[FairfieldLife] Re: "On Bullsh*t"
At this point, it is probably more a matter of personal preference regarding how each of us deals with a 'bullsitter'. I appreciate your efforts and have found you to be scrupulous in your observations. As for the charge that any of us on here are unable to think for ourselves, it is obviously not true. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" wrote: > > > > I would still emphasize personal growth as the antidote for > > it. It seems like you are talking about the phenomenon of > > BSing as a social ill that must be combated, like gambling > > addiction. > > On the practical level, yes. > > > If that is the case, OK, but I don't think the BSers can be > > stopped on their own terms, because of what I said earlier. > > Barring that, if people are taken in by what a BSer says, it > > just becomes a lesson for them further down the infinite road. > > In many cases it doesn't have to be. A forceful response > to BSing can both teach the same lesson and mitigate the > harm done by the BS. > > > The third alternative is to meet the BSer head on, each and > > every time, but I don't see that as all that useful - doesn't > > modify the BSer behavior, and does little to change anyone > > else's mind. > > Better tell Curtis and Barry that. They seem to believe > they can change others' minds by maintaining that the > force of my personality is the only reason anybody shares > my perspective. > > > Are they any other options? > > Yes, work on both the practical and metaphysical levels > at once. > > As I said, I don't disagree at all with your metaphysical > analysis of the reasons for BSing. I just think it needs > to be combatted on the practical level *as well as* doing > whatever is possible to remedy the metaphysical basis for > BS. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > While I wouldn't argue against this on the metaphysical > > > level, I'd just point out that it's going to be awhile > > > before we all come to know ourselves. In the meantime, > > > on the practical level, bullsh*tting does a great deal > > > of harm, and we need to learn how to recognize and > > > fight it on that level. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" wrote: > > > > > > > > All that BS is a great challenge to everybody to determine the truth > > > > for themselves. There will be and always have been those who make stuff > > > > up for their own self satisfaction. Although it does nothing to further > > > > anything, except the one person's agenda, there is no way for the BSer > > > > to stop their behavior, because it comes from a fundamental ignorance > > > > of themselves. > > > > > > > > The ego is just getting off on how big it feels for the moment, to > > > > compensate for the inadequacies that run its faux existence. With the > > > > ego running the show, we are either on top or on the bottom. Naturally, > > > > for anyone who is primarily ego driven, all of their actions are > > > > focused on their self satisfaction, their bolstering of "the grand > > > > story" of them. Any larger attempt to get at the truth for social > > > > interaction or learning is trumped by the desperate need of the ego for > > > > self satisfaction. > > > > > > > > Being run by the ego is not a happy place. For one thing, the > > > > discrimination which is normally used to discern experience, leading to > > > > learning, becomes perverted, with its main objective being self > > > > protection, at all costs (a natural result of Maslow's hierarchy - the > > > > most basic thing, ourselves, our identity, our life, come first, > > > > whether we know our true selves, or not). There is little learning > > > > going on when the ego runs the show. It is all about reactively > > > > protecting "the grand story". > > > > > > > > So, our responsibility is to Know Thyself. By doing this, we avoid the > > > > ego trap, and also easily recognize it in others, neutralizing their > > > > attempts at BS, or at any rate, no longer being concerned about what > > > > such a voice says, knowing its true motive has nothing to do with truth > > > > or lying, rather that voice is all about protecting "the grand story" > > > > of its faux nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Both in lying and in telling the truth people are guided by their > > > > > > beliefs concerning the way things are. These guide them as they > > > > > > endeavor > > > > > > either to describe the world correctly or to describe it > > > > > > deceitfully. > > > > > > For this reason, telling lies does not tend to unfit a person for > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: "On Bullsh*t"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" wrote: > > I would still emphasize personal growth as the antidote for > it. It seems like you are talking about the phenomenon of > BSing as a social ill that must be combated, like gambling > addiction. On the practical level, yes. > If that is the case, OK, but I don't think the BSers can be > stopped on their own terms, because of what I said earlier. > Barring that, if people are taken in by what a BSer says, it > just becomes a lesson for them further down the infinite road. In many cases it doesn't have to be. A forceful response to BSing can both teach the same lesson and mitigate the harm done by the BS. > The third alternative is to meet the BSer head on, each and > every time, but I don't see that as all that useful - doesn't > modify the BSer behavior, and does little to change anyone > else's mind. Better tell Curtis and Barry that. They seem to believe they can change others' minds by maintaining that the force of my personality is the only reason anybody shares my perspective. > Are they any other options? Yes, work on both the practical and metaphysical levels at once. As I said, I don't disagree at all with your metaphysical analysis of the reasons for BSing. I just think it needs to be combatted on the practical level *as well as* doing whatever is possible to remedy the metaphysical basis for BS. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > While I wouldn't argue against this on the metaphysical > > level, I'd just point out that it's going to be awhile > > before we all come to know ourselves. In the meantime, > > on the practical level, bullsh*tting does a great deal > > of harm, and we need to learn how to recognize and > > fight it on that level. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" wrote: > > > > > > All that BS is a great challenge to everybody to determine the truth for > > > themselves. There will be and always have been those who make stuff up > > > for their own self satisfaction. Although it does nothing to further > > > anything, except the one person's agenda, there is no way for the BSer to > > > stop their behavior, because it comes from a fundamental ignorance of > > > themselves. > > > > > > The ego is just getting off on how big it feels for the moment, to > > > compensate for the inadequacies that run its faux existence. With the ego > > > running the show, we are either on top or on the bottom. Naturally, for > > > anyone who is primarily ego driven, all of their actions are focused on > > > their self satisfaction, their bolstering of "the grand story" of them. > > > Any larger attempt to get at the truth for social interaction or learning > > > is trumped by the desperate need of the ego for self satisfaction. > > > > > > Being run by the ego is not a happy place. For one thing, the > > > discrimination which is normally used to discern experience, leading to > > > learning, becomes perverted, with its main objective being self > > > protection, at all costs (a natural result of Maslow's hierarchy - the > > > most basic thing, ourselves, our identity, our life, come first, whether > > > we know our true selves, or not). There is little learning going on when > > > the ego runs the show. It is all about reactively protecting "the grand > > > story". > > > > > > So, our responsibility is to Know Thyself. By doing this, we avoid the > > > ego trap, and also easily recognize it in others, neutralizing their > > > attempts at BS, or at any rate, no longer being concerned about what such > > > a voice says, knowing its true motive has nothing to do with truth or > > > lying, rather that voice is all about protecting "the grand story" of its > > > faux nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Both in lying and in telling the truth people are guided by their > > > > > beliefs concerning the way things are. These guide them as they > > > > > endeavor > > > > > either to describe the world correctly or to describe it deceitfully. > > > > > For this reason, telling lies does not tend to unfit a person for > > > > > telling the truth in the same way that bullsh*tting tends toThe > > > > > bullsh*tter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the > > > > > authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He > > > > > pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullsh*t is a > > > > > greater > > > > > enemy of the truth than lies are."--Harry G. Frankfurt, "On Bullsh*t" > > > > > [asterisks added] > > > > > > > > > > Judy, thank you for respecting FFLife's delicate sensibilities by > > > > > placing a modest fig leaf asterisk on bullsh*t's pooper. > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: "On Bullsh*t"
No offense taken. Yeah, you bring up that perennial question about how do you really know that I know what I am talking about? I have no answer other than trying to express myself as clearly as possible. What I am describing is of course, just MY experience. I am comparing my former life as ego bound, with my life now, which is not. I am making a comparison between how blind and unhappy I was previously, with a transforming sense of freedom and real responsibility in the moment, as I live now. Of course, it is impossible for the goldfish to see the water, so I was unable to take this perspective when I was bound by my "grand story". As for you seeing this as an ego bound expression of mine, I can't do anything about that. As for you seeing this as my attempt to define a higher level of functioning, I am, but not in some ego bound way to aggrandize myself. No, it is describing the functioning of universal synchronicity vs. its reverse. As I said before, this universal syncrony is the most basic and fundamental way of functioning, simply because everything in the universe functions this way. That is all. There are techniques to help us there. Its like graduating from college. Some do, some don't. Its a choice. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > I'm not sure how such a POV get applied practically. Isn't it kind of > presumptive to assume that someone else is coming from "ego" but you aren't? > There is nothing in what you wrote that distinguishes how you are functioning > from how I am. And it could just as easily be claimed that the whole > presentation is an attempt to maintain your own sense of ego as "on top" > compared to people you are assuming are in a lesser state of development. > > How could anyone know if I was being more run by my ego than you are? You are > presenting your own POV here. In that POV you seem to be pitching the idea > that there is a better way of functioning and that you are in that state and > are no longer protecting the faux grand story. I believe we could all make a > case that somehow we feel differently inside about our own ego so that makes > it "different". But is it really? How could one demonstrate beyond just > asserting it that what you say is accurate? > > And this is not just an issue with your presentation Jim. It is the issue I > have with the whole class of claims that someone is functioning in a superior > state of mind. (Yes, I know all the arguments that it is all beyond "mind" > and I don't buy them so far.) > > How could someone distinguish that I am not functioning in the good way? > Certainly not from how we write here and become advocates of our opinions. > Your assertion is not discernibly different from my own suspicion that we are > functioning in a way that is more similar than different with regard to our > self identity or ego. I could concede that you might be functioning with > more of the silent aspect of your mind in your awareness as I have > experienced, but that doesn't seem to justify the broad epistemological claim > that you are perceiving more of what is real, the non faux version of the > reality than I experience. > > From your writing you come off exactly as ego-bound as I do, and just as > interested in presenting your POV to the best of your ability. > > I hope you get that this is not an attack on you Jim. I understand your > conviction to your POV and believe you are being sincere in how you are > reporting your experience. But I question how accurate it is with regard to > anyone else's experience. And I just still don't get how anyone can claim to > know the "reality" of life without being able to demonstrate a single thing > that would force others to take such a claim seriously. > > Now I also get it that ultimately you don't care if anyone believes you or > not. But I want to extend this beyond you personally. I am challenging the > basis of claims from any other human that they are functioning from a state > of "whatever" and I am not. > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" wrote: > > > > All that BS is a great challenge to everybody to determine the truth for > > themselves. There will be and always have been those who make stuff up for > > their own self satisfaction. Although it does nothing to further anything, > > except the one person's agenda, there is no way for the BSer to stop their > > behavior, because it comes from a fundamental ignorance of themselves. > > > > The ego is just getting off on how big it feels for the moment, to > > compensate for the inadequacies that run its faux existence. With the ego > > running the show, we are either on top or on the bottom. Naturally, for > > anyone who is primarily ego driven, all of their actions are focused on > > their self satisfaction, their bolstering of "the grand story" of them. Any > > larger attempt to get
[FairfieldLife] Re: "On Bullsh*t"
I would still emphasize personal growth as the antidote for it. It seems like you are talking about the phenomenon of BSing as a social ill that must be combated, like gambling addiction. If that is the case, OK, but I don't think the BSers can be stopped on their own terms, because of what I said earlier. Barring that, if people are taken in by what a BSer says, it just becomes a lesson for them further down the infinite road. The third alternative is to meet the BSer head on, each and every time, but I don't see that as all that useful - doesn't modify the BSer behavior, and does little to change anyone else's mind. Are they any other options? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > While I wouldn't argue against this on the metaphysical > level, I'd just point out that it's going to be awhile > before we all come to know ourselves. In the meantime, > on the practical level, bullsh*tting does a great deal > of harm, and we need to learn how to recognize and > fight it on that level. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" wrote: > > > > All that BS is a great challenge to everybody to determine the truth for > > themselves. There will be and always have been those who make stuff up for > > their own self satisfaction. Although it does nothing to further anything, > > except the one person's agenda, there is no way for the BSer to stop their > > behavior, because it comes from a fundamental ignorance of themselves. > > > > The ego is just getting off on how big it feels for the moment, to > > compensate for the inadequacies that run its faux existence. With the ego > > running the show, we are either on top or on the bottom. Naturally, for > > anyone who is primarily ego driven, all of their actions are focused on > > their self satisfaction, their bolstering of "the grand story" of them. Any > > larger attempt to get at the truth for social interaction or learning is > > trumped by the desperate need of the ego for self satisfaction. > > > > Being run by the ego is not a happy place. For one thing, the > > discrimination which is normally used to discern experience, leading to > > learning, becomes perverted, with its main objective being self protection, > > at all costs (a natural result of Maslow's hierarchy - the most basic > > thing, ourselves, our identity, our life, come first, whether we know our > > true selves, or not). There is little learning going on when the ego runs > > the show. It is all about reactively protecting "the grand story". > > > > So, our responsibility is to Know Thyself. By doing this, we avoid the ego > > trap, and also easily recognize it in others, neutralizing their attempts > > at BS, or at any rate, no longer being concerned about what such a voice > > says, knowing its true motive has nothing to do with truth or lying, rather > > that voice is all about protecting "the grand story" of its faux nature. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "Both in lying and in telling the truth people are guided by their > > > > beliefs concerning the way things are. These guide them as they endeavor > > > > either to describe the world correctly or to describe it deceitfully. > > > > For this reason, telling lies does not tend to unfit a person for > > > > telling the truth in the same way that bullsh*tting tends toThe > > > > bullsh*tter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the > > > > authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He > > > > pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullsh*t is a greater > > > > enemy of the truth than lies are."--Harry G. Frankfurt, "On Bullsh*t" > > > > [asterisks added] > > > > > > > > Judy, thank you for respecting FFLife's delicate sensibilities by > > > > placing a modest fig leaf asterisk on bullsh*t's pooper. > > > > > > I was actually respecting Yahoo's delicate sensibilities > > > (or not respecting them, actually, just figuring it would > > > be safer to cater to them). > > > > > > > Buck appreciates it. Point well taken. Media propaganda keeps > > > > getting worse. Obviously, it's a huge threat to our democracy. > > > > I've never seen so much Republican bullsh*t in a primary. The > > > > clown car just keeps giving. > > > > > > Oh, it's just overwhelming. And it really *is* bullsh*it, > > > as Frankfurt defines it above, not "just" lies. > > > > > > We've got a couple bullsh*tters on FFL as well. They keep > > > reminding me of the Limbaugh/Hannity/Glenn Beck axis, as > > > well as of the candidates themselves. > > > [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZeVELKTR37s/ScUd9TsYScI/ACU/XvaOKwyr7\ > > > > h0/S220/foxnews21propaganda.jpg] > > > > > > > > By the way Anglachel is blogging again. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: "On Bullsh*t"
I'm not sure how such a POV get applied practically. Isn't it kind of presumptive to assume that someone else is coming from "ego" but you aren't? There is nothing in what you wrote that distinguishes how you are functioning from how I am. And it could just as easily be claimed that the whole presentation is an attempt to maintain your own sense of ego as "on top" compared to people you are assuming are in a lesser state of development. How could anyone know if I was being more run by my ego than you are? You are presenting your own POV here. In that POV you seem to be pitching the idea that there is a better way of functioning and that you are in that state and are no longer protecting the faux grand story. I believe we could all make a case that somehow we feel differently inside about our own ego so that makes it "different". But is it really? How could one demonstrate beyond just asserting it that what you say is accurate? And this is not just an issue with your presentation Jim. It is the issue I have with the whole class of claims that someone is functioning in a superior state of mind. (Yes, I know all the arguments that it is all beyond "mind" and I don't buy them so far.) How could someone distinguish that I am not functioning in the good way? Certainly not from how we write here and become advocates of our opinions. Your assertion is not discernibly different from my own suspicion that we are functioning in a way that is more similar than different with regard to our self identity or ego. I could concede that you might be functioning with more of the silent aspect of your mind in your awareness as I have experienced, but that doesn't seem to justify the broad epistemological claim that you are perceiving more of what is real, the non faux version of the reality than I experience. >From your writing you come off exactly as ego-bound as I do, and just as >interested in presenting your POV to the best of your ability. I hope you get that this is not an attack on you Jim. I understand your conviction to your POV and believe you are being sincere in how you are reporting your experience. But I question how accurate it is with regard to anyone else's experience. And I just still don't get how anyone can claim to know the "reality" of life without being able to demonstrate a single thing that would force others to take such a claim seriously. Now I also get it that ultimately you don't care if anyone believes you or not. But I want to extend this beyond you personally. I am challenging the basis of claims from any other human that they are functioning from a state of "whatever" and I am not. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" wrote: > > All that BS is a great challenge to everybody to determine the truth for > themselves. There will be and always have been those who make stuff up for > their own self satisfaction. Although it does nothing to further anything, > except the one person's agenda, there is no way for the BSer to stop their > behavior, because it comes from a fundamental ignorance of themselves. > > The ego is just getting off on how big it feels for the moment, to compensate > for the inadequacies that run its faux existence. With the ego running the > show, we are either on top or on the bottom. Naturally, for anyone who is > primarily ego driven, all of their actions are focused on their self > satisfaction, their bolstering of "the grand story" of them. Any larger > attempt to get at the truth for social interaction or learning is trumped by > the desperate need of the ego for self satisfaction. > > Being run by the ego is not a happy place. For one thing, the discrimination > which is normally used to discern experience, leading to learning, becomes > perverted, with its main objective being self protection, at all costs (a > natural result of Maslow's hierarchy - the most basic thing, ourselves, our > identity, our life, come first, whether we know our true selves, or not). > There is little learning going on when the ego runs the show. It is all about > reactively protecting "the grand story". > > So, our responsibility is to Know Thyself. By doing this, we avoid the ego > trap, and also easily recognize it in others, neutralizing their attempts at > BS, or at any rate, no longer being concerned about what such a voice says, > knowing its true motive has nothing to do with truth or lying, rather that > voice is all about protecting "the grand story" of its faux nature. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > "Both in lying and in telling the truth people are guided by their > > > beliefs concerning the way things are. These guide them as they endeavor > > > either to describe the world correctl
[FairfieldLife] Re: "On Bullsh*t"
While I wouldn't argue against this on the metaphysical level, I'd just point out that it's going to be awhile before we all come to know ourselves. In the meantime, on the practical level, bullsh*tting does a great deal of harm, and we need to learn how to recognize and fight it on that level. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" wrote: > > All that BS is a great challenge to everybody to determine the truth for > themselves. There will be and always have been those who make stuff up for > their own self satisfaction. Although it does nothing to further anything, > except the one person's agenda, there is no way for the BSer to stop their > behavior, because it comes from a fundamental ignorance of themselves. > > The ego is just getting off on how big it feels for the moment, to compensate > for the inadequacies that run its faux existence. With the ego running the > show, we are either on top or on the bottom. Naturally, for anyone who is > primarily ego driven, all of their actions are focused on their self > satisfaction, their bolstering of "the grand story" of them. Any larger > attempt to get at the truth for social interaction or learning is trumped by > the desperate need of the ego for self satisfaction. > > Being run by the ego is not a happy place. For one thing, the discrimination > which is normally used to discern experience, leading to learning, becomes > perverted, with its main objective being self protection, at all costs (a > natural result of Maslow's hierarchy - the most basic thing, ourselves, our > identity, our life, come first, whether we know our true selves, or not). > There is little learning going on when the ego runs the show. It is all about > reactively protecting "the grand story". > > So, our responsibility is to Know Thyself. By doing this, we avoid the ego > trap, and also easily recognize it in others, neutralizing their attempts at > BS, or at any rate, no longer being concerned about what such a voice says, > knowing its true motive has nothing to do with truth or lying, rather that > voice is all about protecting "the grand story" of its faux nature. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > "Both in lying and in telling the truth people are guided by their > > > beliefs concerning the way things are. These guide them as they endeavor > > > either to describe the world correctly or to describe it deceitfully. > > > For this reason, telling lies does not tend to unfit a person for > > > telling the truth in the same way that bullsh*tting tends toThe > > > bullsh*tter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the > > > authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He > > > pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullsh*t is a greater > > > enemy of the truth than lies are."--Harry G. Frankfurt, "On Bullsh*t" > > > [asterisks added] > > > > > > Judy, thank you for respecting FFLife's delicate sensibilities by > > > placing a modest fig leaf asterisk on bullsh*t's pooper. > > > > I was actually respecting Yahoo's delicate sensibilities > > (or not respecting them, actually, just figuring it would > > be safer to cater to them). > > > > > Buck appreciates it. Point well taken. Media propaganda keeps > > > getting worse. Obviously, it's a huge threat to our democracy. > > > I've never seen so much Republican bullsh*t in a primary. The > > > clown car just keeps giving. > > > > Oh, it's just overwhelming. And it really *is* bullsh*it, > > as Frankfurt defines it above, not "just" lies. > > > > We've got a couple bullsh*tters on FFL as well. They keep > > reminding me of the Limbaugh/Hannity/Glenn Beck axis, as > > well as of the candidates themselves. > > [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZeVELKTR37s/ScUd9TsYScI/ACU/XvaOKwyr7\ > > > h0/S220/foxnews21propaganda.jpg] > > > > > > By the way Anglachel is blogging again. > > > http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-riverdaughter-says.html > > > > Thanks. I'm going to link to Riverdaughter's post because > > it's relevant to the post Xeno made earlier today about > > field dependence/independence: > > > > http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/sunday-ok-i-think-were-on-to-something-here/ > > > > http://tinyurl.com/7xv6r7u > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: "On Bullsh*t"
All that BS is a great challenge to everybody to determine the truth for themselves. There will be and always have been those who make stuff up for their own self satisfaction. Although it does nothing to further anything, except the one person's agenda, there is no way for the BSer to stop their behavior, because it comes from a fundamental ignorance of themselves. The ego is just getting off on how big it feels for the moment, to compensate for the inadequacies that run its faux existence. With the ego running the show, we are either on top or on the bottom. Naturally, for anyone who is primarily ego driven, all of their actions are focused on their self satisfaction, their bolstering of "the grand story" of them. Any larger attempt to get at the truth for social interaction or learning is trumped by the desperate need of the ego for self satisfaction. Being run by the ego is not a happy place. For one thing, the discrimination which is normally used to discern experience, leading to learning, becomes perverted, with its main objective being self protection, at all costs (a natural result of Maslow's hierarchy - the most basic thing, ourselves, our identity, our life, come first, whether we know our true selves, or not). There is little learning going on when the ego runs the show. It is all about reactively protecting "the grand story". So, our responsibility is to Know Thyself. By doing this, we avoid the ego trap, and also easily recognize it in others, neutralizing their attempts at BS, or at any rate, no longer being concerned about what such a voice says, knowing its true motive has nothing to do with truth or lying, rather that voice is all about protecting "the grand story" of its faux nature. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > "Both in lying and in telling the truth people are guided by their > > beliefs concerning the way things are. These guide them as they endeavor > > either to describe the world correctly or to describe it deceitfully. > > For this reason, telling lies does not tend to unfit a person for > > telling the truth in the same way that bullsh*tting tends toThe > > bullsh*tter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the > > authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He > > pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullsh*t is a greater > > enemy of the truth than lies are."--Harry G. Frankfurt, "On Bullsh*t" > > [asterisks added] > > > > Judy, thank you for respecting FFLife's delicate sensibilities by > > placing a modest fig leaf asterisk on bullsh*t's pooper. > > I was actually respecting Yahoo's delicate sensibilities > (or not respecting them, actually, just figuring it would > be safer to cater to them). > > > Buck appreciates it. Point well taken. Media propaganda keeps > > getting worse. Obviously, it's a huge threat to our democracy. > > I've never seen so much Republican bullsh*t in a primary. The > > clown car just keeps giving. > > Oh, it's just overwhelming. And it really *is* bullsh*it, > as Frankfurt defines it above, not "just" lies. > > We've got a couple bullsh*tters on FFL as well. They keep > reminding me of the Limbaugh/Hannity/Glenn Beck axis, as > well as of the candidates themselves. > [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZeVELKTR37s/ScUd9TsYScI/ACU/XvaOKwyr7\ > > h0/S220/foxnews21propaganda.jpg] > > > > By the way Anglachel is blogging again. > > http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-riverdaughter-says.html > > Thanks. I'm going to link to Riverdaughter's post because > it's relevant to the post Xeno made earlier today about > field dependence/independence: > > http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/sunday-ok-i-think-were-on-to-something-here/ > > http://tinyurl.com/7xv6r7u >
[FairfieldLife] Re: "On Bullsh*t"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > "Both in lying and in telling the truth people are guided by their > beliefs concerning the way things are. These guide them as they endeavor > either to describe the world correctly or to describe it deceitfully. > For this reason, telling lies does not tend to unfit a person for > telling the truth in the same way that bullsh*tting tends toThe > bullsh*tter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the > authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He > pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullsh*t is a greater > enemy of the truth than lies are."--Harry G. Frankfurt, "On Bullsh*t" > [asterisks added] > > Judy, thank you for respecting FFLife's delicate sensibilities by > placing a modest fig leaf asterisk on bullsh*t's pooper. I was actually respecting Yahoo's delicate sensibilities (or not respecting them, actually, just figuring it would be safer to cater to them). > Buck appreciates it. Point well taken. Media propaganda keeps > getting worse. Obviously, it's a huge threat to our democracy. > I've never seen so much Republican bullsh*t in a primary. The > clown car just keeps giving. Oh, it's just overwhelming. And it really *is* bullsh*it, as Frankfurt defines it above, not "just" lies. We've got a couple bullsh*tters on FFL as well. They keep reminding me of the Limbaugh/Hannity/Glenn Beck axis, as well as of the candidates themselves. [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZeVELKTR37s/ScUd9TsYScI/ACU/XvaOKwyr7\ > h0/S220/foxnews21propaganda.jpg] > > By the way Anglachel is blogging again. > http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-riverdaughter-says.html Thanks. I'm going to link to Riverdaughter's post because it's relevant to the post Xeno made earlier today about field dependence/independence: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/sunday-ok-i-think-were-on-to-something-here/ http://tinyurl.com/7xv6r7u
[FairfieldLife] Re: "On Bullsh*t"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > "Both in lying and in telling the truth people are guided by their beliefs concerning the way things are. These guide them as they endeavor either to describe the world correctly or to describe it deceitfully. For this reason, telling lies does not tend to unfit a person for telling the truth in the same way that bullsh*tting tends toThe bullsh*tter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullsh*t is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."--Harry G. Frankfurt, "On Bullsh*t" [asterisks added] > Judy, thank you for respecting FFLife's delicate sensibilities by placing a modest fig leaf asterisk on bullsh*t's pooper. Buck appreciates it. Point well taken. Media propaganda keeps getting worse. Obviously, it's a huge threat to our democracy. I've never seen so much Republican bullsh*t in a primary. The clown car just keeps giving. [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZeVELKTR37s/ScUd9TsYScI/ACU/XvaOKwyr7\ h0/S220/foxnews21propaganda.jpg] By the way Anglachel is blogging again. http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-riverdaughter-says.html
