opportunities and exposure, Allan. > > > > Human > > > > > > > nature is human nature. Also, celebrity creates another kind of > > > > > > > challenge as the artist types gain fame and fortune- often to > > laugh > > > > at > > > > > > > their own popularity and adulation of the public and critics- > > > > Picasso > > > > > > > comes to mind, for instance- have a savage quote of his around > > here > > > > > > > somewhere. > > > > > > > > On Dec 25, 8:04 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> Oddly I think you have a better chance for good ethics among > > the > > > > poor > > > > > > >> over the rich, > > > > > > >> Allan > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 1:25 PM, 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 apples, or > > is > > > > it a more > > > > > > >> >> > widespread problem?” — and goes on to reveal the > > surprising, > > > > > > >> >> > illuminating, often unsettling truths that underpin the > > > > uncomfortable > > > > > > >> >> > answer. Like cruelty, dishonesty turns out to be a > > remarkably > > > > > > >> >> > prevalent phenomenon better explained by circumstances and > > > > cognitive > > > > > > >> >> > processes than by concepts like character. > > > > > > > >> >> > Work like this is challenging traditional economics - the > > > > genre is > > > > > > >> >> > 'behavioural economics'. My own take on this book and a > > lot > > > > of work > > > > > > >> >> > from brain science and history is that we are at a tipping > > > > point in > > > > > > >> >> > respect of the possibility of a human science. I'd like > > to > > > > see a > > > > > > >> >> > broader literature take up this challenge beyond current > > > > drivel on > > > > > > >> >> > black and white hats. > > > > > > > >> >> > So what are you guys reading? > > > > > > > >> > -- > > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >> ( > > > > > > >> ) > > > > > > >> |_D Allan > > > > > > > >> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. > > > > > > > >> Of course I talk to myself, > > > > > > >> Sometimes I need expert advice..- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > ( > > > > > > ) > > > > > > |_D Allan > > > > > > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. > > > > > > > Of course I talk to myself, > > > > > > Sometimes I need expert advice..- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
--
