Werner Erhard speaks to Kennedy School students
Caligari
(The more things change the more ... stays the same.)
patrick
> Over an hour: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwQr_BJrHJ8
> (The more things change the more ... stays the same.)
im at 20 percent.
Caligari
Finally I watched the entire talk.
Werner deals with the philosophical question of free will/causation.
And comes out in the creating one's reality (you are a a clearing;
you're reality is created from language) where there is just the
individual creating their reality (Subjectivism.) He has very
effective methods of speaking and referencing people's psychological
states as he talks (you may be confused here, giving personal
ancedotes, etc.) And his booming voice to bring his ideas across.
But, this is an interesting philosophical issue -- free will/
determinism -- that if one thinks critically through the issues Werner
leads through can be worthwhile. And may not lead to were Werner ends
up.
patrick
as werner speaks about the "current model"
"over the 100 years of the current models reign, many improvements
have been derived from this model. however there is substantial
evidence that the possiblities of significant improvements to
performance
derived from the current model of performance has been exhausted."
caligari, can u give examples of how our improvements to performance
have
been exhausted
HAPPYsamurai
how can a guy who states integrity is keeping your word - who
committed to ending hunger by 2000ish - who advocates the experiential
- claim to understand "performance"
the only measurable aspect of "performance" he provides is - getting
people to listen to him
it would appear he has not yet exhausted "all means"
when you know it's not lack of performance that caused the recession -
this is just distraction
Serena Nordstrup
For more gibberish on ~integrity~ from ~the Source~, see
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=920625
HAPPYsamurai
>
> For more gibberish on ~integrity~ from ~the Source~, seehttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=920625
>
unambiguous and actionable access to the opportunity for superior
performance, no matter how one defines performance."
today we leave "performance" ambiguous
perhaps that's why his commitment to end world hunger didn't "perform"
how is it you and i both perceive the gibberish - but you have greater
tolerance for it?
training or natural aptitude?
tubby Tanner
"HAPPYsamurai" <profst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0539d5ce-12d6-44c1...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
Happ what I don't understand is why you don't go to the abstract Serena has
noted and piecemeal point out the gibberish that Werner and others have
presented.
Now that may make a reasonable discussion and also maybe attract the eternal
Muse to throw a few spanners in to the works???????
Caligari hinted that the whole discussion pointed in the direction of Free
will and determinisn.
Cheers and all the best that the New Year may bring to you all.
HAPPYsamurai
> "HAPPYsamurai" <profstock...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:0539d5ce-12d6-44c1...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 30 Dec, 21:35, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> For more gibberish on ~integrity~ from ~the Source~,
> >> seehttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=920625
>
> > "Hence, the way we treat integrity in our model provides an
> > unambiguous and actionable access to the opportunity for superior
> > performance, no matter how one defines performance."
>
> > today we leave "performance" ambiguous
>
> > perhaps that's why his commitment to end world hunger didn't "perform"
>
> > how is it you and i both perceive the gibberish - but you have greater
> > tolerance for it?
>
> > training or natural aptitude?
>
> Happ what I don't understand is why you don't go to the abstract Serena has
> noted and piecemeal point out the gibberish that Werner and others have
> presented.
not meaning to be blunt Bruno
but what you fail to understand and observe is that I have been to the
abstract
not just this time - but several times since it was brought to this
"groups" attention over two years ago
>
> Now that may make a reasonable discussion and also maybe attract the eternal
> Muse to throw a few spanners in to the works???????
one would hope so Bruno - but it has failed to do so in the past
but my point would go like this
1/ when the word integrity already has several meanings why give it a
new one?
2/ if werner has a new "concept" why not create a new word label for
it?
3/ if it is similar to previous versions of the word why label it A
New Model of Integrity as he has here
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=932255&rec=1&srcabs=991327
"Oversimplifying somewhat, "honoring your word", as we define it,
means you either keep your word, or as soon as you know that you will
not, you say that you will not be keeping your word to those who were
counting on your word and clean up any mess you caused by not keeping
your word. By "keeping your word" we mean doing what you said you
would do and by the time you said you would do it."
>
> Caligari hinted that the whole discussion pointed in the direction of Free
> will and determinisn.
well perhaps you could take your own advice and point out where that
happens Bruno
re the abstract
personally, I'd say it has more to do with corporate hierarchical
culture, rather than human beings with free will -
>
> Cheers and all the best that the New Year may bring to you all.
and you Bruno
HAPPYsamurai
1977
"Twenty years from now, when we're looking back at how hunger and
starvation ended, it will not look as if miracles had happened.
Everyone will know how it happened."
"The fourth generating principle of The Hunger Project is the
principle of transformation. I cannot predict exactly what will happen
to end starvation on the planet. In fact, any prediction begins to
place a limitation on what can occur."
October 29, 2007 WERNER ERHARD Independent MICHAEL C. JENSEN
"In this new model, we distinguish...."
"If I gave my word, I gave my word. Period. If I did not intend to
keep my word and did not say that when I gave it, I lied. And by
definition that puts me out of integrity. "
"What would your life be like, and what would your performance be, if
it were true that: You have done what you said you would do and you
did it on time You have done what you know to do, you did it the way
it was meant to be done, and you did it on time You have done what
others would expect you to do , even if you never said you would do
it, and you did it on time, or you have informed them that you will
not meet their expectations and you have informed others of your
expectations for them and have made explicit requests to those
others. "
"You have done what others would expect you to do , even if you never
said you would do it, and you did it on time," ...
just as food for thought
consider a world where werner stops defining "concepts" and
"performance" for others and focuses on how he meets his own criteria
imagine a world where people consider werner's own advice: to be as
suspicious of werner's codifications as he is
nothing about free will and determinism
"We assert that integrity (the condition of being whole and complete)
is a necessary condition for workability, and that the resultant level
of workability determines the available opportunity for performance.
Hence, the way we treat integrity in our model provides an unambiguous
and actionable access to the opportunity for superior performance, no
matter how one defines performance."
is having free will and self-determinsim part of being whole and
complete?
tubby Tanner
On 31 Dec, 11:32, "tubby Tanner" <tub...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "HAPPYsamurai" <profstock...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:0539d5ce-12d6-44c1...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 30 Dec, 21:35, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> For more gibberish on ~integrity~ from ~the Source~,
> >> seehttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=920625
>
> > "Hence, the way we treat integrity in our model provides an
> > unambiguous and actionable access to the opportunity for superior
> > performance, no matter how one defines performance."
>
> > today we leave "performance" ambiguous
>
> > perhaps that's why his commitment to end world hunger didn't "perform"
>
> > how is it you and i both perceive the gibberish - but you have greater
> > tolerance for it?
>
> > training or natural aptitude?
>
> Happ what I don't understand is why you don't go to the abstract Serena
> has
> noted and piecemeal point out the gibberish that Werner and others have
> presented.
not meaning to be blunt Bruno
but what you fail to understand and observe is that I have been to the
abstract
not just this time - but several times since it was brought to this
"groups" attention over two years ago
Yes I do recall that.
What brought this to my attention was your attraction to what
"The Muse" had said and your use of the word "Gibberish"
>
> Now that may make a reasonable discussion and also maybe attract the
> eternal
> Muse to throw a few spanners in to the works???????
one would hope so Bruno - but it has failed to do so in the past
but my point would go like this
1/ when the word integrity already has several meanings why give it a
new one?
Well in this case according to my World Book Dictioanry page 1087 1975
Edition
the second meaning for integrity is "Undivided or unbroken condition,
wholeness,completeness
, entirety ( The integrity of my faculties...... Samuel Johnson) Latin
integritas == whole
So Werner is using an accepted use of the word Integrity even though it may
be a secondary one
according to modern usage.
2/ if werner has a new "concept" why not create a new word label for
it?
Fair point but why invent a new word when a word such as Integrity allready
covers
the meaning and way Werner will use it.
3/ if it is similar to previous versions of the word why label it A
New Model of Integrity as he has here
Fair point once again, however one could argue that Werner wishes to
stress that
his use of the word is in the form " Integrity is thus not about good or
bad, or right or wrong, or what should or should not be. "
sense.
The word honesty,sincerity, uprightness do imply a good - bad , right -wrong
dichotomy.
cheers
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=932255&rec=1&srcabs=991327
"Oversimplifying somewhat, "honoring your word", as we define it,
means you either keep your word, or as soon as you know that you will
not, you say that you will not be keeping your word to those who were
counting on your word and clean up any mess you caused by not keeping
your word. By "keeping your word" we mean doing what you said you
would do and by the time you said you would do it."
>
> Caligari hinted that the whole discussion pointed in the direction of Free
> will and determinisn.
well perhaps you could take your own advice and point out where that
happens Bruno
I think Caligari was referring to the lecture that Werner gave at Harvard,
and the abstact as I understand it would be a good starting point to examine
the
ideas that underpin that lecture.
( I have not listened to the discussion yet so I am relying on Caligari's
interpretation and to date even though I may disagree with some of his
comments , I have found him to be a person of integrity ( honest, sincere
and uprightness World Dictionary page 1087)
when discussing his Est/Landmark experience.
.
re the abstract
personally, I'd say it has more to do with corporate hierarchical
culture, rather than human beings with free will -
Correct, my mistake .
I thought you may have been a mind reader
and figured out what Caligari was reffering to.
HAPPYsamurai
> "HAPPYsamurai" <profstock...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>
> but my point would go like this
>
> 1/ when the word integrity already has several meanings why give it a
> new one?
>
> Well in this case according to my World Book Dictioanry page 1087 1975
> Edition
> the second meaning for integrity is "Undivided or unbroken condition,
> wholeness,completeness
> , entirety ( The integrity of my faculties...... Samuel Johnson) Latin
> integritas == whole
>
> So Werner is using an accepted use of the word Integrity even though it may
> be a secondary one
> according to modern usage.
hmmm yes if you believe a human being without a moral compass is
"whole"
I must admit i also use the "whole" shade of meaning myself
of course this goes back to why it is put forward as a NEW model if it
goes back to the latin
>
> 2/ if werner has a new "concept" why not create a new word label for
> it?
>
> Fair point but why invent a new word when a word such as Integrity allready
> covers
> the meaning and way Werner will use it.
>
> 3/ if it is similar to previous versions of the word why label it A
> New Model of Integrity as he has here
>
> Fair point once again, however one could argue that Werner wishes to
> stress that
> his use of the word is in the form " Integrity is thus not about good or
> bad, or right or wrong, or what should or should not be. "
> sense.
it seems to me - that the present corporate ethical zeitgeist could do
with more stress on RIGHT and GOOD -- rather than less -
consider your own criticisms of pharma etc
altho I do like his advice keep that corporations should honor their
word
>
> The word honesty,sincerity, uprightness do imply a good - bad , right -wrong
> dichotomy.
which is obviously too hard for the average human to cope with --
unfortunately
see enron as an example
or Bernard Madoff
still it also begs the question
what did werner mean when he said he would end world hunger in 20
years?
"For his humanitarian work around the world, in 1988 the Mahatma
Gandhi International Foundation awarded Werner Erhard the Mahatma
Gandhi Humanitarian Award, citing "...your notable effort to end the
starvation and hunger suffered by millions throughout the world, and
for drawing broad public awareness to the value of ~integrity~ in our
everyday lives."
so why not just call it " a powerful model of performance derived from
the action of keeping one's word" ? !
furthermore it begs the question
can a person be WHOLE without an understanding of right and wrong ?
But Bruno - i have nothing against the idea of people honoring their
word - so long as they fully understand what they are doing when they
do it - and are not manipulated into giving their word
HAPPYsamurai
"In terms of results produced, dealing with someone who is sincere
(but does not honor his word) gives exactly the same results as
dealing with someone who is an outright liar.
Substituting the virtue of sincerity for integrity is often a
subconscious (and effective) ruse to avoid being responsible for
failing to honor my word when I do not keep it."
one assumes werner is talking about his "sincere" efforts to end world
hunger ?
did he keep his word?
still do TRULY sincere people have this "alleged" problem with keeping
their word?
serena?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4080164.stm
for me - my concern is when someone like Toni Hoffman is bullied into
considering her obligation to her work contract and work superiors
over her moral obligation to the people in her care...
tubby Tanner
On 31 Dec, 18:36, "tubby Tanner" <tub...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "HAPPYsamurai" <profstock...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>
> but my point would go like this
>
> 1/ when the word integrity already has several meanings why give it a
> new one?
>
> Well in this case according to my World Book Dictioanry page 1087 1975
> Edition
> the second meaning for integrity is "Undivided or unbroken condition,
> wholeness,completeness
> , entirety ( The integrity of my faculties...... Samuel Johnson) Latin
> integritas == whole
>
> So Werner is using an accepted use of the word Integrity even though it
> may
> be a secondary one
> according to modern usage.
hmmm yes if you believe a human being without a moral compass is
"whole"
I don't think he is saying that.
I must admit i also use the "whole" shade of meaning myself
of course this goes back to why it is put forward as a NEW model if it
goes back to the latin.
Good point. Maybe not a new model but a lost model from the past.
coming alive once again.
>
> 2/ if werner has a new "concept" why not create a new word label for
> it?
>
> Fair point but why invent a new word when a word such as Integrity
> allready
> covers
> the meaning and way Werner will use it.
>
> 3/ if it is similar to previous versions of the word why label it A
> New Model of Integrity as he has here
>
> Fair point once again, however one could argue that Werner wishes to
> stress that
> his use of the word is in the form " Integrity is thus not about good or
> bad, or right or wrong, or what should or should not be. "
> sense.
it seems to me - that the present corporate ethical zeitgeist could do
with more stress on RIGHT and GOOD -- rather than less -
Fully agree and I think Werner would also agree.
consider your own criticisms of pharma etc
altho I do like his advice keep that corporations should honor their
word
>
> The word honesty,sincerity, uprightness do imply a good - bad ,
> right -wrong
> dichotomy.
which is obviously too hard for the average human to cope with --
unfortunately
see enron as an example
or Bernard Madoff
Didn't someone warn us that the World was full of trickery!!!
Buyer beware to put us on our guard.
still it also begs the question
what did werner mean when he said he would end world hunger in 20
years?
I wasn't around at the time but I believe he meant it when it first started
and later may have fallen into a world of believing his own claptrap
and the sychophants that feeded his own ego.
Did he say he was going to end it, or did he say we were going to end it????
Tom Booth puts forward a case in Alt Avatar that he failed to convince us
that his ideas were solid enough to change that group conciousness for all
of us
to take some responsibility for this man made tragedy.
Tom used El Ron as the source point for this discussion.
Werner failed but what a great idea and challenge.
Can anyone in this Newsgroup come close to trying to resolve this great
tragedy
and stick their neck out the way werner has done??????
Cindy Shean tried to stop the war in Irak and bring our boys home.
She also presently has failed.
Does that mean her actions and beliefs were not worthy and should have
never been attempted??????
"For his humanitarian work around the world, in 1988 the Mahatma
Gandhi International Foundation awarded Werner Erhard the Mahatma
Gandhi Humanitarian Award, citing "...your notable effort to end the
starvation and hunger suffered by millions throughout the world, and
for drawing broad public awareness to the value of ~integrity~ in our
everyday lives."
so why not just call it " a powerful model of performance derived from
the action of keeping one's word" ? !
furthermore it begs the question
can a person be WHOLE without an understanding of right and wrong ?
Of course not and Werner is not saying that
But Bruno - i have nothing against the idea of people honoring their
word - so long as they fully understand what they are doing when they
do it - and are not manipulated into giving their word
So basically what we need to overcome this pit hole is more assertive
training.
Learning to say No and mean it when we don't want to do something.
I agree with you that my expereince with Landmark did not teach me this in a
direct way
however it gave me a glimpse of what a better world could look like, if I
dared to do some of the
hard yakka required.
cheers and Happy New Year to all my compatriots in the news group.
tubby Tanner
>i note the word conscience does not appear in the document
>
>
>
> "In terms of results produced, dealing with someone who is sincere
> (but does not honor his word) gives exactly the same results as
> dealing with someone who is an outright liar.
>
> Substituting the virtue of sincerity for integrity is often a
> subconscious (and effective) ruse to avoid being responsible for
> failing to honor my word when I do not keep it."
>
> one assumes werner is talking about his "sincere" efforts to end world
> hunger ?
>
> did he keep his word?
No he didn't and the people following him also didn't.
We are all in the boat toghether, and the Captain in this case Werner
didn't have the goods tp persuade us all that his reasons for changing World
hunger
were valid enough.
He may have wanted to skim some of the profits of this great Venture to his
own
organisation Est, and peole got wind to it.
Caligari and Tex were around at the time and they would no better why it
failed.
How about Serena or Computeruser
Weren't they also heavily involved???????>
>
> still do TRULY sincere people have this "alleged" problem with keeping
> their word?
>
> serena?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4080164.stm
>
> for me - my concern is when someone like Toni Hoffman is bullied into
> considering her obligation to her work contract and work superiors
> over her moral obligation to the people in her care...
Well this example shows that the world is full of trickery and that often
for various
reasons we are bullied into following orders just like the Nazis did.
We all have a mob mentality that slavishly follows orders and its the
"Whistle Blowers" that are the heroes of our time, because they dare
to nominate and expose this trickery.
AND also suffer the consequences.
Cheers
>
computeruser
> "HAPPYsamurai" <profstock...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:6b051652-064c-4751...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >i note the word conscience does not appear in the document
>
> > "In terms of results produced, dealing with someone who is sincere
> > (but does not honor his word) gives exactly the same results as
> > dealing with someone who is an outright liar.
>
> > Substituting the virtue of sincerity for integrity is often a
> > subconscious (and effective) ruse to avoid being responsible for
> > failing to honor my word when I do not keep it."
>
> > one assumes werner is talking about his "sincere" efforts to end world
> > hunger ?
>
> > did he keep his word?
>
> No he didn't and the people following him also didn't.
> We are all in the boat toghether, and the Captain in this case Werner
> didn't have the goods tp persuade us all that his reasons for changing World
> hunger
> were valid enough.
> He may have wanted to skim some of the profits of this great Venture to his
> own
> organisation Est, and peole got wind to it.
>
> Caligari and Tex were around at the time and they would no better why it
> failed.
> How about Serena or Computeruser
> Weren't they also heavily involved???????>
I can speak for how "heavily" others were involved. I would say yes I
was, about my own involvement/entanglement
I am not sure about how it was ~~cleaned up~~ and how those around The
Hunger Project, reconciled that the intention wasn't going to be
fulfilled by the end of the last century.
I do know that the Hunger Project is still around and have
International Clout by having the Executive Director Joan Holmes has a
prominent role with the "New World Order" organization The United
Nations.
~~~
Mrs. Joan Holmes
Member of the United Nations Millennium Project Task Force on Hunger
President of the Hunger Project
http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/publications/achiev.goals/Table%20of%20Contents.pdf
Scroll down to the section about:
The Eradication of Poverty and Hunger
> > still do TRULY sincere people have this "alleged" problem with keeping
> > their word?
>
> > serena?
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4080164.stm
>
> > for me - my concern is when someone like Toni Hoffman is bullied into
> > considering her obligation to her work contract and work superiors
> > over her moral obligation to the people in her care...
>
> Well this example shows that the world is full of trickery and that often
> for various
> reasons we are bullied into following orders just like the Nazis did.
>
> We all have a mob mentality that slavishly follows orders and its the
> "Whistle Blowers" that are the heroes of our time, because they dare
> to nominate and expose this trickery.
>
> AND also suffer the consequences.
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
computeruser
More from the one world government organization.
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/poverty.shtml
I hope Alrick reads this.
> Mrs. Joan Holmes
> Member of the United Nations Millennium Project Task Force on Hunger
> President of the Hunger Project
>
> http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/publications/achiev.goals/Table%20of%20...
HAPPYsamurai
the linguists talk of the importance of calling out the "word rulers"
in the beginning there was the word - and the word was God
just as an example
tex
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you high???? ;-)
HAPPYsamurai
>
> Werner deals with the philosophical question of free will/causation.
> And comes out in the creating one's reality (you are a a clearing;
> you're reality is created from language) where there is just the
> individual creating their reality (Subjectivism.) He has very
> effective methods of speaking and referencing people's psychological
> states as he talks (you may be confused here, giving personal
> ancedotes, etc.) And his booming voice to bring his ideas across.
>
> But, this is an interesting philosophical issue -- free will/
> determinism -- that if one thinks critically through the issues Werner
> leads through can be worthwhile. And may not lead to were Werner ends
> up.
I think this is the best statement written about Werner including
those written by himself or others
Serena Nordstrup
wrote:
I do?
> training or natural aptitude?
... or respect for Harvardians? (Subconscious fallacy of appeal to
"authority"...)
Caligari
wrote:
> "HAPPYsamurai" <profstock...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:6b051652-064c-4751...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >i note the word conscience does not appear in the document
>
> > "In terms of results produced, dealing with someone who is sincere
> > (but does not honor his word) gives exactly the same results as
> > dealing with someone who is an outright liar.
>
> > Substituting the virtue of sincerity for integrity is often a
> > subconscious (and effective) ruse to avoid being responsible for
> > failing to honor my word when I do not keep it."
>
> > one assumes werner is talking about his "sincere" efforts to end world
> > hunger ?
>
> > did he keep his word?
>
> No he didn't and the people following him also didn't.
> We are all in the boat toghether, and the Captain in this case Werner
> didn't have the goods tp persuade us all that his reasons for changing World
> hunger
> were valid enough.
> He may have wanted to skim some of the profits of this great Venture to his
> own
> organisation Est, and peole got wind to it.
>
> Caligari and Tex were around at the time and they would no better why it
> failed.
> How about Serena or Computeruser
> Weren't they also heavily involved???????>
>
Why the Hunger Project initial purpose and goal failed has nothing to
do why Ending World Hunger by 1997 existed. It existed to enroll
people. There was no evidence that such an endeavor would work -- it
was just a highly enrolleable idea. Human beings have limited
knowledge with a strong preference for certainty as opposed to
uncertainty. When someone offers with certainty an argument -- with
just anecdotes and sequence of arguments full of holes -- a
significant number will accept it based on someone behaving with
authoritative assurance rather than investigate it's feasability.
Werner and those he employes perfect the art of the sell without
regard to proving the product conclusively works with solid evidence
(yes, you can get a large spike of approval at the end of The Forum,
but that decrees dramatically if you ask 3, 6 months, 1, 2, 5 years
later.) Failure is ignored and the product is later modified to
resell as bette, new and dramatically improved.
The argument in this presentation that leadership is failing provides
no evidence. But when you say that, people will start to put personal
views on it. Those that don't like Bush, will use that; those that
don't like a Democratic congress will apply that. Those that don't
like their boss will pin that, and so on. And with a recession,
there's a likelihood of assigning blame on various leaders -- some is
probably deserved. But taking the evidence of government leadership
in the USA for over 230 years, or other evidence of leadership such as
corporate over a significant span is taken. The probability is that
there isn't a significant change in quality in the last 10 of 100
years. Even if there is, it could probably be explained as a chance
run of dip in quality. This is about enrolling people into Werner's
ideas, not about leadership. Enrolling Harvard University into
presenting Werner's ideas as management tools works toward
legitimizing Landmark courses.
-- C
Alrick
sort of mini-scandal about them on the Huffington Post a while back.
It was because some German guy with some connection to the project had
started a travel agency giving "poverty tours" for western tourists
through one of the Millennium Villages in Kenya: "Look these people
have not even got shoes".
My former boss is now director of the West African Millennium Villages
project. I left comments on their blog here:
http://blogs.millenniumpromise.org/index.php/2009/05/06/mali-mdg-scale-up/
That was a really poor village so they could use the help. Still, look
at this young "mayor" in the video speaking the development lingo -
he's new, they used to have tribal chiefs and then the other farmer
guy who seems more realistic.
What is the real purpose of this project? I don't know.
Alrick
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/magatte-wade/does-jeffrey-sachs-believ_b_217785.html
computeruser
> here's the Huff Post link:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/magatte-wade/does-jeffrey-sachs-believ_b_217785.html
Thanks for the links I'll check it out.
Did you know about the est formed charity The Hunger Project relationship to
the New World Order; I mean The United Nations? What might concern some is
the mind bending techniques being used at these High Levels.
.
Zero
You refer to and comment on "Integrity: A PositiveModel That
Incorporates The Normative Phenomena Of Morality, Ethics, And
Legality" I am curious, have you actually read all 123 pages of it or
watched "Werner Erhard speaks to Kennedy School students" video from
beginning to end?
HAPPYsamurai
> "Serena Nordstrup"
>
> You refer
does she?
would you consider it a fruitful use of time for someone of her
reading and intelligence?
Zero
Perhaps "Serena Nordstrup" will respond to your question. I will not.
Thanks for asking.
HAPPYsamurai
> @ HAPPYsamurai,
>
> Perhaps "Serena Nordstrup" will respond to your question. I will not.
> Thanks for asking.
"respond"
erm you just did
hmm
>
> "would you consider it a fruitful use of time for someone of her
> reading and intelligence?"
thanks for revealing the your "context"
no doubt you won't be dragged down with completion of objectives
HAPPYsamurai
> Alrick wrote...
> > here's the Huff Post link:
>
>
> Thanks for the links I'll check it out.
>
> Did you know about the est formed charity The Hunger Project relationship to
> the New World Order; I mean The United Nations? What might concern some is
> the mind bending techniques being used at these High Levels.
>
Serena Nordstrup
> "Serena Nordstrup"
>
> You refer to and comment on "Integrity: A PositiveModel That
> Incorporates The Normative Phenomena Of Morality, Ethics, And
> Legality"
Not exactly: I commented on an extract.
> I am curious, have you actually read all 123 pages of it or
> watched "Werner Erhard speaks to Kennedy School students" video from
> beginning to end?
I read an earlier, shorter draft of the article. I read it from
beginning to end,unaware at the time of the virtues of leaping to the
end of the reading process and working backwards.
Zero
I would be concerned that any extract a person read, that was part of
a longer paper, might be incomplete and the reader may have been
commenting on something without having all the information and
present a comment as if they were commmenting on all the information.
"Not exactly: I commented on an extract."
"Serena Nordstrup"
I respecfully decline.
"Can you provide compensatory quotes to mitigate what I wrote:"
"more gibberish on ~integrity~ from ~the Source~,
seehttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=920625
HAPPYsamurai
> On Jan 19, 7:03 am, Zero <zeropart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Serena Nordstrup"
>
> > You refer to and comment on "Integrity: A PositiveModel That
> > Incorporates The Normative Phenomena Of Morality, Ethics, And
> > Legality"
>
> Not exactly: I commented on an extract.
>
> > I am curious, have you actually read all 123 pages of it or
> > watched "Werner Erhard speaks to Kennedy School students" video from
> > beginning to end?
>
> I read an earlier, shorter draft of the article. I read it from
> beginning to end,unaware at the time of the virtues of leaping to the
> end of the reading process and working backwards.
>
> Can you provide compensatory quotes to mitigate what I wrote:
>
>
> "Hence, the way we treat integrity in our model provides an
> unambiguous and actionable access to the opportunity for superior
> performance, no matter how one defines performance."
as does an eraser on the end of a pencil - but few take the
opportunity
still one wonders how many scenarios this superior performance has
been tested in and how many different ways the "performance" was
measured
may I suggest some people simply respond to the "attention" - as i
think some earlier management experiments show
but again I say - the more people explore honoring promises and
keeping their word,,, the sooner they can get up to speed with the
lack of "workability" that Enron struck in its long term "performance"
Serena Nordstrup
On Jan 19, 7:03 am, Zero <zeropart...@gmail.com> wrote:
I wrote:
>>> "more gibberish on ~integrity~ from ~the Source~,
>>> seehttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=920625
>
>>> "Hence, the way we treat integrity in our model provides an
>>> unambiguous and actionable access to the opportunity for superior
>>> performance, no matter how one defines performance."
>> You refer to and comment on "Integrity: A PositiveModel That
>> Incorporates The Normative Phenomena Of Morality, Ethics, And
>> Legality"
> Not exactly: I commented on an extract.
> I would be concerned that any extract a person read, that was part of
> a longer paper, might be incomplete and the reader may have been
> commenting on something without having all the information and
> present a comment as if they were commmenting on all the
> information.
If you have concerns then show me where I mis-quoted or
mis-interpreted. We have the text available to us...
>> "Can you provide compensatory quotes to mitigate what I wrote:"
> I respecfully decline.
If I quote the whole paragraph, it sounds even more bizarre and
prescriptively management-speakish:
"We assert that integrity (the condition of being whole and complete)
is a necessary condition for workability, and that the resultant level
of workability determines for an individual, group, or organization
the available opportunity set for performance. Hence, the way we treat
integrity in our model provides an unambiguous and actionable access
to the opportunity for superior performance, no matter how one defines
performance."
Based on (preposterous) assertion ("We assert that ... and that...")
and a shaky train of logic ("Hence ... unambiguous access to the
opportunity ...")
As Caligari suggested in a different context: "The more things change
the more ... stays the same."
Can no acolyte produce a more lucid and sensible summary -- or a
devastating counter-example -- of Jack Rosenberg's "thinking" on
~integrity~?
Simpatice
Serena
Zero
I will not discuss nor give any value to the views of a a person who
onely skimmed or read an extract of "Integrity: A PositiveModel That
Incorporates The Normative Phenomena Of Morality, Ethics, And
Legality" or any paper.
I would not read or trust or assign any value to a film review or a
book review by a person who claiams to know what the film is about and
had not seen the movie or read the book. Who would?
Thanks for your honesty about that though "Serena Nordstrup".
HAPPYsamurai
> @ "Serena Nordstrup"
>
> I will not discuss nor give any value to the views of a a person who
> onely skimmed or read an extract of "Integrity: A PositiveModel That
> Incorporates The Normative Phenomena Of Morality, Ethics, And
> Legality" or any paper.
>
> I would not read or trust or assign any value to a film review or a
> book review by a person who claiams to know what the film is about and
> had not seen the movie or read the book. Who would?
yet if the film were about "integrity" and you were discussing
"integrity"
- surely people have opinions and experience with 'integrity"
regardless of their reading or viewing habits ...
>
> Thanks for your honesty about that though "Serena Nordstrup".
"Can no acolyte produce a more lucid and sensible summary -- or a
devastating counter-example -- of Jack Rosenberg's "thinking" on
~integrity~? "
"Serena Nordstrup".
Serena Nordstrup
> @ "Serena Nordstrup"
>
> I will not discuss nor give any value to the views of a a person who
> onely skimmed or read an extract of "Integrity: A PositiveModel That
> Incorporates The Normative Phenomena Of Morality, Ethics, And
> Legality" or any paper.
Quite right.
Did someone just skim a version?
> I would not read or trust or assign any value to a film review or a
> book review by a person who claiams to know what the film is about and
> had not seen the movie or read the book. Who would?
Who indeed?
Did someone claim to know what something ~was~ about?
> Thanks for your honesty about that though "Serena Nordstrup".
My pleasure.
Shame about the lack of ~workability~.
Skimmingly
Serena
Zero
if you ever choose to read all 123 pages of "Integrity: A
PositiveModel That Incorporates The Normative Phenomena Of Morality,
Ethics, And Legality" I would be wiling to revist this topic with you
and exchange views with you.
Zero
[I asked:]
"I would not read or trust or assign any value to a film review or a
book review by a person who claiams to know what the film is about
and had not seen the movie or read the book. Who would?"
[You responded"]
"yet if the film were about "integrity" and you were discussing
"integrity" - surely people have opinions and experience with
'integrity" regardless of their reading or viewing habits ..."
[ I cannot make head nor tails of what you are saying HAPPYsamurai. I
am talking about people who endeavor to talk about a specific work of
writing or art or thing that they have not researched, they have not
read, have not seen and that they know nothing about.
But you seem to be talking about what speculating on what some
abstract group people might think or what opinions they might have. I
don't follow.
"if the film were about "integrity",<---- I am talking about people
who have not watched your "film about integrity" and I will not be in
a dialogue with those people and I assign no value to their views of
your film that they admit they have not watched.]
Serena Nordstrup
On Jan 23, 2:42 am, Zero <zeropart...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:35 am, Zero <zeropart...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @ "Serena Nordstrup"
> I will not discuss nor give any value to the views of a a person who
> onely skimmed or read an extract of "Integrity: A PositiveModel That
> Incorporates The Normative Phenomena Of Morality, Ethics, And
> Legality" or any paper.
Quite right.
Did someone just skim a version?
> I would not read or trust or assign any value to a film review or a
> book review by a person who claiams to know what the film is about and
> had not seen the movie or read the book. Who would?
Who indeed?
Did someone claim to know what something ~was~ about?
> Thanks for your honesty about that though "Serena Nordstrup".
My pleasure.
Shame about the lack of ~workability~.
Skimmingly
Serena
Zero responded:
Put like that, it reminds me of the sort of tactics sometimes used to
recruit people into attending rosenbergist indoctrinations. The
recruiter cannot or will not tell the potential victims about the
content of the prospective "seminar", but dangles the mystique of
holistically and miraculously understanding all once the victim has
~completed~ the indoctrination and become "one of us". A deliberate
Catch-22-style hook.
Outside the ~domain~ of rosenbergism, ordinary people can use
summaries of trends and extracts from presentations to introduce ideas
and lead into the full glory of exciting insights. Folk can even
point out errors in interpretation or inappropriate use of quotes out
of context. But inside the ~domain~ of rosenbergism different habits
and rules seem to apply...
Simpatice
Serena
Serena Nordstrup
> @ HAPPYsamurai
>
> [I asked:]
>
> "I would not read or trust or assign any value to a film review or a
> book review by a person who claiams to know what the film is about
> and had not seen the movie or read the book. Who would?"
>
> [You responded"]
>
> "yet if the film were about "integrity" and you were discussing
> "integrity" - surely people have opinions and experience with
> 'integrity" regardless of their reading or viewing habits ..."
>
> [ I cannot make head nor tails of what you are saying HAPPYsamurai. I
> am talking about people who endeavor to talk about a specific work of
> writing or art or thing that they have not researched, they have not
> read, have not seen and that they know nothing about.
If people on alt.fan.landmark had never previously heard of
~integrity~ or rosenbergism, they might not appreciate that
~integrity~ might mean something different from what the rest of the
English-speaking world means by the word "integrity"
If our esteemed Samurai did not realise that Jack Rosenberg might have
radically changed his thinking on the matter of ~integrity~, you would
have the ability to put him right with a pithy summary of any
fundamental changes.
In either of these two hypothetical cases, a few quotations from the
latest-and-greatest version of the latest-and-greatest treatise on
~integrity~ from the master ~integrity~-monger himself would help
everyone approach the latest masterpiece of recycled simplistic
grandiose pap from the 70s (First draft: September 2005; current
draft, March 2009; ."This paper is based on ideas and materials
originally developed by Werner Erhard in 1975 (cf. his
presentations on Integrity January 1, 1975 San Francisco, CA, and on
Responsibility, Integrity, Happiness February 25, 1976 Denver,
Colorado). Those ideas have also been part of the consulting services
of the
Vanto Group (formerly known as Landmark Education Business
Development) and part of the programs of Landmark Education, LLC." -
page 1.)
> But you seem to be talking about what speculating on what some
> abstract group people might think or what opinions they might have. I
> don't follow.
I realize that proponents of (for example) religious orthodoxy can
frown on speculation, but in less restrictive environments it can lead
to insights and even to ~transformations~ -- perhaps you should ~try~
it sometime.
> "if the film were about "integrity",<---- I am talking about people
> who have not watched your "film about integrity" and I will not be in
> a dialogue with those people
... even if they have interesting and valid ideas about the subject-
matter?
> and I assign no value to their views of
> your film that they admit they have not watched.]
... if they carelessly so admit...
Zero
Ok AND if you ever get around to to reading all 123 pages of
"Integrity: A PositiveModel That Incorporates The Normative
Phenomena Of Morality, Ethics, And Legality" I would be willing to
Zero
I would choose to limit my dialogue on content of a specific work,
paper, film, etc, with a person had not read or seen them in it's
entirety.
"Serena Nordstrup", would you assign the same values to commentary on
one of your favorite films or books from a person who admitted that
they had just watched or read a mere snippit of one of them compared
to another person who had shown the interest and taken the time to
actually read or watched them in their entirety?
Zero
And I mean I am less open to dialogue on commentary on the specific
content of a book or film that a person has not read or seen, not the
subject of the book or film. So with you, I am available to discuss
the general vast tpic of integrity and much less interested in
discussing the specific content of "Integrity: A PositiveModel That
Incorporates The Normative Phenomena Of Morality, Ethics, And
Legality" since you openly admit that you have not read it.
Zero
in the current era, what could this "guy" do that would register as
enough for you, satisfy you and meet your standards of what a person
who you claim had "committed to ending hunger by 2000ish - who
advocates the experiential -claim to understand "performance" should
do? Specifically, what is missing for you in this video HAPPYsamurai?
And can you please point out specifically where and when this guy
claims to "understand "performance"? And specifically where and when
he states that "integrity is keeping your word"?
"how can a guy who states integrity is keeping your word - who
committed to ending hunger by 2000ish - who advocates the
experiential - claim to understand "performance" the only measurable
aspect of "performance" he provides is - getting people to listen to
him it would appear he has not yet exhausted "all means" when you
know it's not lack of performance that caused the recession - this
is just distraction"
Caligari
FYI, Zero is posting from the same IP as invisiblehair did, NNTP-
Posting-Host: 24.138.100.25
To see the IP informatrion in Google Groups, select "More options"
link on a post, then "Show original" link.
tubby Tanner
"Caligari" <enric...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:35c03b4d-13ed-4a2a...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Does that change the content and the questions Zero is asking?????
I think Not!!!!!!!!!
Cheers
Caligari
> "Caligari" <enric.me...@gmail.com> wrote in message
A question is asked from the intent of the person asking. The
intention of the person asking has to do with the question.
tubby Tanner
So whats Zero's intent?????
What's anyone's intent in this newsgroup.
Have people in the group been honest about their intentions
so why pick on Zero??????
Are his questions threatning to anyone??
Just curious
Cheers
HAPPYsamurai
he's Serena's boyfriend and he is paranoid about your interest in her
but since you know more about LM than he does he is now GAY and wants
an intro
?????
> What's anyone's intent in this newsgroup.
DON"T BE SO SNIDE DIPSHIT
why don't you conform to my expectations
ahhhhhh
link darren mack
LOL
it's ok Bruno
while you are too HUMBLE to notice
we come here to worship at your feet
> Have people in the group been honest about their intentions
> so why pick on Zero??????
NERO
?
> Are his questions threatning to anyone??
not everyone is as GODLY as you my savior
now about this snideness you created me with
thank YOU
that your grace covers my inherent weakness to your design
>
> Just curious
>
me too
but YOU did create me in your image
> Cheers
Serena Nordstrup
I posted:
On Jan 23, 2:42 am, Zero <zeropart...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:35 am, Zero <zeropart...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @ "Serena Nordstrup"
> I will not discuss nor give any value to the views of a a person who
> onely skimmed or read an extract of "Integrity: A PositiveModel That
> Incorporates The Normative Phenomena Of Morality, Ethics, And
> Legality" or any paper.
Quite right.
Did someone just skim a version?
> I would not read or trust or assign any value to a film review or a
> book review by a person who claiams to know what the film is about and
> had not seen the movie or read the book. Who would?
Who indeed?
Did someone claim to know what something ~was~ about?
> Thanks for your honesty about that though "Serena Nordstrup".
My pleasure.
Shame about the lack of ~workability~.
Skimmingly
Serena
Zero responded:
> @ "Serena Nordstrup"
> if you ever choose to read all 123 pages of "Integrity: A
> PositiveModel That Incorporates The Normative Phenomena Of Morality,
> Ethics, And Legality" I would be wiling to revist this topic with you
> and exchange views with you.
Put like that, it reminds me of the sort of tactics sometimes used to
recruit people into attending rosenbergist indoctrinations. The
recruiter cannot or will not tell the potential victims about the
content of the prospective "seminar", but dangles the mystique of
holistically and miraculously understanding all once the victim has
~completed~ the indoctrination and become "one of us". A deliberate
Catch-22-style hook.
Outside the ~domain~ of rosenbergism, ordinary people can use
summaries of trends and extracts from presentations to introduce ideas
and lead into the full glory of exciting insights. Folk can even
point out errors in interpretation or inappropriate use of quotes out
of context. But inside the ~domain~ of rosenbergism different habits
and rules seem to apply...
Simpatice
Serena
> @ "Serena Nordstrup"
I'll see about arranging independent third-party verification to
certify my reading of each of the 123 pages of the approved version of
~Erhard~, Jensen and Zaffron. In the meantime, I'll address extracts
from ~Erhard~, Jensen and Zaffron, conventionally.
Simpatice
Serena
Serena Nordstrup
> @ "Serena Nordstrup"
>
> I would choose to limit my dialogue on content of a specific work,
> paper, film, etc, with a person had not read or seen them in it's
> entirety.
I haven't yet chosen how to choose whether to take the fourth breath
after I've posted this response.
> "Serena Nordstrup", would you assign the same values to commentary on
> one of your favorite films or books from a person who admitted that
> they had just watched or read a mere snippit of one of them compared
> to another person who had shown the interest and taken the time to
> actually read or watched them in their entirety?
>
> " ... even if they have interesting and valid ideas about the subject-
> matter?"
That would depend on the cogency and apparent relevance of the
comment, regardless of the declared or non-declared status of the
commentator.
Serena Nordstrup
Precisely because of the scope of the topic of ~integrity~ I may seek
to concentrate on specific utterances such as those encapsulated in
the different versions and works of Jack Rosenberg.
Where did I ever "openly admit" that I had not read ~Erhard~, Jensen
and Zaffron?
Serena Nordstrup
> "Caligari" <enric.me...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Insofar as some of the content of Zero's posted statements and
questions relate to the personal ~experience~ of his/her
interlocutors, they show an interest in such persons, sometimes at the
expense of interest in other content and questions.. That might raise
interest.
(Insofar as much of the content of Bruno's posted statements and
questions, historically, relate to the personal ~experience~ and
putative background of his interlocutors, we can applaud Bruno's
renewed interest in the non-personal content and questions discussed
here in alt.fan.landmark.)
HAPPYsamurai
> On Jan 24, 5:49 pm, "tubby Tanner" <tub...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> > Does that change the content and the questions Zero is asking?????
> > I think Not!!!!!!!!!
>
no indeed
it's not as if mentioning the IP is like an AH attack
in fact its more an AH on those that hadn't sensed it
still that they hadn't sensed it is praise of their innocence
which is like a paradox
so it's win win win really - except for the war and the recession
> Insofar as some of the content of Zero's posted statements and
> questions relate to the personal ~experience~ of his/her
> interlocutors, they show an interest in such persons, sometimes at the
> expense of interest in other content and questions.. That might raise
> interest.
mmm na not really
but thanks for caring God bless you too
>
> (Insofar as much of the content of Bruno's posted statements and
> questions, historically, relate to the personal ~experience~ and
> putative background of his interlocutors, we can applaud Bruno's
> renewed interest in the non-personal content and questions discussed
> here in alt.fan.landmark.)
we could - all possibilities are open to us save the possibilities
defined as
Zero
in the current era, what could this "guy" do that would register as
enough for you, satisfy you and meet your standards of what a person
who you claim had "committed to ending hunger by 2000ish - who
advocates the experiential -claim to understand "performance" should
do? Specifically, what is missing for you in this video HAPPYsamurai
that you are referring to?
Zero
I do not care if you read or do not read "Integrity: A PositiveModel
That Incorporates The Normative Phenomena Of Morality, Ethics, And
Legality" or not.
But if you want to attract me to a any further discussion of the
material contained in "Integrity: A PositiveModel That Incorporates
The Normative Phenomena Of Morality, Ethics, And Legality", I want
to know what you have actually read or not read of the 123 pages.
I was under the impression you had said you had only read "extracts".
Zero
Questioning intent of a certain breed of internet critics is frowned
upon and always framed by said person as a diliberate distraction
from a topic and an ad hominem attack on them among or some other
victimesque claim. But it is all good here. Double standards are a
pass here.
He is acting consistant with the drift of this discussion group which
is: to deride, bait, undermine, scorn, insult, invalidate and trump
another person or group - either inside the discussion group or
offline outside the discussion group. These are the rules of the game
here. To expect otherwise would be a mistake.
Zero
It looks to me that while you may have been dealing with the
"philosophical question of free will/causation/determinism " as you
watched and thought about the "Werner Erhard speaks to Kennedy
School students" video, Werner was not "dealing" with the
"philosophical question of free will/causation/determinism". If Werner
was presenting information regarding those terms would he not have
mentioned those terms? It seems to me that your post misrepresents
what was said as you customise it into, and promote your own
idiosyncratic view, and promote the terms you would work with and
explain things with. I appreciate your comments as your personal take
on the 60 minute presentation, but not as an accounting of what was
being presented.
Also can I ask you to expand on what or how or which issues you
specifically saw presented as being "worthwhile" and how?
And where do you see Werner (or the material) "ending" or Werner (or
the material) claiming to "end somewhere"?
Zero
Put like that, it reminds me of your "Serena Nordstrup" view of the
world and of others around you.
Tex
That's Enric's MO.
He likes to "interpret" the subject matter to suit his agenda.
He may be one of the few here that has met Werner on numerous
occassions.
I've met him a few times but we didn't have time to chat about
morality, ethics and legality.
I'm not sure why Enric resorts to propagand tactics, as his own
personal experience of est would give him enough ammo to continue his
campaign to discredit Landmark.
It's his "little" obsession." :-)
Caligari
Wow Tex, you really have everyone pegged. Now if only I had the skill
to take a some posts and extrapolate to the innate psychological
limiations of individuals. Boorish me, not looking beyond what is
written and patterns of writing behaviour. You should open up a
evaluation service. Just have people write a few statements pro/con
and some background (maybe) and give a full analysis of their psyche.
Tex
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL!!!!
You're doing it again.
All that from "I'm not sure why Enric resorts to propaganda tactics,
as his own personal experience of est would give him enough ammo to
continue his
campaign to discredit Landmark."
you see, if I could give you "a full analysis of (your) psyche", I
wouldn't say that I'm not sure, now would I????? ;-)
And it certainly is a bit of an obsession, isn't it?
I had some bad experiences with est but it's water over the dam now.
You were virtually "stalking" Charlene Afremow a few years ago at a
guest event.
Remember???
You reminded her that you nearly wigged out while living at her house
while going to school and having too many assisting "agreements."
I'm sure she dismissed you with some psychobabble response.
Zero
"....It (the HP) existed to enroll people."
[ Enroll people into what Caligari? My understanding was that it was
to enroll people into ' the notion that 'the end of hunger and the end
of death by starvation on the planet was an idea whose time had come'
and that we could eradicate it and it would make a positive difference
for all people to accomplish this, is that correct? ]
".....Werner and those he employes perfect the art of the sell without
regard to proving the product conclusively works with solid
evidence..."
[ Caligari is the same not true of all University, college, High
School, the Boy Scouts and other places people gather? Where is the
solid evidence that any education or training conclusively works? Do
you have even one example of a setting where people gather and there
is an exchange of money and someone, anyone proves the product
conclusively works with solid evidence.? ]
".....yes, you can get a large spike of approval at the end of The
Forum....."
[ What "spike" are you talking about Caligari? What is a "spike"? Is
spike some measure you use to measure your own life and the life of
others?]
"...The argument in this presentation that leadership is failing
provides no evidence. "
[ Caligari, what evidence was promised or what evidence would you
like to hear or see that would be satsifactory to you? ]
"...This is about enrolling people into Werner's ideas, not about
leadership."
[ Caligari, can you please provide conclusive solid evidence that
Werner Erhard speaking with Kennedy School students is in fact 'about
enrolling people into Werner's ideas, not about leadership'? ]
Serena Nordstrup
> @ "Serena Nordstrup"
>
> I do not care if you read or do not read "Integrity: A PositiveModel
> That Incorporates The Normative Phenomena Of Morality, Ethics, And
> Legality" or not.
>
> But if you want to attract me to a any further discussion of the
> material contained in "Integrity: A PositiveModel That Incorporates
> The Normative Phenomena Of Morality, Ethics, And Legality", I want
> to know what you have actually read or not read of the 123 pages.
>
> I was under the impression you had said you had only read "extracts".
One might get that mis-impression if one did not read my posts
carefully.
Caligari
> Over an hour: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwQr_BJrHJ8
> (The more things change the more ... stays the same.)
The only thoughtful post analyzing the video allowed so far is:
jamespro95 (1 day ago) 0 Reply | Spam
I didn't get it. I have to admit I have a lot of problems with the
talk (I can hear you guys saying "he doesn't 'get it'"). He seems to
stay on those generalities (abstract nouns) and never descends to
specifics - examples that help to clarify his points. He uses words/
concepts like: ontological, paradigm, epistemological, Cartesian
dualism, constraints - these are abstract ideas that cry out for
explanation and integration with his central topic on performance.
Serena Nordstrup
> revist this topic with you and exchange views with you.
You have views? -- That sounds like a sort dangerous hobby to have.
Simpatice
Serena
Serena Nordstrup
> paper, film, etc, with a person had not read or seen them in it's
> entirety.
>
> one of your favorite films or books from a person who admitted that
> they had just watched or read a mere snippit of one of them compared
> to another person who had shown the interest and taken the time to
> actually read or watched them in their entirety?
Some works of art (like films or books) pander to wholism, but
propaganda we can digest in fragments too.
When the Costa Rican State Press puts out the Complete Works of Jack
Rosenberg in 13 annotated volumes, will you suspend all discussion on
rosenbergism until interested parties have had the opportunity to read
all 13 volumes?
Do you pre-value your ~conversation~-partners based on their breadth
of exposure to specific topics?
Does a Master ever gain insight from the queries of a Novice?
computeruser
Concretize. This poster is looking for something concrete, that will
give a full apreciation of the abstractions presented. Without the
solidifying of the abstract ideas they swirl around as floating
abstractions.
Futher without the richness and rigor required to concretize
abstractions, it is understandalbe why it is classified as gibberish.
If your discussion is the abstract idea of a chair bring it home for
the students and show them a chair. Concretize.
Serena Nordstrup
Serena Nordstrup wrote:
> "Put like that, it reminds me of the sort of tactics sometimes used to
> recruit people into attending rosenbergist indoctrinations. The
> recruiter cannot or will not tell the potential victims about the
> content of the prospective "seminar", but dangles the mystique of
> holistically and miraculously understanding all once the victim has
> ~completed~ the indoctrination and become "one of us". A deliberate
> Catch-22-style hook."
Zero responded:
> Put like that, it reminds me of your "Serena Nordstrup" view of the
> world and of others around you.
Unsurprisingly, you have perhaps started to recognize the individual
"voice" of Serena Nordstrup. Perhaps we can regard her as an
individual with a specific style or brand of je ne sais quoi. But in
terms of looking at content, it becomes less than helpful to say that
the utterances of person X remind one of the utterances of person X.
If on the other hand the utterances of person Y remind one of group Z
-- then we may have the basis of comparisons and fruitful insights...
Simpatice
Serena
Zero
"The only thoughtful post analyzing the video allowed so far is:"
Is a dessenting view AND a view that invalidates Werner Erhard the
only view you are able to view as thoughtful Caligari?
Would you be willing to say a view that whole heartedly lauded,
appreciated or praised a single idea that was associated with Werner
Erhard was thoughtful? I assert, no, you would not.
Zero
Can you please clarify, specifically what is the *it you are talking
about below? Are you talking about any old abstractions in general?
And, specifically who are you saying is classifying *it as
"gibberish"? And where and when is *it classified as "gibberish"? I
wasn't sure if you were talking about your own personal point of view
or some other person(s).
"....without the richness and rigor required to concretize
abstractions, it is understandalbe why *it is classified as
"gibberish."
computeruser
The "it" is the speech by Werner Erhard linked at the beginning of this
particular thread.
~~~Over an hour: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwQr_BJrHJ8
(The more things change the more ... stays the same.)
~~~
As far as backing up my assertion that his words are classified as
"gibberish" one would not have to look very far, are actually suggesting
that this isn't the broadly held view of his ramblings?
It is an opinion, or a personal point of view. And because it is widely held
it has become a reality, held by most people. For now I am keeping it in the
realm of a broad generality. Thanks for the opportunity to expand a bit.
For further information you could ask Serena Nordstrup. She can spot
Rosenberg gibberish.
Zero
"...As far as backing up my assertion that his words are classified as
"gibberish" one would not have to look very far,.. "
[what is "gibberish"?] and if it is close by where can I look to
substantiate your assertions?]
"...are actually suggesting that this isn't the broadly held view of
his ramblings?..."
[ I do not view them as ramblings and I would not know what broadly
held view is of people you have not named, I would have no way of
supporting that view. ]
"...It is an opinion, or a personal point of view...."
[ so it is just your opinion? ]
"....And because it is widely held it has become a reality,.."
[ it is widely held by "whom"? and when did it "become a reailty"?
Please substantiate your assertions if you would.]
"held by most people."
[ who are you referring to as "most people"? you and who? ]
".....For now I am keeping it in the realm of a broad
generality......"
[ Why is that? And what does "broad generality" mean? ]
Thanks for the opportunity to expand a bit.
[ Your welcome ]
Serena Nordstrup
Too kind.
But in this connection we might note a somewhat more formal early
association of Rosenberg with nonsense: "Trojan Horses: The Cults
Infiltrate the University" by Suzanne Gordon at http: //www.jstor.org/
stable/40177057 and http://www.jstor.org/pss/40177058 from "Change:
the magazine for higher learning", Vol. 10, No. 4 (April 1978), pages
48-51 (Published by Heldref Publications): "The two books at hand
investigate opposite ends of the personal-change spectrum, the
fanatically religious and the fanatically absurd. Frederick Sonntag,
exploring the Moonies and their beliefs - a pastiche borrowed from the
mysterious East and the moneyed West - seems unaccountably impressed.
R.D. Rosen, groping his way through Fisher-Hoffman, EST, and other
therapeutic mists, appears understandably upset. [...] The new success
mongers use scholars to cover their dubious notions with academic
gowns. Thus Werner Erhard's board of directors for EST boasts PhDs who
are teaching on the nation's campuses. [...] Scientologists, ESTers,
mystics of every ilk are trading on the university's weakness, both
financial and intellectual."
Zero
So, let's all do the math together here, the "broadly held view" that
is "held by most people" that has now "become a reality" of people who
think the presentation to students in the You Tube "Werner Erhard
speaks to Kennedy School students" at Harvard is "rambling" and
"gibbersish" = five people? (including two anonymous internet
phantom identities named "computeruser" and "Serena Nordstrup") ?
1. "computeruser"
2. "Serena Nordstrup"
3. Suzanne Gordon
4. Frederick Sonntag
5. R.D. Rosen
How does 5 people (including two of which are anonymous internet
phantom identities named "computeruser" and "Serena Nordstrup") =
"broadly held view" that is "held by most people" that has now "become
a reality"? I don't get it.
Serena Nordstrup
I've seen no evidence that persons 2 through 5 have ever viewed the
Harvard presentation let alone passed judgment on it, have you?
Do we have a straw man case here? Or just guilt by association?
Simpatice
Serena
Caligari
> @ Caligari,
>
> It looks to me that while you may have been dealing with the
> watched and thought about the "Werner Erhard speaks to Kennedy
> School students" video, Werner was not "dealing" with the
> was presenting information regarding those terms would he not have
> mentioned those terms? It seems to me that your post misrepresents
> what was said as you customise it into, and promote your own
> idiosyncratic view, and promote the terms you would work with and
> explain things with. I appreciate your comments as your personal take
> on the 60 minute presentation, but not as an accounting of what was
> being presented.
>
> Also can I ask you to expand on what or how or which issues you
> specifically saw presented as being "worthwhile" and how?
>
> And where do you see Werner (or the material) "ending" or Werner (or
> the material) claiming to "end somewhere"?
Causation/Determinism
----------------------------------
Werner Erhard at 5:15 in video: "The prevailing model of performance
says that performance is an effect. Most people don't talk about it
that way. But if you look at it carefully you come to the conclusion
that however it is that you're defining performance, it's an effect of
something. Where the cause of that effect is..."
From slide presented during above section of speech:
" The Prevailing Model of Performance
The prevailing model of performance says the performance is an effect,
where the cause of the effect is:
the internal characteristics and attributes of the
performer and/or
the external circumstances with which the performer is
confronted"
From slide during talk at 22:14 read by Werner Erhard in video:
"…This aspect of our worldview cascades through the current paradigm
of performance constraining and shaping our prevailing frame of
reference relative to performance, resulting in a 'cause/effect frame
of reference for human performance.' As a consequence, in the current
model performance is explained as the effect of some cause."
Causation: the relation of cause to effect; causality. (
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/causation )
Determinism: The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs,
including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable
consequence of antecedent states of affairs. (
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/determinism )
Causal Determinism: Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea
that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions
together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient, but first
became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the
eighteenth century. Determinism is deeply connected with our
understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory
ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action
on the other. In both of these general areas there is no agreement
over whether determinism is true (or even whether it can be known true
or false), and what the import for human agency would be in either
case. ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/ )
Free Will
---------
Werner Erhard speaking at 57:57 on video: "The new model says I have
something to say about the way what shows up in the clearing shows
up. I have something to say about the way it occurs for me."
at 59:16 "There's another kind of language called 'World to Word Fit',
so that the World matches my Word. For instance, if I say 'I promise
to deliver X to you by tomorrow morning.' Something exists that
didn't exist before I opened my mouth. I wasn't representing…what
came out of my mouth wasn't representing something. What came out of
my mouth was a promise. It brought something into the world that did
not exist before…"
Free Will:
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the
responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses
personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine
forces.
( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+will )
-- Caligari
Zero
I see no problem in you reinterpreting what was said by Werner Erhard
in his talk with the Kennedy students into terms you are familiar with
and perhaps work with and view your own life and life with, as long
as you represent it as that. You might find it useful and practical
and natural to do that. Excellent.
But what YOU are saying is just NOT what Werner Erhard said or was
talking about.
Werner Erhard said what he said and was talking about what he was
talking about and it was no accident that he said exactly what he said
and how he said it.
If you know even a little about Werner Erhard, you know he does not
choose or use terms lightly. So Caligari, Werner Erhard was not
saying what you seem to be representing he was.
Werner Erhard is offering, for other's consideration, the exact terms
and views he offered in the precise way he did.
If you want to get yourself invited to the Kennedy School to do a talk
on causation and determinism and free will, go for it. Use any words
you like.
Caligari
Werner clearly states that the current model of performance is a cause/
effect model:
"The prevailing model of performance says the performance is an
effect,
where the cause of the effect is..."
and contrasts that to a model where a person has choice on what
happens:
"The new model says I have something to say about the way what shows
up..."
This is a contrast between a objective model defined as purely
deterministic to a subjectivist model defined to contain free will.
BTW, I do know Werner and worked in his office and home at the time
for several years.
-- Caligari
Zero
Then you might know that Werner Erhard is very precise with the words
he chooses and uses and if Werner Erhard wanted to use the terms you
prefer to use, he would have used them. I have no issue with your
distortion and intepretation of that video as purely your own way of
dealing with what you saw in it for yourself.
"BTW, I do know Werner and worked in his office and home at the time
for several years."
-- Caligari-
Caligari
Werner uses the words,
"The prevailing model of performance says the performance is an
effect,
where the cause of the effect is..."
a model of effect is Werner's words.
Then Werner uses the words "The new model says I have something to say
about the way what shows
up..." A model where someone has something to say. Werner's words
of a model of something to say about what shows up, or choice on what
happens.
From dictionary:
Causation: the relation of cause to effect.
Free Will: voluntary decision
Werner's words are equivalent to a model of Causation to a model of
Free Will.
-- Caligari
Caligari
Let me make this clearer in logic:
A: Werner says: "The prevailing model of performance says the
performance is an effect, where the cause of the effect is..."
B: Dictionary: Causation: the relation of cause to effect.
This is a direct relationship, the dictionary definition (B) is the
same as Werner's words (A).
A: Werner says: "The new model says I have something to say about the
way what shows..."
B: Dictionary: Free Will: voluntary decision
This is a direct relationship, the dictionary definition (B) is the
same as Werner's words (A).
-- Caligari
Zero
You are incorrect. Werner Erhard's words are equivalent to Werner
Erhard's words.
And a model of causation to a model of free will is equivalent to a
model of causation to a model of free will.
Anything else is a distortion you are choosing to add to what was
actually said and intended and I assert you are knowingly doing this
to support some agenda you have.
Zero
There is no "direct relationship".
You are asserting that there is one, and I accept it as an assertion
you are making, but it is just your asssertion, no more no less. What
is actually so, is that the dictionary definition is the same as the
dictionary definition and the only thing the same as Werner Erhard's
words is Werner Erhard's words.
The rest you are distorting for your own purposes. Which I have no
issue with.
Caligari
Mysticism assigns special, unique meaning to the words of the mystic
that are illogical and irrational. It isn't an accident that Werner's
words are denied logical deduction since they are essentially
mysticism -- a doctrine of inner truth and choice, Subjectivism. When
the words are seen as equal to ideas that have been around since
theology and philosophy, they lose their special, mystical attributes.
-- Caligari
Zero
This is all what you are adding to it and based on your point of view
about the Kennedy video, est, Werner Erhard and the notion of
transformation. I do not add any "special, unique meaning to the
words of the mystic" or to Werner Erhard's words.
In the Kennedy video, Werner Erhard said what he said and he did not
say what he did not say. Werner Erhard's words may have value to some
or not. That you want to reframe and put your own personal spin on
another human beings words and then try to sell your reframe and spin
of another's words as if it is not a spin, is worthy of criticism IMO,
and why I spoke up.
Caligari
Zero's argument on how to understand what Werner says is rhetorical
tautology:
Tautology (rhetoric): A rhetorical tautology can also be defined as a
series of statements that comprise an argument, whereby the statements
are constructed in such a way that the truth of the propositions are
guaranteed or that the truth of the propositions cannot be disputed by
defining a term in terms of another self referentially. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric) )
Examples:
* "In the Kennedy video, Werner Erhard said what he said and he did
not say what he did not say. "
* "Werner Erhard's words are equivalent to Werner Erhard's words. "
* "Then you might know that Werner Erhard is very precise with the
words he chooses and uses and if Werner Erhard wanted to use the
terms you
prefer to use, he would have used them."
* "Werner Erhard said what he said and was talking about what he was
talking about and it was no accident that he said exactly what he
said
and how he said it.
If you know even a little about Werner Erhard, you know he does not
choose or use terms lightly. So Caligari, Werner Erhard was not
saying what you seem to be representing he was. "
Zero says that what Werner says is what Werner says and that others
are not saying what Werner says. It is a self-referential argument
that is meaningless; i.e., it does not reveal any truth in it's
proposition.
-- Caligari
Zero
You are now labeling what I am saying and doing, as if, what you are
saying it is, is what I am actually doing and not your spin/
interperetation of it:
"Zero's argument on how to understand what Werner says is rhetorical
tautology..."
What I am saying is, that what Werner says is what Werner says and
what others like yourself are saying about what Werner says is what
others like yourself are saying about what Werner says. AND THAT is
all I am saying. The rest you are adding.
Caligari
Anyone else find this tautologically humorous?
;)
Zero
I assert that the "anyone else" MOB you are seeking is easy to find in
alt.fan.landmark, just as the mob mentality is easy to find at the
Rick Ross message board. You interested in that kind of thing?
Caligari
> in the Kennedy video talk with the students and discussing YOUR
> disputes with you as things YOU are disputing, where you are at least
> up semi-up front, that it was only your point of view we are
> discussing. Hey, then the sky is the limit! Go for it.
The sky is not the limit, since the words Werner used are the same as
the definitions for Causality and Free Will. The argument I provide
is bound to logic. The argument you provide is rhetorical tautology,
defining something by itself. Rhetorical tautology provides
capriciousness to the person speaking. If Werner's words can't be
defined to what it means, then he can say anything and the sky is the
limit to his speaking.
-- Caligari
Zero
As your personal spin and interpretation and reframng of the video, I
have no problem with it or what you are saying.
And IF the "words Werner used are" exactly the same "as the
definitions for causality and free will", as you are claiming they are
then why even refer to or even use the definitions for causality and
free will? Does "the same" not mean the same? I don't get it?