waluk at earthlink.net
Sun Mar 13 19:20:38 UTC 2005
>>It is irrational to try to influence while trying not to BE influenced.
The asymmetry of the idea should be a warning to people. >>
Possibly you might be saying that all people are irrational which just
may be correct. Most influential people have one purpose in
mind....sell their product (either tangible goods or ideas) to others
without having to accept someone else's. It would appear that this so
called asymmetry is the capitalistic way of doing business. Maybe you
are suggesting another modus operandi.
Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:
> At 12:47 AM 3/13/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote:
>> Paul writes:
>> >>In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being
>> influenced ourselves.
>> That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can see
>> that it is
>> profoundly irrational. >>
>> Interesting point you make about our influence on others being
>> irrational. If that were so, then we'd do not better than to shut up!
> Please forgive me for being less than clear.
> I did NOT mean to say it is irrational for us to try to influence
> others in
> some way.
> It is irrational to try to influence while trying not to BE influenced.
> The asymmetry of the idea should be a warning to people.
> In fact, the word "influence" itself is very loaded -- and, if
> untempered, reflects a kind of dangerous
> filtering in our perceptions of human interactions.
> Perhaps I should have simpler, more Quakerly language.
> It is natural that we should often speak so as to be heard, and listen
> so as
> to learn and understand. Speaking and listening are equally essential
> to effective systems of dialogue, either internal or external, mundane
> or spiritual.
> Traditions which obstruct this aspect of nature are both perverted and
> threats to the larger system.
More information about the paleopsych