It could also be a bit of a ‘coming out of the closet’ for some members. And perhaps those of a muddled middles, or Woodstock wannabe’s persuasion have felt guilty about being here and having a secret lust for financial gain
All “commies” really want to be Capitalists. { a prime example is the billionaires that were Politburo and KGB sorts, and the Pampered Prince’s of Red China }, the only difference is that true capitalists are open and honest about that, whilst the closeted commie capitalists TALK red, but LUST gelt.
A good example is “save the earth Algore” who jets off in a private jet to conferences where he laments the fact that the rest of humanity doesn’t want to live with bicycles and buses as THEIR ENFORCED AND GOVERNMENT REGULATED “alternative transportation” replacements.
It helps to be schizophrenic if you are one of those sorts, it makes the internal dichotomy between ideals and reality easier to deal with!
It could also be a bit of a ‘coming out of the closet’ for some members. And perhaps those of a muddled middles, or Woodstock wannabe’s persuasion have felt guilty about being here and having a secret lust for financial gain
All “commies” really want to be Capitalists. { a prime example is the billionaires that were Politburo and KGB sorts, and the Pampered Prince’s of Red China }, the only difference is that true capitalists are open and honest about that, whilst the closeted commie capitalists TALK red, but LUST gelt.
A good example is “save the earth Algore” who jets off in a private jet to conferences where he laments the fact that the rest of humanity doesn’t want to live with bicycles and buses as THEIR ENFORCED AND GOVERNMENT REGULATED “alternative transportation” replacements.
It helps to be schizophrenic if you are one of those sorts, it makes the internal dichotomy between ideals and reality easier to deal with!
One needn’t be schizophrenic, Tan. One merely needs to be really good at compartmentalization. Failing that, one may simply embrace Hegel’s concept of dialecticism. When seen for what it is, Hegelian dialecticism is nothing more or less than relativity of viewpoint. After all who needs the law of Identity* in order to reason?
* Without the law of identity all arguments degenerate to special pleading.
What seems strange to me is that I am the highest (2) on the Authoritarian scale, I would have thought the big government types would have been much higher than me. It all goes back to the questions and how they are asked. What would really be fun is to see how everyone answered each question.
What seems strange to me is that I am the highest (2) on the Authoritarian scale, I would have thought the big government types would have been much higher than me. It all goes back to the questions and how they are asked. What would really be fun is to see how everyone answered each question.
And also to see the distribution of each person. If the dot represents the centroid then I must have opinions that range from moderate to extreme - assuming that I have abroad distribution. And perhaps you do too mbeauch but on the other side of the ledger, so to speak. I really thought I sat closer to the center albeit with a left leaning. I guess you too are surprised by your position.
I wonder weather it is possible to hold a position within yourself but hold a different one when it comes to the broader context? Tan I suppose would say that is true for some of us lefties aspiring to make it big on aapl. But perhaps it could also hold for other quadrants..
I wonder weather it is possible to hold a position within yourself but hold a different one when it comes to the broader context? Tan I suppose would say that is true for some of us lefties aspiring to make it big on aapl. But perhaps it could also hold for other quadrants..
What do you think?
The power of self deception is astounding in it’s scope. Man, most men, have internally two forces, what we ARE, and what we PROJECT or show the world, and today, with a PC world, those two are quite often vastly different. Universally, the inside man is less pretty than the outside one.
Learning to manage the real you, the less desirable one, is the one we need to work on the most. That isn’t something that most are willing to first accept, then secondly, to defeat. For many, this is where submission to a higher power comes in, quelling the rebellion and baser instincts. Essentially every man aspires to the very first lie ever told, “and ye shall be a gods..” and that job already is taken.
I wonder weather it is possible to hold a position within yourself but hold a different one when it comes to the broader context? Tan I suppose would say that is true for some of us lefties aspiring to make it big on aapl. But perhaps it could also hold for other quadrants..
What do you think?
The power of self deception is astounding in it’s scope. Man, most men, have internally two forces, what we ARE, and what we PROJECT or show the world, and today, with a PC world, those two are quite often vastly different. Universally, the inside man is less pretty than the outside one.
Learning to manage the real you, the less desirable one, is the one we need to work on the most. That isn’t something that most are willing to first accept, then secondly, to defeat. For many, this is where submission to a higher power comes in, quelling the rebellion and baser instincts. Essentially every man aspires to the very first lie ever told, “and ye shall be a gods..” and that job already is taken.
Interesting that we have both lefties and righties, but what if we’re ambidextrous? People are more complex, mainly because of the power of words and language. We want to name everything, yet words fail to describe that to which it refers. Words are tools of convenience, but to confuse the word “tree” with the real thing that can fall on you is where we get into trouble.
When you put the issue into the context of “me” controlling the wayward “body,” I think a lot of confusion comes from that artificial distinction. The “I” in you is not a separate entity; it’s a word of position. Does this make me a leftie? Well, I am left-handed.
Good observations, perhaps something they can add to their directions at the site. I know I battled between my inner and outer personas when answering the forced sterilization question. Not gonna say which side won out! But certainly a factor that can skew the results.
Yes, I agree, we are inextricable bound up with our environment: the “I” is not a separate entity. I believe we are a product of our environment. It shapes and defines us. But often we share the same environment, or context, so we have a collective sense of being. That collective experience of shared environment gives us culture and a sense of society. In other words, you are what you eat.
I agree also with you Tan that the inner and outer ‘Man’ (daring to be unPC here!) are different beasts. I can get very dark on the inside compared to the PC exterior. I guess the bit we projecte is restrained by social and cultural norms. We restrain ourselves, use decorum, be diplomatic and so on as the situation demands. But is this not essential if we are to live together in society?
Perhaps we here is this forum, we have less defined social boundaries and as such it can get a little ragged here at times. I must say, in passing, text is a very limited tool for communication. I does not carry enough meaning to convey the real meaning. We are all far richer than a bunch of ascii characters fired at each other.
The power of self deception is astounding in it’s scope. Man, most men, have internally two forces, what we ARE, and what we PROJECT or show the world, and today, with a PC world, those two are quite often vastly different. Universally, the inside man is less pretty than the outside one.
Learning to manage the real you, the less desirable one, is the one we need to work on the most. That isn’t something that most are willing to first accept, then secondly, to defeat. For many, this is where submission to a higher power comes in, quelling the rebellion and baser instincts. Essentially every man aspires to the very first lie ever told, “and ye shall be a gods..” and that job already is taken.
I believe the desire for power (the original sin) is the most dominate of forces within each of us. And can also become the most destructive, if left unchecked. In this quest for control, we will conform, mislead and betray ourselves and others, if we believe that it will improve our standing with our peers, our power base.
I offer up a question. There is no doubt that two dominate leaders in history such as Hitler and Stalin were consumed with their unquenchable desire for power, but what of those that followed them providing them with that power. How could the insanity of these two men infect their entire nation? We’re not looking at some poorly educated third world nation but nations that produced some of the greatest men of science. Yet allowed themselves to be lead into the abyss. Why? How could this happen on such a large scale and could it happen again?
Should we always be evaluating our motives, our actions? I say yes. We should never stop asking why.
Yes, I agree, we are inextricable bound up with our environment: the “I” is not a separate entity. I believe we are a product of our environment. It shapes and defines us. But often we share the same environment, or context, so we have a collective sense of being. That collective experience of shared environment gives us culture and a sense of society. In other words, you are what you eat.
I agree also with you Tan that the inner and outer ‘Man’ (daring to be unPC here!) are different beasts. I can get very dark on the inside compared to the PC exterior. I guess the bit we projecte is restrained by social and cultural norms. We restrain ourselves, use decorum, be diplomatic and so on as the situation demands. But is this not essential if we are to live together in society?
Perhaps we here is this forum, we have less defined social boundaries and as such it can get a little ragged here at times. I must say, in passing, text is a very limited tool for communication. I does not carry enough meaning to convey the real meaning. We are all far richer than a bunch of ascii characters fired at each other.
Benoir, again I find my self on the other side. Although I do agree with the environment statement somewhat, it does not account for individual genetic makeup. We are all wired differently. This is a great debate in psychology classes today. I had to do a paper on this topic a couple of years ago. An argument can be made from both sides, my conclusion was that it is a combination of environment and genetics.
What do you think of my idea about discussing some of the questions?
We noticed you may be running AdBlock on your computer. It takes real money to run this site and to deliver the news, tips, and opinions you love to read.
If you wish to block the ads that pay for the creation of our content, we ask that you instead support TMO Directly, either with a $5 monthly recurring contribution, or a one-time donation of any amount of your choice. Thanks!
But certainly a factor that can skew the results.
Loading...
$---.--
11” MacBook Air 1.6GHz dual-core Intel Core i5: $829.00 Delivered
Samsung S22B300B 21.5” LED Backlit LCD Monitor: $129.99 Delivered
NeatDesk Desktop Scanner: $249.99 - Today Only
Canon imageCLASS Monochrome Multifunction Laser Printer: $129.99 Delivered
© The Mac Observer, Inc. -- All rights reserved. All information presented on this site is copyrighted by The Mac Observer, Inc. except where otherwise noted. No portion of this site may be copied without express written consent. Other sites are invited to link to any aspect of this site provided that all content is presented in its original form and is not placed within another frame. The Mac Observer is an independent publication and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Apple, Inc.
