Talk-Polywell.org

a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 3:44 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Posts: 13576
Location: Rockford, Illinois
I look at the science.

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/07/emot ... on-making/

.

_________________
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am
Posts: 1236
MSimon wrote:
Damasio was extensively commented on by Jonathan Hiadt in his recent "The Righteous Mind."

Related:

http://sentimentsofrationality.blogspot ... stand.html

_________________
Vae Victis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:22 am
Posts: 324
I believe I once mentioned something about being wary of anyone attempting to manipulate your emotions to alter your perspective.

"Judgement" (what is good / bad / better / worse) is an emotional representation of a rational thought. Your brain's debating and analyzing things in your subconscious, your not even aware that your making those judgements.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Posts: 13576
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Quote:
For example, one of the leading approaches to the study of political attitudes states that political conservatism is a form of motivated social cognition: people embrace conservatism in part "because it serves to reduce fear, anxiety, and uncertainty;...

http://sentimentsofrationality.blogspot ... stand.html


Oh. Yes. If you have been following along some of the other threads that is exactly the point I have been making about some of our conservative friends.

They hate that.

Politics is in the main a fear driven activity. To get meta to it you have to be mostly free of fears. i.e. you can't let your gut drive your thought. It leaves you without reason.

Carl Sagan looked at that in his "Dragons of Eden" book.

When we live in fear we are little better than animals.

Which is why conservatives hate libertarians. "What? You are not afraid of X? What is wrong with you?" In fact just telling them they should be free of fear (it was at one time referred to as "Trust In God") drives them into a frenzy. Which gives a fine object lesson to the lurkers.

You know I'm going to have to write this up. Thanks for the link!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Posts: 13576
Location: Rockford, Illinois
My attitude is: what ever comes up I will deal with it. What is the point of being afraid?

Here is a comment I left there:

You don't get libertarians. They are not morally impoverished. They are free of fear (mostly).

Which makes them a whole other animal compared to the left or the right.

In a different age it would have been said "They Trust in God". So important it is even printed on our money.

_________________
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am
Posts: 1236
palladin9479 wrote:
I believe I once mentioned something about being wary of anyone attempting to manipulate your emotions to alter your perspective.

"Judgement" (what is good / bad / better / worse) is an emotional representation of a rational thought. Your brain's debating and analyzing things in your subconscious, your not even aware that your making those judgements.
Haidt argues just the opposite - the rider and the elephant analogy. Reason serves and post-facto justifies decisions of emotion.

_________________
Vae Victis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am
Posts: 1236
MSimon wrote:
My attitude is: what ever comes up I will deal with it. What is the point of being afraid?

Here is a comment I left there:

You don't get libertarians. They are not morally impoverished. They are free of fear (mostly).

Which makes them a whole other animal compared to the left or the right.

In a different age it would have been said "They Trust in God". So important it is even printed on our money.
The rundown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books ... idt&st=cse
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwes ... ervatives/

Liberals: Care/ Harm, Liberty/ Oppression

Libertarians: Fairness/ Cheating, Liberty/ Oppression

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 95762.html

"What do the tea partiers really want? The title of a recent book by two of the movement's leaders offers an answer: "Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto." The authors, Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, write that "We just want to be free. Free to lead our lives as we please, so long as we do not infringe on the same freedom of others."

This claim should cause liberals to do a double-take. Isn't it straight out of John Stuart Mill, the patron saint of liberalism? Last year my colleagues and I placed a nearly identical statement on our research site, YourMorals.org: "Everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others." Responses from 3,600 Americans showed that self-described libertarians agreed with the statement most strongly, but liberals were right behind them. Social conservatives, who, according to national polls, make up the bulk of the tea party, were more tepid in their endorsement."

Why?

Conservatives: Care/ Harm, Fairness/ Cheating, Loyalty/ Betrayal, Authority/ Subversion, Sanctity/ Degradation, Liberty/ Oppression.

When you have more priorities to juggle, you will not elevate a very few to the Olympian heights.

Flipside - when you elevate very few principles, its easier to be a rabid supporter and enthusiast.

_________________
Vae Victis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm
Posts: 1062
MSimon wrote:
Quote:
For example, one of the leading approaches to the study of political attitudes states that political conservatism is a form of motivated social cognition: people embrace conservatism in part "because it serves to reduce fear, anxiety, and uncertainty;...

http://sentimentsofrationality.blogspot ... stand.html


Oh. Yes. If you have been following along some of the other threads that is exactly the point I have been making about some of our conservative friends.

They hate that.

Politics is in the main a fear driven activity. To get meta to it you have to be mostly free of fears. i.e. you can't let your gut drive your thought. It leaves you without reason.

Carl Sagan looked at that in his "Dragons of Eden" book.

When we live in fear we are little better than animals.

Which is why conservatives hate libertarians. "What? You are not afraid of X? What is wrong with you?" In fact just telling them they should be free of fear (it was at one time referred to as "Trust In God") drives them into a frenzy. Which gives a fine object lesson to the lurkers.

You know I'm going to have to write this up. Thanks for the link!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Your assumption is that all people who share a belief are necessarily motivated by the same primal factors. You appear to be afflicted with your own unique form of prejudice. And image, this from someone who has reached the zen filled state of being meta.

It is so odd that you can, on one hand say something like:
Quote:
It is difficult to say what is in a man's heart...

and also say something like:
Quote:
You fear liberty and want some kind of controller to soothe your fears.


Your directing people to other threads where you make incorrect assumptions about me. Your assumption is that I am upset because you calling me hateful is like pouring salt on my open wound. The fact is that I am upset because you are calling me hateful or fearful when I am not.
Quote:
They hate that.

A good indication that you are probably oblivious to the fact that you are often mistaken when you make your assumption and begin your secret little game.

Stupid people hate being called stupid. But, then again, so do smart people. Just because someone hates when you call then stupid doesn't mean that they actually are.

Of course, calling anyone stupid in the first place just makes you a dick.

_________________
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Posts: 13576
Location: Rockford, Illinois
djolds1 wrote:
MSimon wrote:
My attitude is: what ever comes up I will deal with it. What is the point of being afraid?

Here is a comment I left there:

You don't get libertarians. They are not morally impoverished. They are free of fear (mostly).

Which makes them a whole other animal compared to the left or the right.

In a different age it would have been said "They Trust in God". So important it is even printed on our money.
The rundown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books ... idt&st=cse
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwes ... ervatives/

Liberals: Care/ Harm, Liberty/ Oppression

Libertarians: Fairness/ Cheating, Liberty/ Oppression

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 95762.html

"What do the tea partiers really want? The title of a recent book by two of the movement's leaders offers an answer: "Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto." The authors, Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, write that "We just want to be free. Free to lead our lives as we please, so long as we do not infringe on the same freedom of others."

This claim should cause liberals to do a double-take. Isn't it straight out of John Stuart Mill, the patron saint of liberalism? Last year my colleagues and I placed a nearly identical statement on our research site, YourMorals.org: "Everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others." Responses from 3,600 Americans showed that self-described libertarians agreed with the statement most strongly, but liberals were right behind them. Social conservatives, who, according to national polls, make up the bulk of the tea party, were more tepid in their endorsement."

Why?

Conservatives: Care/ Harm, Fairness/ Cheating, Loyalty/ Betrayal, Authority/ Subversion, Sanctity/ Degradation, Liberty/ Oppression.

When you have more priorities to juggle, you will not elevate a very few to the Olympian heights.

Flipside - when you elevate very few principles, its easier to be a rabid supporter and enthusiast.


My attitude as a libertarian is that Fairness/ Cheating, Liberty/ Oppression is the only valid interest of government. The rest are my personal responsibility.

Let us look at the other interests of Conservatives:

Care/ Harm - leads to socialism which Conservatives profess to hate thus it is best kept private - the libertarian position

Loyalty/ Betrayal, - loyalty to what? Last weeks dogma? The conservatives today are not loyal to the principles of the conservatives of 1900. So what exactly are they conserving? The progressives which were the origin of today's conservatives. The original Progressives were a Coalition of secular and Christian Progressives. That coalition split and became what we know as the current parties today. The closest thing we have to the conservatives of 1900 are the libertarians. So ask me if I think being loyal to progressive ideals is a good thing for government.

Sanctity/ Degradation - We have a First Amendment to cover that

Thing is I'm also interested in the things Conservatives care about. Where we differ is in the proper role of government with respect to those interests.

I don't think I can count on government for loyalty, sacredness, or care. Government is disloyal (look at the vet hospitals). profane, and careless.

Government also cheats and oppresses. Thus I'd like as little of it as possible.

Conservatives and liberals both want government to do for them what they won't do for themselves. That very fact is why the term statist was invented. It is not a party thing.

_________________
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:09 pm
Posts: 348
djolds1 wrote:
When you have more priorities to juggle, you will not elevate a very few to the Olympian heights.

Flipside - when you elevate very few principles, its easier to be a rabid supporter and enthusiast.

It's one thing to have priorities, it's quite another to want to legislate them.

There's not exactly a shortage of those who elevate belief in loyalty, authority, or sanctity to silly heights, either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am
Posts: 1236
Teahive wrote:
djolds1 wrote:
When you have more priorities to juggle, you will not elevate a very few to the Olympian heights.

Flipside - when you elevate very few principles, its easier to be a rabid supporter and enthusiast.
It's one thing to have priorities, it's quite another to want to legislate them.

There's not exactly a shortage of those who elevate belief in loyalty, authority, or sanctity to silly heights, either.
Why should moral convictions NOT be expressed and exercised in general society?

One of the projects of Jacobinism, 1793 through today, has been to suppress informal and traditional civil society and restructure its functions into governmental/ bureaucratic organs. Its hardly conservatives who are pushing legislation uber alles. Roadblocks in the way of that agenda are an imposition of moral views that have no place in society?

_________________
Vae Victis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:09 pm
Posts: 348
djolds1 wrote:
Teahive wrote:
djolds1 wrote:
When you have more priorities to juggle, you will not elevate a very few to the Olympian heights.

Flipside - when you elevate very few principles, its easier to be a rabid supporter and enthusiast.
It's one thing to have priorities, it's quite another to want to legislate them.

There's not exactly a shortage of those who elevate belief in loyalty, authority, or sanctity to silly heights, either.
Why should moral convictions NOT be expressed and exercised in general society?

I don't know. What do you mean? I don't object to expression of moral convictions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am
Posts: 1236
Teahive wrote:
djolds1 wrote:
Teahive wrote:
djolds1 wrote:
When you have more priorities to juggle, you will not elevate a very few to the Olympian heights.

Flipside - when you elevate very few principles, its easier to be a rabid supporter and enthusiast.
It's one thing to have priorities, it's quite another to want to legislate them.

There's not exactly a shortage of those who elevate belief in loyalty, authority, or sanctity to silly heights, either.
Why should moral convictions NOT be expressed and exercised in general society?
I don't know. What do you mean? I don't object to expression of moral convictions.
No, you're objecting to them being given the stature of law or equivalent custom.

_________________
Vae Victis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Posts: 13576
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Under Orthodox Jewish law it is immoral to light a fire or operate an electrical switch that makes electricity flow on the Jewish Sabbath. Should our laws reflect that moral sensibility?

Should they reflect the moral sensibility of Islamic Sharia? Which particular version Sunni or Shia?

Adultery used to be a crime in many places in America. That is no longer true. Explain the error. The original law? Or the change?

The libertarians say the law should be limited to cases of force or fraud. Should there be more? Why?

For instance laws banning plants and their extracts are prolific in America right or wrong?

There are lows against harming yourself. Do you own your body or are you part of a herd that the government can maintain? Are we free men or serfs?

Can the government encumber your property for its moral purposes?

_________________
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Posts: 13576
Location: Rockford, Illinois
The libertarians believe that the law should only reflect what is necessary for public order. Should private order be part of the mix? Is there a private sphere? Should it be protected? Do we need Big Brother to watch over us?

_________________
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group