Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2014, 05:41 AM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 05:45 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 07:44 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 06:33 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  ...
Again, no.

Anti-Money Laundering regulations have been in place for a long time. UBS and RBS repeatedly violate them. Because it's lucrative.

FYI - I'm speaking specifically about US securities regulations.
...

I know you are.

But then, y'know, Murikans, :sigh:, :rolls eyes:

What does one expect from a society founded by / evolved from land-grab, gold-rush, scum-sucking settlers. Angel

So, again you say "no" as though you are disagreeing with the wider concept that policies and procedures cannot act as a deterrent or change behaviour.

If this is true then Lumi is correct and governance is useless and therefore superfluous.

I don't think you are missing the wider point but it does read that way.

But I think we are both saying that many profit-oriented social groups e.g. banks, are behaving with Pre-Conventional morality:

(16-08-2014 12:20 AM)DLJ Wrote:  ...
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
i ..... Obedience and punishment orientation (“how can I avoid punishment?”)
ii .... Self-interest orientation (“what's in it for me?” ; Paying for a benefit)
Level 2 (Conventional)
i ..... Interpersonal accord and conformity (social norms; the “good boy/girl” attitude)
ii .... Authority and social-order maintaining orientation (law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
i ..... Social contract orientation
ii .... Universal ethical principles (principled conscience)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Ko...evelopment
...

We agree there must be regulation.

Where we disagree is that the regulation is reactive and proactive.

I promise you. I know FINRA's rule book like the back of my hand. There are rules in place to prevent 90% of the violations that occur on a daily basis.

While I concede that sometimes an emerging competitor will play very nice at first, bending over backwards to comply. As time goes on though, they will try to find a way to circumvent the letter of the rule.

You see the movie boiler room? That shit still happens. And the rules have been in place for more than 40 years.

I just heard the reporter on NY1 state, "federal prosecutors are trying to determine if GM's legal department concealed evidence from regulators from the faulty ignition switch..."

I have a really hard time concluding that the majority of the time, regulation is proactive. The pudding says otherwise.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 05:56 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 05:41 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  ...
Where we disagree is that the regulation is reactive and proactive.
...

D'uh! Blush The penny's finally dropped.

You're talking about compliance with regulations.

I'm talking about compliance with and creation of regulations.

Either way, I think we both agree that Lumi is living in a parallel universe.

It sounds nice there.

[Image: image.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 06:19 AM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 06:28 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 05:56 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Either way, I think we both agree that Lumi is living in a parallel universe.

It sounds nice there.
To be honest, I live in multiple parallel universes. I observe their general characteristics and then from these I synthesize principles of the multiverse or metaverse. By these principles I try to live, learn, breathe and everything else, to the best of my ability. Making this synthesis real for other people, that's my work, which I'm still learning.

There are very few people like that. I think you come close enough, but my people skills are too broken and rusty to be sure. As a rule of thumb, you're good as you are and you only need extra info and skills based to the challenges you meet, which is none of my business.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 06:33 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 06:19 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 05:56 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Either way, I think we both agree that Lumi is living in a parallel universe.

It sounds nice there.
To be honest, I live in multiple parallel universes. I observe their general characteristics and then from these I synthesize principles of the multiverse or metaverse. By these principles I try to live, learn, breathe and everything else, to the best of my ability. Making this real for other people, that's my work, which I'm still learning.

There are very few people like that. I think you come close enough, but my people skills are too broken and rusty to be sure. As a rule of thumb, you're good as you are and you only need extra info and skills based to the challenges you meet, which is none of my business.

What, I think you are recognising in me (and I suspect I recognise in you) is a highly developed compensatory skill developed to cope with our lack, due to Asperger's syndrome, of what Dan Dennett calls folk pyschology.

Have you read his stuff on the 3 stances?
The physical stance
The design stance
The intentional stance.

I think you are using the former to calculate the latter.

I kinda overuse the first two but mainly the second one to compensate for my inability to calculate the third.

It's the third one that permits nuance.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
22-08-2014, 07:46 AM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 07:54 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 06:33 AM)DLJ Wrote:  What, I think you are recognising in me (and I suspect I recognise in you) is a highly developed compensatory skill developed to cope with our lack of what Dan Dennett calls folk pyschology due to Asperger's syndrome.
Yes, that too. But it's more complex. On top of that, I come from a narcissistic, immature, cold family, perhaps with some subtle sadism as narcissists are wont to have. I don't just lack folk psychology, I was taught folk anti-psychology of evil, on purpose. I suspect everyone in my family is dead inside, except me and perhaps my grandma, who mellowed a little by old age and religious experience.
I have no fuckin' idea what compensatory skills did THAT cause me to develop. I only know now that they scare the shit out of people, so that they're determined not to give me any or true or friendly feedback, to keep me in the blind and prevent the hungry fox of analysis from entering the chicken coop of worldviews.

(22-08-2014 06:33 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Have you read his stuff on the 3 stances?
The physical stance
The design stance
The intentional stance.

I think you are using the former to calculate the latter.

I kinda overuse the first two but mainly the second one to compensate for my inability to calculate the third.

It's the third one that permits nuance.
I've never heard of this theory before, but unsurprisingly, people like us have to develop some theory like this just to get by. I have just read this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance
Frankly, I think Dennett is weakened as a philosopher by mixing science into his philosophy, instead of keeping these two disciplines apart, mastering classical philosophy and using science for debugging. Hell, I mix these two in my personal writings, but I think he started mixing them way too soon. That is the common plague of our times, scientists dabbling as philosophers. Science itself is the physical stance, philosophy is the intentional stance. Dennett should get his priorities right.
This is how he does the mistake, by using scientific and engineering metaphors he uses "the former to calculate the latter".
I have no idea which of these I do the most. I live in isolation doing so much therapy, that I'm in a state of flux and it will only show later if and how I have changed.

I can hardly imagine the three stances. I see a continuum of increasing internal capacity for variability, which may or may not contain less or more of corruption and disorder. This disorder (or evil as I define it in my writings) is based on subordinating the more abstract to the more concrete. Thus for example Dennett rightly states as an ideal that we should treat humans based on the intentional stance. But in practice we know that humans often act by the design stance, due to internalized trauma and emotional conditioning, be it religious, political or otherwise abusive. And humans acting or humans treated by the logic of physical stance, that is equal to psychopatism, murder, genocide, dehumanization and so on. Humans attacked with instruments or treated as instruments, that is evil. I say humans, because our brain capacity for variability is relatively greatest, though not absolute. And not everyone has the same capacity or potential for variability.

I tell you, a person who has the right hierarchy of values even if his potential is not great, is more humane and safe than a genius with perverted values. But capacity decides impact in the world, a great personal capacity for good is something that the world needs. Without choice there is no morality and people with little capacity have little choice.

This "teaching" I call the principle of variability and it is closely interlinked with principles of universality and identity/integrity.

Are you aware of David Zindell's theory of consciousness as simplex, complex and multiplex? I have learned about that just recently, but it is basically a copy of what I was doing since years before.
http://books.google.cz/books?id=-fzVk7LV...ex&f=false
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Luminon's post
22-08-2014, 08:08 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 07:46 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
Are you aware of David Zindell's theory of consciousness as simplex, complex and multiplex?
...

I wasn't aware of that. I'll add it to my reading list.

And DAMN! Where were you yesterday when I was trying to describe my bewilderment to a colleague about another colleagues 'simplex' view of the world.

I didn't have that model to describe what I saw/heard but it would have been perfect.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 08:20 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
DLJ you speak Lumi? Wow.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
22-08-2014, 08:35 AM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 08:46 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 08:20 AM)morondog Wrote:  DLJ you speak Lumi? Wow.
Yep, he is the closest to fluency of everyone on this forum, but not suicidal enough for mastery.
If you want to learn Lumi in a safe and easier way, read the novel The Broken God by David Zindell. In the first quarter of the book, pay attention to 'Fravashi philosophy' and everything that comes after that. You will see exact copies of my ideas. I kept laughing all the time while I had read this quarter, because the similarity is unbelievable. It's like meeting 10 of your identical doubles. This Zindell guy must be pretty smart Consider

(22-08-2014 08:08 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I wasn't aware of that. I'll add it to my reading list.

And DAMN! Where were you yesterday when I was trying to describe my bewilderment to a colleague about another colleagues 'simplex' view of the world.

I didn't have that model to describe what I saw/heard but it would have been perfect.
Sorry, it was a surprise for me too. It's an old skill of mine that Zindell named 'shih' I think, the ability to get through boundaries (complex), even synthesize (multiplex) worldviews. It is necessary for some of my hobbies.
Just for your information, I was getting stunned by revealing a nasty block in my psyche based around mutual abuse, control and addiction that develops between debating people.
I have been trying to pinpoint this block for the past few weeks. As the Red woman would say, ...for the subconscious is dark and full of terrors!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 08:40 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 08:35 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
Just for your information, I was getting stunned by revealing a nasty block in my psyche based around mutual abuse, control and addiction that develops between debating people.
I have been trying to pinpoint this block for the past few weeks. As the Red woman would say, ...for the subconscious is dark and full of terrors!

Yeah! I noticed.

I was tempted to point it out but you weren't ready.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 08:45 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 08:35 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
but not suicidal enough for mastery.
...

Trying to get a confession out of me? Nah! not this time, mate, not yet.

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: