LoBagola

A little background before I update. Before this thread I had already lied about an interview (for the same firm, but they have multiple). And lying about being sick when I wasn't made me uncomfortable. So an update. We have one on one meetings every month to review our performances. I had one on the 18th (so while already posting here). I'm still confused, morally speaking. I don't know what's right. But I reasoned that the payoff of telling the truth would be a great lesson in human nature. Was the world and are people really as bad as I assume? And if I do lose my job over it then it would really suck but it'd just give me a painfully motivating kick to pack up my bags and move to another city with more work. I didn't plan to do it, I was still thinking about it. But some feeling during the meeting with my manager caused me to tell her that the last time I called in sick I was lying, and that I'd actually been interviewing for a big firm (that was the third interview, and I posted here when I knew a fourth was coming). She laughed and now I'm making up for it with over-time. I didn't get that other job so I'm still at the call center. Upside is I've added a few positive points to my view of people (see my other thread on moments counting in sense of life). My manager can be reasoned with. I now think I can look for work elsewhere comfortably I feel somewhat more valued then before

Yes, I agree. If the waves are slow, deliberate, precise thinking then the current and moon represent everything else our subconscious integrates without being consciously checked. It would be impossible to be deliberate and conscious about everything — "the daily barrage of new ideas" — because we don't have enough time. You've given a good example of trends in personality. The implications of seemingly minor decisions amounting to something significant? I can't yet draw a principle from this. If anything I'd start thinking about why abstraction is so important in engineering a bridge— which I use to cross with my life — into future a time. Also it motivates me in that I feel that I can change, I can perhaps improve my view of the world, people and maybe even see it manifested so deeply in my character that it becomes a part of my mannerisms.

I think we can better motivate ourselves to take interest in thinking abstractly about morality by understanding, on a much more intuitive, concrete level how it relates to sense of life. I think I've been able to do this and consequently have taken much greater interest in morality and introspection. I'll give a simple example. Last week, while rushing to a meeting, I reversed into a blind-spot pole in a high-rise parking lot. I'm going to tell you that had I moved out of home at age eighteen (instead of 26) I would likely have not reversed into that pole. Hear me out. Every moment you spend doing the wrong thing (morally) you accumulate and internalize an attitude, behavior and train yourself to mentally focus on the incorrect aspects of your perceptual and conceptual field (the standard being reality). I bought my car from my parents. It's a nice car. I did legitimately buy it (at a discounted price, but still a reasonable one). But did I really earn it? I did, but not in the fullest sense of the term. Had I been paying rent and trying to make my own way I probably wouldn't have bought that car. And if I did buy a car every accident would hurt so much more: a $300 repair bill would really hurt emotionally, because that's a lot of my time in work hours. It hurts less when I'm at home. So after your first accident your level of alertness and care for your car would drastically increase in the situation that your not at home vs. the one that you are. I was rushing to a meeting, yes; but, subconsciously my sense of priorities and what I choose to focus on is vastly different in both scenarios. Every moment I spent at home also helped develop my personality. When your sense of the value of money is determined by an income you make while living at home, your sense of the value of time is also affected. What I find interesting and worth my time would be much different had I moved out at eighteen. Without even knowing what it is I'd find interesting, I'd say it would be better because it's based on the requirements of reality: needing to earn a living, make your own way in the world, not pretending to feel a love that you don't feel. And with that latter point my approach and attitude to relationships would change and so would my friends. This is just one example. I can come up with so many more where I feel like I'm clearly seeing how small decisions compound throughout your life and result in the sum total of who you are. I pick-up on subtle feelings and can often connect them to a string of events in my life now. This is motivating. It makes you want to study ideas, to learn as much as you can and be as good as you can. Experiences, feelings, knowledge that you would have never even conceived of opens up to you when you step down this path.

For those that are interested, I'll be update this later with my decisions and the events and psychological state of mind that follow.

Also in telling the truth I open up a greater range of potential, unforeseen outcomes. For example, like agreeing to some deal of exchanging over-time and that leading my to land the job because the interviewer at the other job is impressed. AND even if it goes badly I do accumulate a heap of experiential data which which I can then use later by either confirming my projections of possible events, or starting a journey to correct them, which may carry over into similar, but unrelated, social situations. Sure, I'll suffer a little over the holidays and be stressed out, so trying this is higher immediate risk than lying, but it might also be better for gaining experience and knowledge long-term.

Of those that lied to you to get leave, do you think it was immoral (not in their self-interest) for them to do so? If i like to acquire a value am I not committing fraud? I agreed to work in this environment in exchange for payment and so by lying to acquire a value (time off work) I have set the precedent that my bosses, contractors need to be manipulated for me to be productive. In regards to context, I think it could matter. If I'm living in an anarchic state, and have been locked up in a cell by some rogue group and have the chance to escape by lying to a random prison guard (who might be innocent) I would do it. There I'm acquiring a value (freedom / life) by lying. But could I also say I'm defending a value, life? When I think about specific situations I can't think of any right now where I would lie to acquire a value. That is the way I've formulated the principle behind honesty combined with trading — don't lie to acquire a value. In this case am I protecting or advancing interests? To me protecting would mean maintaining what I currently have. Advancing would mean increasing my current lot (career). So in this case I would be attempting to advance interests by lying. Good outcomes - I get time off and make up for it with overtime - In my final interview for the other job they ask me about work and I tell them about the honest relationship and how I'm making up for the lost work time by helping my current employer with overtime - Even if I don't get the other role I won't lose my work AND I feel comfortable with my boss, I don't feel like I need to lie, I feel like I can be open and in general I'll feel better in that environment, which is a tough environment as is. -I'll start slowly internalizing the idea that people can be talked to with reason. And no matter what my current cynical view of others my projections may be totally off and it would be very nice for reality and another person to correct my views here to something more positive Bad -My boss can't help me and I have to quit -I got to the second interview and tell them I had to quit and they don't understand why I made such a big fuss about another interview and quit my previous job. They'll view me as idealistic and impractical and not someone they want working there. -I have to quit and don't land the other job. I'll have a terrible Nov-Jan period because I'll be unemployed and stressed out rather than focused on growing, learning, studying, enjoying Question. If the boss tells me to just call in sick, would I quit then? Because if I call in sick I'm still lying to the contractor. This is an unlikely, but also terrible scenario I'm projecting.

So in your scenario rules were broken. Does that mean someone telling you they were sick when they actually interviewed or you giving sick leave to someone you knew was interviewing because you couldn't grant it any other way(and then taking on the responsibility yourself for the lie)? I accept that you could be right: why would I work for a company who can't get their shit together and give me one day off? The only answer I can think of now is I really need to pay bills, save. I find it difficult to project further potential consequences of taking a policy of lying in this situations. I agree. I expect, with high probability, needing to quit; but, that doesn't invalidate the principle that I shouldn't lie in order to acquire a value (time-off work). And if I don't follow principles I'm utlimately riding on whims. What I am really struggling with is situations like this, where it is not at all clear to me how being honest (not your definition of honesty JASKN) is to my benefit.I don't mean, in being honest, tell her I'm going to a job interview, I can of course say to my boss that I need time off and I don't wish to share the reasons — I mean not calling in sick when I'm not. Another thing I was thinking about. Say I discuss this with my manager and she tells me to just call in sick. Do I quit then? because I have to lie to my contractor and the upper level managers will be lied to in order to acquire a value.

Calling in on the day that I have the interview and telling them I've got an interview so I can't come to work would be worse than quitting because I'd probably be fired in that case. Calling in sick would be fine, but I'd be lying again to keep/attain a value: work.

I’m good at answering phones, but so is almost everyone else. I’m good at showing up to work, but so are 1/5 new recruits they have. I’m there to pay bills, study and figure out what career I want to pursue. This is the best I managed to find so far. I disagree that these are the only two alternatives. How is it not possible to be a good worker and still not lose my work? The manager has to meet numbers on a board. It "looks" worse for her to give random leave to any employee for time off then to lose one in natural turnover. I’m trying to concretise some of the possibilities involved in the impact on my character. The first thing I think of is the accumulation of experiences where I deal with man’s rational faculty. For example, I’ve made certain assumptions about what might happen yes. I think they’re likely — but they could also be wrong. If I approached my boss and told her the truth, and said: this job interview is really important to me, I haven’t looked for work elsewhere, I still think I can add value and here’s why. What if she found a way to let me off, or even offered to conspire by telling me to call in sick (since she’s somewhat powerless here). Now I have accumulated an experience where I appealed to the rationality of someone and they responded positively. The accumulation of those experiences over a life time WILL impact my sense of life. I know it from self-introspection. Does my reasoning make sense here? To keep me during this busy period rather than have me quit. But my manager’s interest do not always coincide with the contractors interests (who hired me) and with the companies interests. As far as my manager goes she can’t be giving out leave willy-nilly during this period, otherwise she gets the hammer. From my understanding of the system, it is actually better for her to let me quit and lose an employee in “natural turnover” rather than give me leave. It’s a high turnover business. This may be true here but the point is I accepted the role, they are paying me money and I do need to pay the bills. So to lie I’m lying to acquire a value which I would (likely) not otherwise get: time off. The other option is telling the truth and potentially being in a position unemployment again. These probabilities make it harder for me because I just don’t know for sure what will happen in either scenario. I know that’s what principles are for, to help us think over ranges of time (and handle probabilities), but in this case it’s incredibly difficult for me to really understand and feel it’s true that telling the truth is better, but I am trying to explore that possibility. I did ask them for time off before and they essentially said no. That's honest. The problem here is I can’t forsee the many impact this might have in the future. E.g. perhaps in a future interview someone might ask me why I had to quit that job and I will tell them the reason, and they’ll find my honesty impressive. Or I could just be unemployed for the next few months after quitting and not finding work. I asked for time off before for “personal reasons” (2 weeks in advance) and when pressed I said “I really need to help my father with something”. They gave me two hours off work in the afternoon (and that was locked in only the day before) AND this was a period that was way less busy. Lucky that interview was teleconference, in the afternoon, and pushed out by an hour. Obviously if it’s a day time interview which I have to fly for, there’s no way I can wait till the day of the interview and hopefully get a few hours off. So that’s what I’m worried about that it’ll come down to “I just can’t give you the time off” and then I’ll just have to call in and quit which will be a really terrible situation if I don't land that other job.

You cannot get time off work during the nov-jan period for "personal reasons". You must be specific. I don't get paid for time I call in sick and I don't see what difference it would make as either way I'm lying to get a value (time off work to interview elsewhere). my boss physically can't allocate me time off because her computer won't let her. She could "escalate" it to someone higher in the corporate chain but then she needs more than "personal reasons". This will very likely come down to lie or quit which seems drastic and I'm not quite sure how telling the truth would be good for me here.

I'm starting to really appreciate and sense how having a validated, integrated morality internalized would help you become not only better, but more confident and happy. When there is uncertainty there is anxiety pressing on any action you chose to take. You take the action you chose less boldly. And if you're right you should be bold. I'm still at the stage where I feel a moral/practical split in many areas of my life. It's a ring of gyges type split. It feels more urgent for me to get to the root of this now as I'm starting to see how more and more choices I make will depend on my understanding of these ideas. Here is just one recent event. I'm currently working at a call center. I stopped looking for work after I got this job back in August and have spent my time outside of work studying, exploring and cultivating passions. The work serves the role of providing me income but it is not what I see myself doing for a career — that's what I'm figuring out. In the mean time it provides me with income, pays bills and doesn't consume all my time. Recently I was invited to interview for a nicer job overseas. It's the perfect fit. It's the type of work that won't consume all my time and pays really well for what I'll do. But here's the thing. The call centre is really busy at the moment and they won't give me any time off work to go to these interviews. I've had one interview already which I had to fly for. I called in sick — so I lied saying I didn't feel well so I could interview elsewhere. I'm going to have another. As far as I can see it my options are: Don't lie. Quit before the next interview so I can fly interstate again for the next interview. In this case I'll be left jobless and may not even land the other job. It's a very big, bureaucratic company and my boss is also just somewhat of a pawn. She needs to meet "targets" setup by a computer. And she won't be allowed to let me off for leave. So if I tell her I have this job interview I will be putting her in a bad position because even if she wants me to go and succeed (I'm sure she would) she can't tell me to call in sick and she also isn't allowed to give me an unpaid leave day. Lie. Call in sick for the second time. No one can do anything about it or prove anything. If I get the new job great. If I don't get it then I keep working at this call center. I know it's not as simple as that. The consequences might not just be loss of a job but other, less easily seen consequences to the development of my character. By the way I've had this same issue with downloading music. And it's something I've been unsure of for a very long time. My approach has been to just keep studying epistemology and keeping these type of problems "mentally noted" so that by the time I have the tools to work through them properly I'll remember to.

Does anyone know who developed this as a standard of proof for establishing guilt? I've tried Google searching, but I cannot link those three up to any historical figure.

I'd like to give myself a grounding in some of these subjects and then later to move onto philosophy. I know Leonard advocates them as the fundamental subjects of study for a child's education. You study history to learn about man as he was beyond your immediate perceptual surroundings and cultural atmosphere; you study physics to learn about nature; maths is useful in understanding epistemology and developing a method of thought; literature is for the study of conceptual art which serves to unify all knowledge and allows one to ground the abstract in the real world with emotion. I've been thinking about how I want to approach the study of these topics. Because the subjects are broad, deep and difficult I'm not yet to sure what kind of goals to set myself. There is a limit to my time outside of work. So far my only ideas are to selectively pick books from strongbrains.com and maybe listen to some ARI lectures too (on history and literature). Has anyone tried to do this themselves? What kind of curriculum did you develop and how did you go about it? Where did you find support?

I'm looking for the following: "The Music of Rachmanioff" by Stephen Siek "Melody in Music" by Stephen Siek and Alan August. And all of Craig Biddle's lectures. I understand he had one on value hierarchy and applying the concept to sorting one's life priorities. Why were the music lectures deleted from the store? Why are they not available elsewhere?

The Romantic Manifesto, "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art” p. 16 What does the "it" in "analyze it" refer to? The art work itself, or the pleasure derived from contemplating the art? I don't see why one would experience analysis of an art work that elicits a response as possessing the quality of an attack on one's own identity. When I think about the times I experience pleasure I do like to analyze why. Not in the moment, but later. Why did I derive pleasure from that? But I don't think I've ever experienced this as an attack on my identity. Do you think this has any connection to sense of life? Because I can remember many specific instances where people have told me they don't like to break down and understand a personality, they don't want to know what specific qualities the other person possess which elicits a positive response; they just want to experience it and have it be "mysterious". I'm not sure how relevant this is but I've also heard the process of trying to understand someone with reason experienced as "trying to put me into an equation".

Recently, and by chance, I've met 4 separate, unconnected people who've read Ayn Rand. Three did not have a philosophy background or much of an interest in it. One did, and has an interest in history/linguistics. ALL of them, when asked what they thought of her work (specifically, Atlas Shrugged) said it was "too long", and they thought "she could have said what she needed in a much shorter book." I tried to probe further, but I didn't get anywhere, and it wasn't something I was going to insist on being answered. So as someone who's still studying Rand's work, I find this strange. I read Atlas Shrugged twice, and there are many parts I can say where I don't think I understand them with the full clarity. Others I vaguely understand, and some not at all. So I find it confusing that someone who's not well versed in philosophy or takes up no issue with her ideas explicitly would say "she could have made it much shorter and said the same thing." Or the same for her essays. Has anyone else noticed this?

Does anyone here use this to keep track of books their reading? I'd like to track what you're reading, if your on it..

A few people this week have said something similar to me. One that he doesn't like to explain or verbalize an emotion because he thinks it loses its insight. I interpreted this as he thinks its rubbish so he chooses not to think about it — but maybe that's not what he means. I'm not sure. Someone else I spoke to told me she doesn't want to intellectualize because her emotions lose their beauty. So if she sees a sunrise she doesn't want to start thinking about what she learned in science about rays, trajectory etc So I researched and found this: From: http://www.psychpage.com/learning/defenses.html How can one remove emotion from emotional experiences? Maybe what its describing is a process of rationalizing? but that can't be, because rationalization is a separate entry. Is something legitimate being described here, because I can't relate to it. If I try to understand why I like someone, it only makes me more confident in the emotion, and therefore more present and focused with the person.

"the more people who believe something the more likely it's to be true" I know that if one billion people believe in something, that doesn't change the likelihood of that something existing or being true. But then something in me fights this. If I think of two mutually incompatible scientific theories: one with 10 supporting scientists, another one with one supporting scientist. Which one would I likely side with, assuming I can't understand the research? I would side with the one with 10 supporting scientists as I'd assume it is likely to have "more validity" — am I contradicting myself if I do this? I can look at that statement and say: it's wrong. But I don't feel convinced, and worry that I may be missing something, and I think I may be acting on it in a few areas of my life. It's quite strange.

In my mind verbal learning requires a slow, more precise form of conscious thought, whereas non-verbal is something done subconsciously. If I'm learning to internalize certain dance patterns for a given beat, I don't think the speed at which I do so is that much dependent on my conscious thinking skills.

I'm glad you brought this example up. That is exactly what I struggle with. Out of curiosity how did you begin in addressing what she said? what are her premises? "Rand could never have foreseen the level of greed we've reach in today's world! Totally not applicable." It's like there's too much implicit in this and I don't know what.

FWIW I bookmarked this almost a year ago, and back then I couldn't quite express what it was that hurt me so much. Now, many months of study and thought later, I could somewhat.

So a while ago I read an article which I bookmarked, for reasons other than the author intended, I'm sure. I saw something which made me think. After he graduated from the School of Mines, Saunders went to work for an oil-exploration company in the jungles of Sumatra…They worked four weeks on and two weeks off and in the down time would be shuttled in helicopters to the nearest city, 40 minutes away, and then from there fly to Singapore. .... I was REALLY angry reading this. I know that subconsciously I've identified things the author is saying indirectly but I'd like to understand how to deconstruct this type of thought process explicitly. I've seen it used elsewhere and I will often hear it about random subjects or people. I think conceptualizing whatever this is, will be powerful, because then I can begin to understand and think about it in my mind. So here's my attempt to conceptualize what I felt. Is there some name in polemics for what the author is doing here? that pisses me off. That one clause. Maybe its because he implies surprise, which requires understanding, which contradicts the level of thought displayed in saying he was an "Ayn Rand kind of guy." It's unclear as to whether all American get to places by whining? or maybe his friends? or maybe his family did? Not sure. He doesn't specify. But if Americans are doing so well compared to those in Asia, and they got there by whining, maybe what the author means by "whining" is the secret to material success at building wealth? (relates to my post on lazy propositions as being destructive = http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=2727) He clearly has not given the topic much thought at all. I have no idea what a "kind of Ayn Rand guy" is. Your left wondering whether he read one book, two, maybe none. You have no idea what to do with this phrase mentally. Original piece is here. Suitable titled. http://www.salon.com/2013/01/19/ayn_rand_is_for_children/

Yeah, I was. I just thought your post was spot on and agreed that psychology is definitely a factor, so added some of my own thoughts.

I think psychology plays an enormous role, and it may even be responsible for the gaps I've witnessed in people's ability to learn. Psychology to me would be whatever core beliefs are driving you (so philosophy then...). Take two online poker players: A gets in 100,000 hands for the month. B gets in 100,000 hands. Both love the game. But A focus seems somewhat split. He has some units of his crow used up on thinking about other things (pushed on him by his emotional reactions). So A is operating with the poker learning snail epistemology (2 units at a time). B is operating at or near the poker learning crow (6 units of information). Therefore A might get 50 units of learning from the 100,000 hands, B might get 150 units of learning out of them. Of course it's more complicated than that, and the progress could be non-linear etc but that's a basic model of my thought.