Re: Mind's Eye Re: A Book At Xmas or two

Have we been insulted or complimented?

On Dec 28, 3:25 pm, Gabby <gabbyd...@gmail.com> 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 <mollyb...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <allanh1...@gmail.com> 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 <rigs...@gmail.com> 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 <allanh1...@gmail.com> 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 <mollyb...@gmail.com>
> > > > 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 -

--