Re: Conscience
- Subject: Re: Conscience
- From: kluoto@divi.com (Kurt Luoto)
- Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:50:06 -0800
On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 21:33:34, Dennis Strain <dstrain@cloudnet.com> wrote:
>
> At 06:32 PM 10/31/96 -0800, Kurt Luoto wrote:
> >Doing exactly what all of us do, being human.
> <and>
> >If adjusting one's map makes one a hypocrite, then that's
> >what we all are. Welcome to the club!
> >
> >-- Kurt Luoto
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> And just like magic, someone steps forward and proves my point!
>
> Thanks Kurt for being an honest hypocrite :-))
>
> Dennis Strain
> (Dennis thinks you answered too quickly, he is used to your
> "well_thought_out" answers)
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Well, Dennis, thankyou for the most interesting combination of
compliments! Yes, depending on what particular definition of
"hypocrite" you may be using, I probably qualify! And I always
strive to be as honest about my hypocrisy as I can. :-)>
So, to be honest, I did reply to your post rather quickly
(been awful busy here). But I'm not sure I would have responded
much differently even if I had given it more thought, at least
not on my first response. And I don't know what kind of response
you were looking for. May I review?
On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:16:04, Dennis Strain <dstrain@cloudnet.com> wrote:
>
> >Interesting isn't it - what difference would we notice in the way that
> >top notch NLPrs would operate if they were Jesuits, fundamentalist
> >Christians, Buddhists, Communists (each by birth, having imbued these
> >values from evey aspect of their early life exsperience)?
> >
> >Of course we (for example I) might say that NLP is value-free, or that
> >'it's' values are expressed in the presuppositions, but we're kidding
> >ourselves aren't we? Doesn't it reflect a world view from California in
> >the early '70s? - The assumptions that we don't even notice because only
> >certain kinds of people are attracted to nlp?
[I don't recall who wrote that message, but I'm inclined to agree. -- KL ]
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> Over the years I have known a number of people in various
> rather "rigid" disciplines, who have attached themselves
> to a particular new way of dealing with/manipulating/understanding
> (could go on and on but will not) themselves/others (etc.etc)
> that conflicted slightly with their "Primary" discipline.
>
> I have always been impressed (and amused) with the subtle
> way they make little exceptions here and there just to make
> it all acceptable to themselves so they can be comfortable
> with themselves.
>
> The terms "Have your cake and eat it too" and "Double Standards",
> comes to mind.
>
> [But then ... "If the world was not filled to the brim with
> hypocrites ... " ;-]
>
> Dennis Strain
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In Ericksonian fashion, your descriptions are artfully vague enough
that I readily filled in details from my own map. I certainly have
seen many people who make "little exceptions [presumably to their their
ostensible set of values and beliefs -- KL] here and there just to make
it all acceptable to themselves". Upon introspection, I find I do this
myself, as do most people I know. Of course there is variation as to
how often, how much, within which contexts, etc, but those examples
that readily come to my mind are all a matter of degree and do not
differ in kind. And I often respond to generalizations with ones of my
own. Hence the comments in my first response.
Of course, given the vagueness of your description, it's quite possbile
(even likely) that you were referring to something completely other
than what I took your words to refer to. Certainly you were looking
for another response. I misconstrued you as perhaps saying something
negative about these people you refer to. Perhaps you could give a
little more detail to your descriptions, or indicate what kind of
response you're looking for.
Regards.
-- Kurt Luoto