[Paleopsych] influence

G. Reinhart-Waller waluk at earthlink.net
Tue Mar 15 00:30:50 UTC 2005

*Hi Paul,

Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

> At 11:05 PM 3/13/2005, you wrote:
>> Paul writes:
>> 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).
>> GRW:  I wasn't referring to physical circumstances (link binding of 
>> girl's feet) but rather in the way they are brow beaten by parents, 
>> family, community, etc.
> Yes, I said "others try to do the same with the mind."

*GRW:  Now we are in agreement.  I must have missed your second point 
when I first read the post.

>> 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.
>> GRW:  There should be nothing wrong with the word capitalism....if it 
>> is performed with a concern for others i.e. adding soul to capitalism.
>> Quakers and Ronald Reagan were fine for the time in which they lived.
>> Now we need to move ahead.
> The word "capitalism" is used with different definitions by different 
> people,
> and is doubly fuzzy (multiple meanings and a broad "membership function")
> even as used by most individual people. ANY word with such fuzziness
> needs to handled with great care.

*GRW:  If you have ever done an etymological study of words that have 
existed for say at least a thousand years, you would see that most terms 
end up being "fuzzy" because their meanings are in constant change, 
especially words that have a political sense like "state" or in this 
instance "capitalism".

> Examples of that principle --
> The word "consciousness" has been a great toy for those who try to use 
> words to
> liberate them from objective reality. Picture the person saying: 
> "Consciousness..
> it is all about illumination and coherence. So of course the physical 
> basis of consciousness must
> be zillions of tiny lasers in the brain, emitting coherent light.."
> (People really believe that kind of stuff..)

*GRW:  I don't have immediate access to the OED but I'll wager that 
there are lots of definitions for the terms "consciousness" so I don't 
doubt in the least what you are saying.

> Or: "I support capitalism, the all-America principle of freedom laid 
> down for generations.
> And of course, since capitalism means that monopolies rule, as 
> explained by that all-American
> capitalist Groucho Marx, it is fair that we trade on the free market 
> for Congressmen, in order to
> buy subsidies and regulations and special tax breaks and plus ups and 
> pass laws to
> make it illegal for people to shirk on their duty to be always 
> obedient to their overlords..."

*GRW:  I know that you and Howard Bloom have been in communication.  You 
might glance at his "Reinventing Capitalism" .  The first draft of this 
manuscript just sold on eBay for $100.  Here's a link:  

> I really do not think that the core values of the Quakers are out of 
> date.
> They are part of the real weltanschaung (sp?) of this civilization... 
> they
> are the kind of values the rejection of which would be an example
> of what Spengler called the transition from Culture to Civilization.
> I hope we can be conscious enough to choose to not do that.
> But if instead we trust in teeny tiny lasers implanted in the brain... 
> well,
> in that case, "God help us" (though would he?).

*GRW:  Which values of the Quakers are you speaking about?  My only 
encounter with Quakerism is from lower school study of Puritans, 
Pilgrims, and all.... and the following ditty:  "Quaker's meeting has 
begun, no more laughing, no more fun.  If you show your teeth or tongue 
you shall pay a forfeit".  Possibly you might wish to elaborate.


> Best,
>   Paul
> _______________________________________________
> paleopsych mailing list
> paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/paleopsych/attachments/20050314/57001e47/attachment.html>

More information about the paleopsych mailing list