Merle,
Please “Shamelessly Promote” your workshop. I want to know more. Does it have a website?
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 8:54 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] "rational"
John,
If you were attending the Zen Brain workshop at Upaya in Santa Fe (where I teach applied complexity in the Buddhlst Chaplaincy program)--along with some of the most famous neuroscientists in the world and Neil Theise, a remarkable complexity guy--you might find the answer to your question. The workshop starts the end of January.
Merle
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 6:17 AM, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote:
I consider myself a rational person because I believe what I observe and I believe in what is observed by any group of people I trust (such as a near consensus of scientists). I further believe in whatever follows logically. I believe I can predict the likely consequences of my actions and this helps make me a reasonably happy person. Belief in God or belief in the inerrancy of the bible do not pass my tests. But there is scientific evidence that religious people are healthier and happier than non-religious people. This seems to be so even though people who would apparently be neither healthy nor happy are almost always religious. So what should I make of this?
________________________________________
From: Friam [[hidden email]] on behalf of glen [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 7:42 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] "rational"
On 01/03/2014 03:47 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> Or the `successful' may just be apex predators, but still just one of
> many possible species of person. They feed on the productivity of these
> other species. Perhaps not wanting to be one of them, the drug addict
> (unconsciously) denies the predator that productivity... As Arnade
> observes, everyone makes mistakes, so perhaps we can just enumerate the
> wolves and note that's what wolves do but that they get no further honor.
Well, it seems to me that the ascription of honor (or any other
honorific) is a dynamic thing. Not only is society fickle like that,
but it's also difficult to predict what your arbitrary weirdo might take
_pride_ in. Witness:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/man-dies-eating-roaches-587314
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes
So, we can't prescribe what honor the wolves get. In fact, merely
counting them might encourage more people to want to be them. I think
the answer lies in creating/facilitating wolf-eating species.
--
⇒⇐ glen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merlelefkoff
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |