[Paleopsych] influence

[Paul J. Werbos, Dr.]

At 02:20 PM 3/13/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote:
>Paul writes:
> >>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.

I would say that people are generally born arational rather than irrational.
They are also born without speech or symbolic reasoning ability, or even
the ability to walk.

They have the ability to learn to be more effective and more rational, but 
some learn faster than
others, and some cultures support learning more positively in some areas 
than others.
Some cultures have violated nature by tying girl's feet, so they grow up 
unable to walk.
Others try to do the same with the mind. Yet it is our nature to resist 
such perversions,
and to try to grow out of our mistakes (both personal and collective).

As for "capitalism," it is a fuzzy word. Many people nowadays seem to have 
adopted Karl
Marx's version of the word, especially those who delight in the image of 
power of living up
to someone else's image of a great devil. If I remember correctly... Ronald 
Reagan
tried hard to change the emphasis back form "capitalism" so-defined
to "freedom," which is more like the idea that our Quaker forebears had in 
mind,
and is more rational, in my view.

Does capitalism allow freedom? Does freedom allow capitalism? The words are 
too fuzzy to allow
a simple answer.

Best,

    Paul


>Gerry Reinhart-Waller
>
>
>
>
>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.
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>paleopsych mailing list
>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych