>In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of
>communication?
Thomas: This question sounds like one of those zen koans where you feel
there should be an obvious answer and every time you put one forth, the
master answers "nyet". My point was that when self interest, whether
personal, or national, or your local stockbroker is involved in which their
answer is related back to "whats the best for me" then you cannot trust that
answer. For any statement "they" make will become fluid should their self
interest change. This then becomes the paradigm - lack of trust. This is
the spiral to chaos.
>
>MM
>
>Durant wrote:
>
>> It depends how you define and in whose interest rational thought is
>> used.
>>
>> Eva
Thomas: Rational thought as I am groping with the concept is the idea of
logic in which a premise is put forth and then extrapolated out to a
conclusion. Your statement mirrors mine in that no objective criteria is
used, rather the subjective criteria of "whose interest" is used. As I can
never know what anothers real interest is and if they refuse to use open
criteria such as facts or previously agreed upon statements, then each
conversation or decision is open to directions that are wildly erratic.
Two instances: One, in economic forecasting I constantly read something
like, "the banks have revised their forecasts for growth down to 2.% from
their previous forecast. If I had made decisions based on their first
forecast, they in essence are changing the rules by their last forecast
making my "rational" decisions very irrational.
Two, politicians such as the current crisis make statements such as "I will
not resign" by Boris Yeltsin but he didn't say, "I may be forced to
re-evaluate the use of the powers of the office of the President" which may
make his leadership a figurehead and allow the return of a communist style
of government. An honorable statement a week ago might have been, "I am
committed to market reforms but their is a strong group who are advocating a
return to a Communist style economy. Or, I wll resist that movement, or I
will consider the validity of that movement. The IMF made a committment to
provide certain funds to Russia, today, I read that committment is being
withdrawn - how can I trust future IMF committments.
It's a murky subject full of what if and he said/she said type of
ambiguities but until we demand accountability at the level of
communication, then we don't have communication.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
>>
>> ...
>> > In my sense of our current historical position, the rational
>> argument has
>> > become the de facto operating procedure in which any lie which
>> serves the
>> > goal of self interest is preferable to any action which may be
>> morally right
>> > and perhaps not serve the goal of self interest has become the
>> dominant
>> > paradigm.
>> >
>> > Respectfully,
>> >
>> > Thomas Lunde
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>--
>
>
>
>Mark Measday
>UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167
>France tel: 0033.450.20.94.92/fax: 450.20.94.93
>email: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Among herd animals, we are unique in that we can fall upon another herd
>and destroy it. Or we can consciously decide to leave it in peace. I
>can think of no other herd animal that has that capacity.
>Ed Weick
>
>
