[Xmca-l] Re: Appeal for help

[mike cole]

Henry/Andy - Hence the centrality of imagination in human experience.
mike

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> You're not working for Tony Blair are you, Henry?
>
> You don't know the consequences of what you do, Henry. OK, you may
> possibly know the immediate, proximate results of your action, but you can
> have no idea of the outcome of the chain reaction you set off. Especially
> in any "difficult" decision, given that we live in a world in which
> everyone is acting strategically (as in game theory), devising their
> strategy on the basis of what they think you're going to do, while you are
> designing your strategy on what you think they think you're going to do,
> etc. Ask any economist who is capable of given a halfway honest answer. Ask
> Tony Blair. Ask a bookmaker. We all tend to act as if we knew the
> consequences of our actions, but we don't. The point is aimed at ethical
> theories like utilitarianism which say you should do whatever increases the
> sum total of happiness in the world. This is a stupid idea, even if you did
> know the consequences of your idea. So Einstein would never have published
> his paper on relativity, I guess. But of course he'd only know if he did
> the right thing 50 years later, and then it would be too late. Anyone who
> isn't a prophet shouldn't get out of bed in the morning.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
> On 7/07/2016 1:14 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
>
>> Hi Andy,
>> Your appeal has resulted in a very interesting discussion. One thing I
>> think you said early on has been puzzling me, that we don’t know the
>> consequences of our actions. Did I get that wrong? If not, could you
>> explain that briefly?  Here is what you wrote that I am referring to:
>>
>> "There is no "criterion", otherwise we wouldn't have a virtue ethics,
>> we'd have a consequentialist ethics, and the thing is that we never
>> actually know the consequences of what we are about to do.”
>>
>> Henry
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2016, at 1:57 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, your observation about 'hybrids" is exactly what I was asking for,
>>> Annalisa.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Andy Blunden
>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
>>> On 6/07/2016 4:48 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not sure this qualifies for your project, Andy, but something in your
>>>> original post reminded me of Lakoff's Moral Politics: How Liberals and
>>>> Conservatives Think.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_%28book%29
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What really sparked this recall for me was Lakoff's discussion of
>>>> hybrids. For instance, a factory worker who is liberal at work (supports
>>>> his labor brothers), but conservative at home (he is king of his castle),
>>>> or a single mother who works in a law office: she is conservative at work,
>>>> but liberal at home while raising her children.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lakoff claims that the elections in 2000 came from Karl Rove's
>>>> mastermind-activation of the frames of these hybrids, who tend to hover
>>>> around the center (in American politics).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I'm recalling a book I read over 10 years ago, but it
>>>> certainly assisted in my understanding conservatives, who constantly
>>>> perplexed me. At least the purpose of the book was successful... for me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hope it helps.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Annalisa
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch