PatrickC

Hi Mishelle, glad to hear you are still probing this topic. I found a video with a former KGB propagandist that defected to the west.. He discusses at some length about his experience in India and with western hippies. Not sure it necessarily discounts the new age ideas, but I found it interesting how the Soviets attempted to use this thinking as a means to subvert western thinking. A little long unfortunately, but if you had time it might interest you. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4]

I have struggled with the UPB book. You are one of three people I know of who claim to understand it. Can you please give me the elevator pitch version? If it does not belong in this thread, please start a new thread or email me or comment on my feeble UPB FAQ attempt at http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2013/01/upb-faq.html. Here is a great blog that attempts to break down UPB rather well, that frankly explains UPB better than Stef even.. No offense intended Stef [] Economics Junkie is a member on the boards as well. http://www.economicsjunkie.com/universally-preferable-behaviour-a-rational-proof-of-secular-ethics/

Just to point out of course, that I may have no experience of diving into a fire. However, if I had been trained as a fireman, I may be able to calculate the risk better. Much like an experienced venture capitalist, who may well lose 50% of his investment, but his experience allowed him to earn a 1000% profit overall on the other 50%. Of course one has to put into perpective, that the loss of life (father or husband), is a far worse calamity than losing 10% of ones overall capital.

This is an interesting point, except a venture capatalist will always have hedged his or her bets. They will only assign a portion, say 10% of their total capital to such a risk. But their experience will tell them (at least a succesful venture capaitalist), that they have laid bets that will mean that some of those bets will pay off. Venture capitalism is a well calculated risk. Angel investing is perhaps more riskier even, but the same rules apply I think. Again, if I have no experience of venture capitalism and losing my investment (100%), then why I am in the business? It would seem for those that are and in this poistion of arbitrary loss, lack empathy for themselves I think.

This is a good point Robin, which perhaps points to some of the subjectivity around the topic. Courage in a situation in which you faced retribution in the past, but now are able to carefully assess the situation rationally, is I think an act of personal virtue. Courage diving into a burning car might well be an act of recklessness. EDIT - This is why I consider empathy a key skill in attaining virtue.

He certainly was. He reminded me of some of the discussions I had with my uncle whilst he was living in Hungary. He used to sell black market goods to the Soviet troops, who were on a permanent ration of black bread (horrid stuff). When the discussion turned to the KGB I remember him remarking that some of the officers would tell him, 'oh don't worry about those guys, they are too busy swilling vodka down the necks of western dignitaries'. He eventually escaped Hungary and I think he was helped by some of these officers if I recall right. Anyway, thanks for the information, fascinating stuff.

I broadly agree that virtue can and often is subjective. Honesty and courage being a bedrock of course. But as I said earlier, I think that developing our skills with empathy can help inform us better. Whether that means we all experience virtue differently, well I'm not entirely convinced. But since it can't be scientifically explained, I guess I remain agnostic on that point for now.

Well you have embellished on my original thought experiment by adding a burning car. However, I think you've highlighted rather well the mitigating circumstances that can change the outcome considerably. An act of bravery like the one you describe, if poorly judged, could very well become an act of stupidity. People are not going to think any less of you, if you judged that situation as too dangerous and called for emergency services instead. At least rational people won't. EDIT - Virtue isn't solely dependent on how we just treat others, it's also how we treat ourselves I think.

Yes, I certainly agree with you here. I was probably being facitious with my earlier point.

Just to be an annoying devils advocate DT. Being obedient to a well established authority that gave great insight and empirical evidence that improved a persons life, say like nutrition. Then you could argue that obedience was a virtue, or at least led to a virtuous act. However, perhaps I'm pushing the boundaries of the definition of the term here somewhat. []

Yes, I was under the impression that APA was more an explanation of where virtue came from, but that it does indeed become highly subjective and often dependent on mitigating factors. This makes it hopelessly unscientific of course, which I think Stefan may have alluded too in a podcast (way back 2010 if I recall right). Which might seem to echo some of your thoughts on it perhaps. An interesting conundrum I faced whilst trying to better understand UPB in terms of APA was a situation in which a person came across an accident victim of a hit and run incidence. I imagined it (wrongly) to be a UPB violation for this person to ignore this victim and carry on with their business, when actually it was just an opportunity to show virtue, an APA action. People would be rightly suspicious, even outraged (if the victim died) of such a person, even though they had not violated UPB. I guess virtue comes down to having a deep empathy and using that skill for a strong sense of efficacy with oneself and the people we meet and integrate with. I know that doesn't necessarily answer your question about objectivity. It's just been my own experience as I've become more empathic myself.

I found this fascinating. Can you recommend any journals or books about Yuri Bezmenov or similar (re propaganda) in particular.

I do understand that that is where it currently resides. I also believe that Stef has expressed some dislike for this and that it seems dispariging to classic forms of goodness or virtue. This may be because it is impossible to define an objective "UPB good", or because it hasn't been thought of yet. Hey Snipes, I was wondering if you might be able to point me towards Stefs critcisms of APA. I am personally unfamiliar, unless I overlooked something.

I'd have to agree.. Very funny chap.

In terms of UPB, you need to examine the areas Stefan discusses on aesthetics. Aesthetically Preferable Actions (APA) is how he coins it. UPB is fairly straight forward for most people, but it's within APA that the challenges for enhanced virtue come. Excellent question by the way.

Yea, I don't wish to debate semantics myself. I think we have both laid out our positions fairly well. I disagree, but I think you know why of course. However I did find the discussion an interesting and productive way (at least for me) to find empathy with people. Perhaps that is a leftfield way of looking at it for some, but I certainly appreciated the challenge.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQTeQ5yLNXIJZUbsjRoEErDwCvu_2wCAJUp7dmMS4Wc4ZaTeb5S3w Not that a quote should prove a persons point. But I thought this ladies history with slavery was quite illuminating all the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Tubman

I'm not sure I'm missing your point. Where we differ I think, is on the definition of slavery. So perhaps you consider the term slavery to be too strong for those that only have to hand over a significant portion of their income under the threat of force. Whilst enjoying the rest that the world has to offer. Personally I find it a wholly appropriate term to use myself. But if it is a question of differing definitions then I can live with that and accept your own definition that we are not slaves under 'direct and physical constraint'. Although it does beg the question, 'when does a man stop being a slave'. Is it when he has complete control over his life and his property, or is it when his master stops beating him, but still demands he give him half of his labour in return for that freedom.

Yes, I believe he was active on the boards some years back. Not sure whether they actually debated verbally together or not, it seems like they didn't. This was a recent post about his criticisms of UPB that another listerner brought up. http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/35139.aspx

I couldn't help but notice this comment. It seemed a rather harsh and insulting term to use against yourself. It really isn't your fault that people aren't listening to you. Their words, not my own, but thank you. I do probably blame myself at an unconscious level. Ah, thanks for the correction. I didn't acknowledge the quotes around the word. I wanted to add that you have my sympathies in this regard. I recall the huge urge to speak with anyone and everyone I met in my life. I think I convinced two people in total. The rest was just a bed wetting cluster fuck experience frankly. I decided some time ago that my own time and well-being was far more valuable than being wasted on these 'statards' (my words). Once I decided to focus on my own personal happiness and building great relationships with people that got it, life became much more fulfilling. As a result of concentrating on my own needs I have become more surgical in my approach towards others. Often people will now ask me questions and I decide whether I want to answer them or not. It's your life DT, not others. I hope that helps.

What a fascinating thought Nathan, I'd never considered that before. But it makes complete sense. I think STer's point is not that people are not unfree, but that they are free enough to experience a lot of what the world offers with little hindrance (or so it feels for them). Certainly they will look everywhere else before they equate govt with any hinderance they experience. Of course he can correct me if I mistook his reasoning.

I couldn't help but notice this comment. It seemed a rather harsh and insulting term to use against yourself. It really isn't your fault that people aren't listening to you.

I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that people generally don't see govt in quite the same way as the anarchist and libertarian do. However, the state has poured enormous amounts of resources into propaganda over the years, Juxtaposed with the freedom to choose our lifestyles and hold onto at least 50% of our wealth. The state has engineered a magnificently sophisticated form of slavery that allows the average westerner to suspend their belief. I was curious though and had this thought experiment. Do you think the slaves in the cotton fields were aware of their slavery? It has always been portrayed as though they did. But I wonder. I'm certain that particular slaves had elevated status, due to their skillset etc. This would have caused them to reconsider freedom, which may have diminished that status for them. Just a thought.

So are you saying that if someone makes claims about my personality, it is counter-productive for me to be compelled to defend myself? can you explain further No I'm not. You did defend yourself at points, as I mentioned. It was just that that your defense of your posting (picture) wasn't particularly relevant by this point. It was perhaps a triggered emotional defence you may have been experiencing at this point. I guess I'm saying you didn't defend yourself enough. The empirical approach would (I think) have been to say, 'ok, so you are making accusations of me, which is kind of annoying, given you haven't provided much evidence, can you explain where you got this idea from and help me understand where I may be reacting to my history?

Hey Antony, thanks for making it public, so I could read it. I had a number of thoughts on this. Of course, don't take my word on it, these are just my observations for what it's worth. But I hope it helps. I was curious why she made that particular comment about 'parent blaming', given the context of the picture you had posted. It didn't seem particularly relevant when you were merely making a moral point about the way some parents make excuses for their abuse. Although given that she seems to have written a book which discusses 'parent blaming' then I suppose the picture may have reminded her of something in her past and she jumped the gun on an emotional trigger perhaps. I also found it interesting that she wrote this book under a pseudonym, as a means to protect her family. Presumably the family that abused her. That doesn't have to mean anything of course, but I think it's interesting all the same. However, she did eventually make some quite specific personal accusations of you. This just seems all kind of laden with shaming tactics. Not particularly helpful to you, if you were actually doing what she was accusing you of. Let's say if you had been doing something unconscious, then a more gentler approach with getting you to focus on that unconscious part would have been more profitable and indeed charitable way of helping you understand better. In fairness she does later apologise for this, perhaps realising her approach had been a bit harsh, which it was by the way. Unfortunately she doesn't give you any insight into that harshness or even admit to it. Which consciously or unconsciously (from experience) is all kinds of annoying of course. Highly speculative on my part perhaps, but this could suggest that she is trying to protect her own parents. I could be wrong of course, since she didn't go into detail about how she handled her own experience of parent blaming. However, her approach thus far wasn't entirely about helping you and was perhaps serving some other purpose for her. That being said, I found it interesting that you wrote such a long and detailed response to her accusations. Not that I think there was anything particularly wrong with what you said, as it all made sense. But given what she had said to you (from my previous observations), I found it to be a little out of context. You did call her out correctly on the poor way she approached you (incompassionate) and you later pointed out how unhelpful she had been. But you then proceeded to defend your reasoning for posting the picture. For me at least, any reasoning about your picture posting was off topic by now, because she had made some significant claims about you personally. I want to add before I go any further that I'm sorry to hear about the hell your mother put you through as a child, you have my biggest sympathies indeed. With a re-iterated caveat that these are just my thoughts Antony. I'm not going to claim that they are necessarily relevant to you of course. I think it is definitely true that some people can 'parent blame' as a temporary means to ease the pain of their history. I have seen people do this over the years from time to time. I certainly had a period of it myself too. It is well deserved blame as well, but if used as a shield against real insight can be an awful burden to bear. I believe Alice Miller discusses this point, but I'm at a loss to remember exactly where right now. However, it was interesting that you defended your position by describing the abuse you received from your mother rather than asking her what made her believe what you were doing was unhelpful for you. Not that you needed to ask her anything, you could have always ignored it as baseless of course. But since you didn't I think exploring your responses further might prove very valuable for you perhaps. I hope that made sense and be sure to let me know otherwise.