...Even if the company survives the fraud, it would require such restructuring that they can no longer operate the way the used to.
So what should one do when one comes to the realization that you actually had a choice in those past problems? Whats the next step, what questions should I ask?
Hi, I would like to ask a question to Pierre.. I am reflecting back on my problem scene, and I suddenly realized that I had different options, choices at that moment. The action I could have taken may have been outrageous, but nevertheless it would have forced the participant to really confront the problem.
It also might have destroyed the family as it was, since it would challenge the idea about the well-being of the family. In that sense its like exposing a company for its fraud...
Wouldn't the world be better off if it was driven by rational reason, than dogma and greed?
In the deep Amazon or from what is left of it today, there are hunter gathers that have a sustainable society and an abundance of resources for their needs, they take only what they need (the Amazonian dream as aposed to the American dream)...amd there is no monetary system nor lenders (system of enslavement). How many have lost there homes in the US just past months?
It was "rational reason" that developed all systems of trade as wekk as money, which facilitated trade. All people were hunter gatherers once. Many did not like it, especially as hunting skills and population growth created shortages of huntables and gatherables. Also there were scourges of disease and threats from predatory animals, like lions and tigers. "Rational reason", whatever that is, brought about civilization. Why not move to the Amazon if you think that's so great? Why not?
i was never a hunter gather, but I have raised animals for food, and maintain a vegetable and fruit garden.
"Why not move to the Amazon if you think that's so great? Why not? "
If I could get an internet connection that is as fast as the one I have I would consider it...i just can't go without my multilayer first person shooter games.
Well then my point has been made. Your pining for the simple life of the amazonian tribal was not a serious statement in so far as it represented a bona fide goal for you or your preferred civilization. Pierre claims to study ignorance. So do I. I wonder about why people make statements and claims that do not represent their true biases, motives and agendas. I believe that honest thinking and speaking bring benefits to civilization. Empiricism requires honesty. PS: Amazon full of insects.
I agree, but I think you lose people by attacking ONLY "Republicans." Do you really find Democrats to be much different? I do not. I do not follow any particular camp as I believe they no longer follow what they were based on, and maybe they were always corrupt? What say you? Thanx.
well as far as what Pierre discusses, what we should be concerned with is people who want to push religious ageandas and make money for themselves. Obviously the Democrats do not depart significantly from this in practice, but it is the definition of a classic republican, even by their own admission. What he is saying is that when personal gain is at the root of an ideology, we should question whether that ideology is actually meant for the greater good.
Ahem...personal gain is implicit in the word "ideology". No one sits around thinking up an "ideology" that does not have them gaining from it in some way. Generally, the thinker places him/;herself at the center of the ideology and holds themselves pure, blameless, just and good. All others who differ then differ in the direction of 'bad". This is the human condition and nothing can be done about it. Pragmatism focuses on prosperity only regardless of ideology - a more sensible approach.
When the dishes are cleared from the table and the coffee is served hot, then people can reflect on 'what it is that wants to know' The question is central to what it is to be a man and it comes down to What wants to know, can be experianced directly, not inferred or interpreted but faced directly.
Our problem is that we think we know the answer to that question, without the least understanding of what it entails and since we are mistaken we have to get rid of our ignorance. Curiously, that means we have to discover our own ignorance to be able to be free of the chains we are fettered to.
I wish to caution against sophistry and propaganda such as that of Pierre's. Mixing good bits with the rubbish is a known propaganda technique. The listener says to him/herself "yeah, that's right" to the good bits, which lowers the skeptical barriers of the clean mind and then the dirt is slipped in unnoticed. There is no YOU that is different than the animal YOU. To follow ages old rules for good behavior works out well for most of the homo sapiens. Deviate from those at your own risk.
could you define the word soul, and explain to me how you corrupt a sole, and what is the purpose of a sole.
javierbiz 1 year ago
pierre rox.
fckuvrymch 2 years ago
"Interested in ignorance" Beautifuly said.
justcruzin17 3 years ago
...Even if the company survives the fraud, it would require such restructuring that they can no longer operate the way the used to.
So what should one do when one comes to the realization that you actually had a choice in those past problems? Whats the next step, what questions should I ask?
jasonhayashi 3 years ago
Hi, I would like to ask a question to Pierre.. I am reflecting back on my problem scene, and I suddenly realized that I had different options, choices at that moment. The action I could have taken may have been outrageous, but nevertheless it would have forced the participant to really confront the problem.
It also might have destroyed the family as it was, since it would challenge the idea about the well-being of the family. In that sense its like exposing a company for its fraud...
jasonhayashi 3 years ago
Pierre is great! i like his video series. Thank you!
VenusSatanas 3 years ago
Please post More!!!
maloosecat123 3 years ago
A thought:
Wouldn't the world be better off if it was driven by rational reason, than dogma and greed?
In the deep Amazon or from what is left of it today, there are hunter gathers that have a sustainable society and an abundance of resources for their needs, they take only what they need (the Amazonian dream as aposed to the American dream)...amd there is no monetary system nor lenders (system of enslavement). How many have lost there homes in the US just past months?
Aegialeus 4 years ago
It was "rational reason" that developed all systems of trade as wekk as money, which facilitated trade. All people were hunter gatherers once. Many did not like it, especially as hunting skills and population growth created shortages of huntables and gatherables. Also there were scourges of disease and threats from predatory animals, like lions and tigers. "Rational reason", whatever that is, brought about civilization. Why not move to the Amazon if you think that's so great? Why not?
rh001YT 2 years ago
rh001YT
"All people were hunter gatherers once."
i was never a hunter gather, but I have raised animals for food, and maintain a vegetable and fruit garden.
"Why not move to the Amazon if you think that's so great? Why not? "
If I could get an internet connection that is as fast as the one I have I would consider it...i just can't go without my multilayer first person shooter games.
Aegialeus 2 years ago
Well then my point has been made. Your pining for the simple life of the amazonian tribal was not a serious statement in so far as it represented a bona fide goal for you or your preferred civilization. Pierre claims to study ignorance. So do I. I wonder about why people make statements and claims that do not represent their true biases, motives and agendas. I believe that honest thinking and speaking bring benefits to civilization. Empiricism requires honesty. PS: Amazon full of insects.
rh001YT 2 years ago
What does Pierre think about money in general?
stagetech101 4 years ago
I agree, but I think you lose people by attacking ONLY "Republicans." Do you really find Democrats to be much different? I do not. I do not follow any particular camp as I believe they no longer follow what they were based on, and maybe they were always corrupt? What say you? Thanx.
Aetherus7 4 years ago
well as far as what Pierre discusses, what we should be concerned with is people who want to push religious ageandas and make money for themselves. Obviously the Democrats do not depart significantly from this in practice, but it is the definition of a classic republican, even by their own admission. What he is saying is that when personal gain is at the root of an ideology, we should question whether that ideology is actually meant for the greater good.
mcin3260 3 years ago 2
Ahem...personal gain is implicit in the word "ideology". No one sits around thinking up an "ideology" that does not have them gaining from it in some way. Generally, the thinker places him/;herself at the center of the ideology and holds themselves pure, blameless, just and good. All others who differ then differ in the direction of 'bad". This is the human condition and nothing can be done about it. Pragmatism focuses on prosperity only regardless of ideology - a more sensible approach.
rh001YT 2 years ago
The Noblest game is to understand yourself, its a process, and the best game in town.
-Lisa
openingmind 4 years ago
Yes ... and the world would be a wonderful place.
Openingmind ... is really opening minds.
TodMcInerney 4 years ago
He leaves the quest of wisdom to others??
Oh dear...
Who are these others and do they have their own talks on youtube?
Also if Pierre is only smart enough to study ignorance, what the hell am i supposed to study? Pokemon?
gedmaximum 4 years ago
Gedmaximum, you missed the point entirely. Perhaps I have as well? Let's state it a bit differently, as has been done before... "Man, know thyself."
Aetherus7 4 years ago
Pierre writes:
When the dishes are cleared from the table and the coffee is served hot, then people can reflect on 'what it is that wants to know' The question is central to what it is to be a man and it comes down to What wants to know, can be experianced directly, not inferred or interpreted but faced directly.
openingmind 4 years ago
Our problem is that we think we know the answer to that question, without the least understanding of what it entails and since we are mistaken we have to get rid of our ignorance. Curiously, that means we have to discover our own ignorance to be able to be free of the chains we are fettered to.
-Pierre
openingmind 4 years ago
I wish to caution against sophistry and propaganda such as that of Pierre's. Mixing good bits with the rubbish is a known propaganda technique. The listener says to him/herself "yeah, that's right" to the good bits, which lowers the skeptical barriers of the clean mind and then the dirt is slipped in unnoticed. There is no YOU that is different than the animal YOU. To follow ages old rules for good behavior works out well for most of the homo sapiens. Deviate from those at your own risk.
rh001YT 2 years ago
Interesting.
Is it because conditions of (right and wrong) vs (what can be gotten away with).
cool70200 4 years ago