News: Annabelle Fuller resigns from UKIP

douglas denny · 07-08-2008, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

No separation of the 'is' and 'ought' then?

Eh!?

DED.
-

douglas denny · 07-08-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Douglas D: I am not sure that you, as a NEC member, are merely precluded from discussing matters which are sub judice. Will it be in order for other members of the NEC to comment on the posting by Clive Page? Did the NEC agree to Christopher Gill going on holiday, and also agreed that a replacement for him was not necessary. If true, that will be in the minutes.

Also, I note that the election material gives no indication as to the printer or publisher. Presumably, the latter will be UKIP, but who was the printer? How many quotes were received from other printing companies. Again, this would have been decided by the NEC, and should be recorded in the minutes. By the way, have you heard how Caesar's wife is these days; I do hope she's keeping well?

Geoffrey: Posting this twice does not make it any more comprehensible. You are becoming more and more cryptic with time; better watch out it is not a sign of dementia.

The West business is not sub-judice as far as I am concerned. I repeat: I have not received any notification there is any form of legal proceedings or even investigation involving the party. The last communication I have had is that the chairman is not of a mind to look into the case of AF. That is all. I am free to opine until there is notification to me officially there are legal proceedings extant involving the party.

The rest of your fishing exercise I do not have a mind to make opinion. Mostly as I do not know the answers.

DED.
-

Mark Croucher · 08-08-2008, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Also, I note that the election material gives no indication as to the printer or publisher. Presumably, the latter will be UKIP, but who was the printer? How many quotes were received from other printing companies. Again, this would have been decided by the NEC, and should be recorded in the minutes. By the way, have you heard how Caesar's wife is these days; I do hope she's keeping well?

Why would there need to be an indication of the printers? And why ON earth would the NEC have anything to do with the printers quotes? Their job is to oversee the party, not micro-manage it.

M

Aardvark · 08-08-2008, 08:52 AM

DED, The separation of the 'is' and the 'ought' is a philosophical concept I picked up in jurisprudence lectures (was I really awake?) many years ago.

Basically a lot of people fail to differentiate between an evidence based 'is' - reality, what actually is - and an opinion based 'ought' - what they think ought to be.

We are all guilty of not making the distinction and say things as fact that are really opinion, what we would like them to be.

I try, when I am completely awake and sober, to actually think about this distinction before I open my mouth or put finger to keyboard. Most people sub-consciously do. The problem we all have is that in moments of anger, passion, tiredness, or where we lack our normal lucidity, mouth opens or keyboard is struck before we've fully engaged our brain. This leads to normally thoughtful people, who make considered posts full of concise facts and researched or supported material, writing utter tosh.

Sometimes it is not always possible to see the immediate distinction between the 'is' and the 'ought' because we state something we believe to be true since it sounds like it ought to be that way. This is how urban legends get circulated or how we end up with 'send three and fourpence we're going to a dance' moments. It also leads to the absurd situation where people state facts about UKIP matters, but naysayers 'shout' them down because the situation really oughtn't to be like that as it is not in keeping with their view of how UKIP operates.

The people who, almost by force of habit, defend UKIP do so because in the main they are not seeking to cover up problems, but because the situation ought not be as it is and they don't want to believe it is so. Most are well meaning people, probably the overwhelming majority, but there are a few who know things are wrong, know they should not be wrong and probably know that they are culpable for the situation, but would rather distort facts, shout down perceived opponents and conceal the truth from the bulk of the membership lest they be found wanting.

Douglas, I think you are one of those who see the best in UKIP for good reasons.

Geoffrey Collier · 08-08-2008, 09:29 AM

Mark Croucher: Exactly what the precise role of the NEC happens to be, does not seem to be uniformly agreed. Some argue, including those who have served on that committee, believe that it is the supreme governing body; other say their function is administrative. You opine that their role is more nebulous, being only to oversee the party; no micro management for them! Would you not suggest, that the cost of elections, should dictate that micro-management material/information should be produced for the NEC should it be requested? What is your objection?

The party pays many thousands of pounds annually, for example, for the printing of UKIP's Independence (official newsletter) We know the group to which that printer belongs, but is it not reasonable that the normal practice of seeking three separate quotes should not be observed? You ask rather emphatically, 'And why ON earth would the NEC have anything to do with the printers quotes? I reply because ,'ON earth' is where we happen to be, and our reactions and practices must reflect that reality. If not the NEC, to whom would you grant powers to award printing contracts, of every sort size and description, involving many thousands of pounds? I fear that your protestations
are wholly disproportionate, to my innocuous inquiry.

douglas denny · 08-08-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

DED, The separation of the 'is' and the 'ought' is a philosophical concept I picked up in jurisprudence lectures (was I really awake?) many years ago.

Basically a lot of people fail to differentiate between an evidence based 'is' - reality, what actually is - and an opinion based 'ought' - what they think ought to be.

We are all guilty of not making the distinction and say things as fact that are really opinion, what we would like them to be.

I try, when I am completely awake and sober, to actually think about this distinction before I open my mouth or put finger to keyboard. Most people sub-consciously do. The problem we all have is that in moments of anger, passion, tiredness, or where we lack our normal lucidity, mouth opens or keyboard is struck before we've fully engaged our brain. This leads to normally thoughtful people, who make considered posts full of concise facts and researched or supported material, writing utter tosh.

Sometimes it is not always possible to see the immediate distinction between the 'is' and the 'ought' because we state something we believe to be true since it sounds like it ought to be that way. This is how urban legends get circulated or how we end up with 'send three and fourpence we're going to a dance' moments. It also leads to the absurd situation where people state facts about UKIP matters, but naysayers 'shout' them down because the situation really oughtn't to be like that as it is not in keeping with their view of how UKIP operates.

The people who, almost by force of habit, defend UKIP do so because in the main they are not seeking to cover up problems, but because the situation ought not be as it is and they don't want to believe it is so. Most are well meaning people, probably the overwhelming majority, but there are a few who know things are wrong, know they should not be wrong and probably know that they are culpable for the situation, but would rather distort facts, shout down perceived opponents and conceal the truth from the bulk of the membership lest they be found wanting.

Douglas, I think you are one of those who see the best in UKIP for good reasons.

Ahaa! Now I know what you are on about.

I am aware of the distinction you mean; I came across it many moons ago when I started to observe humans and their behaviour patterns for the first time, instead of playing with my toys and oblivious of the big world out there and how it works. Humans are very strange creatures indeed.
Desmond Morris gave me a good insight into just how strange they can be, with his books on the subject. My lifelong observations, sadly, only emphasise the predjudices I have built up. I am not very keen on a lot of what I observe. Reading newspapers makes me angry almost on a daily basis at some of the unbelievable evil and baseness of what some humans get up to.

The bloke and his wife who conned their own childeren (and everyone else) that he was dead - lost at sea from a canoe, for example ... and for what ....... money !!
----------

The problem you mention is one of the difference between what is actually seen(observed) by a person and that which is perceived (recognised in the brain) by them. I agree that the latter is often completely at odds with the reality of the situation even when in front of their very eyes. Hitler in his bunker convincing himself that great victories were still possible as the Russian army advanced into Berlin is an extreme example.

Another way of putting it is that people only believe that which they want to believe - quite often despite the evidence clearly before them.

I like to think that as a scientist, I try never to fall into that trap and only base my opinions on 1) the evidence before me, and 2) on the collected memories of experience about the issue/subject before: both.

There is a whole philosophy regarding this subject in the scientific sense in a very important book in philosophy called 'Conjectures and Refutations' by Karl Popper.
Popper shows that there can never be an absolute proof of anything - only a conjecture can be disproved - which is a remarkable conclusion with very fundamental consequences to the philosophy of the limits of reasoning and of scientific measurement.

When it comes to politics, I agree that to ignore the reality and support an emotional state of being is a fatal trap that many people fall into because they refuse to face up to the clear evidence in front of them.
They will still support the major parties for example, despite that particular party (LibLabCon) might be selling them down the river - which is as clear cut to being the actual case as it can be, with these parties continuing to support Britain remaining in the EU.
I know of many people on a personal level who I have met who are dedicated Conservatives; (one or two very 'high up' in that party) and they keep voting for that party regardless that being in the EU is an absolute anathema to them, and yet 'their' party continues supporting Britain being in it. It is a paradox.

These people are living in a schizophrenic mind set with one half of their perception closed-off to the other. It is astonishing that they can be, apparently, aware of the issues, and of the facts, and can talk openly about all this as if they thoroughly understand it all, yet still accept supporting a party which (you can point out to them) took us into the EU mess and is still keeping us in. They have no answer to this, and cling to straws such as - "well the Conservatives will try to 'change it from within' .... somehow convincing themselves this is the way forward yet knowing at the same time it is nonsense. There's certainly nowt so queer as folk!

Now regarding UKIP, and myself, and perhaps you might be thinking I support the party unquestioningly? Not so. I am not blinkered to the problems, but see no point in airing them in public here. I try to overcome them if possible.
With this forum I try to correct the sort of rumours which only feeds the kind of misconceptions in people's minds which gives rise to the worst form of the 'wilful blindness' syndrome to which you refer.

I am quite sure though that a lot of the wilful blindness is self-generated because of emotional hang-ups about certain individuals. An example is an unreasonable, unfounded anger towards N.Farage which seem prevalent here on this forum. Nigel is not a perfect human being, but for the job in hand he is nowhere near as bad as some here try to make out. As an observation - objectively assessed I think - it is completely fair to say he is better than some Leader(s) who went before - by miles. That does not cut any ice with some here though who think he is akin to the Devil and no amount of common-sense persuasion as to the facts/reality will ever convince them otherwise. There are none so blind who will not see.

DED.
-

C_steam · 08-08-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas denny

the problem you mention is one of the difference between what is actually seen(observed) by a person and that which is perceived (recognised in the brain) by them. ..........There is a whole philosophy regarding this subject in the scientific sense in a very important book in philosophy called 'Conjectures and Refutations' by Karl Popper

You may also be interested in the model here: NLP Model of Communication, neuro linguistic training in particular see the diagram half way down the page.

douglas denny · 08-08-2008, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_steam

You may also be interested in the model here: NLP Model of Communication, neuro linguistic training in particular see the diagram half way down the page.

Yes Steamer: a very good simple diagram of exactly what happens. In fact you might be amused to know the filtering process which it mentions so well, actually ocurred with me reading your link:

I saw NLP Model of Communication ... on the screen, but perceived NPL Model of communication ....

Thought I: ..... "Oh good! a link to some National Physical Laboratory (Teddington) article on maths modelling of communications .....

.... WRONG!

I agree with the idea of millions of bits of information coming in to the brain requiring filtering to prevent overloading the conscious mind, but would dispute strongly the suggestion that there are only seven bits of information perceived in the conscious mind. That is rubbish, Maybe it is an exaggeration to illustrate an idea OK - but seven bits is silly.

The visual apparatus even at conscious level after untold processing and filtering is "seeing" (i.e. perceiving) what amounts to millions of bits of information in each eye per millisecond at the fovea from the cones with the mind-picture perceived with all its detail of form and texture. Seven bits of information in the visual apparatus would only represent a resolution of seven points of light separately. Patently absurd.

DED.
-

C_steam · 09-08-2008, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas denny

I agree with the idea of millions of bits of information coming in to the brain requiring filtering to prevent overloading the conscious mind, but would dispute strongly the suggestion that there are only seven bits of information perceived in the conscious mind. That is rubbish, Maybe it is an exaggeration to illustrate an idea OK - but seven bits is silly.
-

Actually its wrong - what they should have made clearer is that your conscious mind can process around 7 +- 2 bits of information at any given time. Think of 'kims game' or similar in that to do well you need to start using memory 'tricks' to help (i.e remember the items as a story).

They shouldn#t have implied that you only percieve 7 bits - thats quite wrong.

Aardvark · 09-08-2008, 10:50 AM

C_steam, Thanks for the link. It explains a lot. Now I know why people misinterpret my posts and seemingly twist things, they haven't comprehended what I was trying to say in the first place.

08-08-2008, 08:52 AM	#154 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,516	DED, The separation of the 'is' and the 'ought' is a philosophical concept I picked up in jurisprudence lectures (was I really awake?) many years ago. Basically a lot of people fail to differentiate between an evidence based 'is' - reality, what actually is - and an opinion based 'ought' - what they think ought to be. We are all guilty of not making the distinction and say things as fact that are really opinion, what we would like them to be. I try, when I am completely awake and sober, to actually think about this distinction before I open my mouth or put finger to keyboard. Most people sub-consciously do. The problem we all have is that in moments of anger, passion, tiredness, or where we lack our normal lucidity, mouth opens or keyboard is struck before we've fully engaged our brain. This leads to normally thoughtful people, who make considered posts full of concise facts and researched or supported material, writing utter tosh. Sometimes it is not always possible to see the immediate distinction between the 'is' and the 'ought' because we state something we believe to be true since it sounds like it ought to be that way. This is how urban legends get circulated or how we end up with 'send three and fourpence we're going to a dance' moments. It also leads to the absurd situation where people state facts about UKIP matters, but naysayers 'shout' them down because the situation really oughtn't to be like that as it is not in keeping with their view of how UKIP operates. The people who, almost by force of habit, defend UKIP do so because in the main they are not seeking to cover up problems, but because the situation ought not be as it is and they don't want to believe it is so. Most are well meaning people, probably the overwhelming majority, but there are a few who know things are wrong, know they should not be wrong and probably know that they are culpable for the situation, but would rather distort facts, shout down perceived opponents and conceal the truth from the bulk of the membership lest they be found wanting. Douglas, I think you are one of those who see the best in UKIP for good reasons. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

09-08-2008, 10:50 AM	#160 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,516	C_steam, Thanks for the link. It explains a lot. Now I know why people misinterpret my posts and seemingly twist things, they haven't comprehended what I was trying to say in the first place. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-08-2008, 09:29 AM	#155 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 852	Mark Croucher: Exactly what the precise role of the NEC happens to be, does not seem to be uniformly agreed. Some argue, including those who have served on that committee, believe that it is the supreme governing body; other say their function is administrative. You opine that their role is more nebulous, being only to oversee the party; no micro management for them! Would you not suggest, that the cost of elections, should dictate that micro-management material/information should be produced for the NEC should it be requested? What is your objection? The party pays many thousands of pounds annually, for example, for the printing of UKIP's Independence (official newsletter) We know the group to which that printer belongs, but is it not reasonable that the normal practice of seeking three separate quotes should not be observed? You ask rather emphatically, 'And why ON earth would the NEC have anything to do with the printers quotes? I reply because ,'ON earth' is where we happen to be, and our reactions and practices must reflect that reality. If not the NEC, to whom would you grant powers to award printing contracts, of every sort size and description, involving many thousands of pounds? I fear that your protestations are wholly disproportionate, to my innocuous inquiry.