• Firm hand shake. (Three shakes)
• Eye Contact
• Etiquette
• Dress for a Great First Impression

If you give a weak handshake, your interviewer may think you’re shy, and possibly. Do not try to overpower the person. It’s said that the first impression is what lasts. Eye contact plays a key role. In the Native culture, keeping eye contact with someone older than you is not correct. Here though, if you do not keep eye contact, the interviewer may think you’re shy and not up to the job. Clean yourself up the morning or the night before the interview, and I guarantee that the interviewer will notice all of this and will have a higher regard for you. Have a proper greeting and say thank you at the end. He/she will know that you have respect instead of you just walking out without thanking him/her for the time they spent to interview you.

Don’ts

• Short answers.
• Being arrogant/a know-it-all.
• Taking unnecessary items to look professional.

Taking extra items to an interview is not necessary at all. It’s useless to take a suit case to an interview with nothing in it. Do some research on interview questions before going to the interview. Then you would not need to give short answer which makes the interviewer think you’ve thought critically about the interview. Three to five sentences should be given for every question you’re asked. Being arrogant/a know-it-all no es bueno. The interviewer will notice you’re trying to be a little ‘cocky’ and a person like that doesn’t usually get hired.

Thank you for reading this article. Hope it helps you for you interview(s). Please give some feedback thru the comments. Once again, thank you for reading this.

Then I discovered my best friend, Caesar a German Shepherd found death after one full day of refusing to eat anything. That was my first experience of pain, grief and total devastation by loosing something that I really love and attached.

Along the journey , life has been unfolding many times in the most spectacular ways albeit the accompanying trauma that brought me to my knees. However, I have attempted to keep searching and incline toward holding on in a specified condition at any cost to reach out through process that has been invested in time and energies, yet, every time something more happens to turn my world upside down. Therefore, it is now or never …

I want to wake up in the morning and look forward to the day ahead me and all the good surprises for all the work I’ve done. I want to be and always madly in love with the work I do, with the person I work with and the habitation we create and the creation that exist through us.

I am currently aware of the fact that the world is one big trapped in separation consciousness. The time is upon us where every person on the planet is being affected by the great changes, regardless of their level of consciousness or any level of maturity, shape, gender, skin color, health, wealth, education and social status. We may simply do not believe or accept it. We may think for ourselves based on solid evidence and good reasons. In contrary, that is our strength too. We cannot be herded like believing sheep nor can we be fleeced just because we are in certain uncomfortable situation. Although, we are everywhere, billions of us, we just need to be aware that time is waving dynamically toward the future, there is no turning back the hands of time.Therefore some of us can get it through and survive some not.

What is concealed about it? Is the person who gets to know how the magic trick is performed better than the person who doesn’t get it? Of course they are. That doesn’t mean the person who doesn’t get it can’t one day get it, but until they do… their ignorant.

There are clearly intelligent theists. Intelligence is the key, but it must be coupled with independent thinking, critical thinking, rational thought, etc. If you take those away… you’re a theist. 

 It’s not really an issue of who is more intelligent, but who uses their intelligence better with the correct skills. As long as you close of critical thinking and rational thought to your core beliefs: then you remain ignorant.

Because of this, many of us are unable to hold a vibration long enough to manifest a desired outcome. Each one of us have however come up with a different solution, and this is to bring the energies in revolutions, and each person taking on an aspect of the energy and seeding it wherever they choose to go, right or left, and that manifests the permanent reconnection of the original template of unity, the connectedness of all as being one vibration and universal expression of its greatest or worst form ever to exist.

As I moved into the higher expression of my collective self, I am faced with new challenges, however I take this challenges as opportunities. They are not debilitating experiences that are there to suck the life forces out of me. After going through and overcome the worst life experiences, I felt like a complete and utter failure. When I found resentment and anger welling up inside of me, while I felt unappreciated and under valued as as a person. Where from my perspective I was giving everything and not receiving a fair exchange of energy. I was angry, disillusioned and disappointed that my life had apparently regressed. In fact I was furious!! The angrier and more disillusioned I became! It touched and scrub every aspect of my life including my personal relationship with my life partner that I adored.  Then I had reached the point where the only way out was to reach out and do what I find most difficult to do – ask for help!

This is like death, reboot, starting over, beginning at the beginning once again however, this beginning is not one where I am left without knowledge, without power, without wisdom; this is where I move from my basic education to higher level of education.

I faced tremendous intensities in the form of challenges within my life, and I am bearing witness to the Earth changes around me, it is necessary to find and accept the beautiful aspects of life, the aspects which make my life worth living.

My life journey is unfolding in a magnificently, magical way. I have reached a point in my personal development where I am ready to access the inner realms of the True Being of the Divine Creation. This is the turning point where I am being urged to accept the beauty of true self and refused the negative projections of others, which undermine my true strength and beauty that keeps me separate from my authentic self.

This is a great time for Earth’s history in every aspect of life, the energies that we are cocooned in now are of a very high frequency, it is a wonderful time for the awakening of the human soul and this is one of our greatest walks to liberation.

By this, I mean it is a voice inside of us that becomes louder, the eyes of The Divine become clearer, the body of Spirit becomes stronger and as we experience the greater understanding of what the expression of life is, we will come to realize that many of the destructive patterns and experiences we have had up until this point have been necessary in order for us to embark upon this next level of the journey.

Just remember this, whenever we ask for change, for healing and peace – all of that which creates disharmony, disease and destruction, will come in order to be cleared; thus allowing all the other qualities of light to be.

We may all have different approach in this life journey, like driving different vehicles: but we’re all driving down the same highway and we’re all heading to the same destination. The keywords are “be fair”, “we just need to stop driving each other off the road”. 

Let’s celebrate our life, be grateful for what we have. 

Most of the time we didn’t realize what we have until we loose it.

By Joseph Parish

Critical thinking is exactly what each of us endeavors to achieve in response to our daily activities both professionally and privately. When we employ the principles and practices of sound thinking we facilitate achieving expected goals, and resolving issues in a doable manner. We quickly appreciate that the fine art of questioning our environment pays off in dividends as we commit towards our goals.

As Doctors Elder and Paul so aptly stated we must initially clarify our thinking before we can effectively formulate critical decisions. I have found this to be absolutely true in my daily dealings as well. This may sound unusual, but of the strategies outlined within the text I personally feel that my strong point and my weak points lie in the listed strategy of “Being Reasonable.” This strategy for me is a two sided sword. As a practicing survivalist, I have attuned myself to watch for expected and unexpected behaviors both from others and of myself. I try to observe closely how others function and compare their actions to my own. When employing these traits one has to listen carefully and often read between the lines to gain an effective insight into what is going on. I have to put clamps on myself when it comes to accepting the views of others when I am aligned so strongly to my own opinions, but generally it works out evenly. It becomes a mutual give and take situation although I would ultimately decline compromise in the name of safety and well being. 

One specific situation which occurred was when I decided to home school my grandson. Most of my family members felt opposed to this sort of educational experience and were content with having him receive his schooling via the public school system. I felt that the school systems of today have deceived the parents and they tend to hinder the children by dropping their standards to the level of the lowest common denominator. This was not what I had foreseen for my grandson’s future. His classes naturally worked out favorably and in addition I even included Survival classes. These classes in themselves have proved beneficial as a state Emergency Actions representative questioned his procedures under a certain situation and expressed approval at his response.

On the other side of this coin there are some embarrassing situations that I am not proud for being what the family terms “Stubborn” in my viewpoints. Try as I may, I often falter in feeling that I can make mistakes. I have to catch myself and convince my alter-ego that its time to ratify the problem and not to compound it. An example of these negative results was a time when I had been considering the purchase of an emergency retreat in the event of a major disaster. I felt that a particular location would be idea for building up our disaster shelter but my family felt otherwise. Unfortunately after investing sums of money in the venture, I finally deemed that they were correct and accurate in their assessment. My failure violated the principle of ignoring the relevant viewpoints being presented to me by various family members. I have now found that in all future actions, I have to carefully reconsider my choices in comparison to others recommendations.

As indicated in the reading assignment the value placed on a critical thinker is his or her abilities to modify their decisions based upon good reasons. I was amused when I read the section on “I’m not perfect. I make mistakes,” for that is one of my major problems. I should try to provide a textbook example for all my decisions but I do not and thus I occasionally make mistakes. This is an area that I must consistently be aware of and thrive to correct. In closing, I would like to say that reading the assigned sections opened up new avenues to bridge the gap between my wayward thoughts and that of critical thinking. Now I merely have to keep all the ideas clearly in mind.

Copyright @2010 Joseph Parish

www.survival-training.info

Before we go any further, let’s define fact and opinion. Facts are: Things known for certain to have happened, things known for certain to be true, things known for certain to exist. Opinions, on the other hand, are: things believed to have happened, things believed to be true, things believed to exist. 

Essentially, the difference between fact and opinion is the difference between believing and knowing. Opinions may be based on facts, but they are still what we think, not what we know. Opinions are debatable; facts usually are not. A good test for whether something is a fact or opinion is to ask yourself, “Can this statement be debated? Is this known for certain to be true?” If you can answer yes to the first question, you have an opinion; if you answer yes to the second, you have a fact. If you’re not sure, then it’s best to assume that it’s an opinion until you can verify that it is indeed a fact. 

When you’re making decisions, it’s important to be able to distinguish between fact and opinion-between what you or others believe and what you or others know to be true. When you make decisions, assess others’ arguments, and support your own arguments, use facts, as they generally carry more weight than opinions. For example, if I try to convince my boss that I deserve a raise and I use facts to support my argument, I’m much more likely to get that raise than if I simply use the opinion, “I think I deserve one.”Notice the difference between the following two examples: 

1. “I really think I should get a raise. It’s about time, and I deserve it. I’ve earned it.”

2. “I really think I deserve a raise. I’ve met all of my production goals since I’ve been here, my evaluations have been excellent, and I was employee of the month.” 

Notice in the second example, facts supports the opinion that “I deserve a raise.” Furthermore, distinguishing between fact and opinion is important because people will often present their opinions as fact. When you’re trying to make big decisions or solve complex problems, you need to know that you’re working with evidence rather than emotions. 

Label the following as either fact (F) or opinion (O). 

1. “I believe that the government has evidence of contact with aliens hidden in Roswell, New Mexico.”

2. “The government has evidence of contact with aliens hidden in Roswell, New Mexico.” 

You didn’t by chance mark the first claim as O and the second claim as F, did you? If you did, it’s easy to see why. The first claim is presented as an opinion (”I believe”), and it is therefore clearly an opinion. The second claim, however, is presented as a fact. But is it true? Is it something known for sure? Well, it can’t really be proven or disproved, unless you have access to secret government documents. Statement 1 is what is called a tentative truth, since it is neither a fact nor an opinion. Until the truth of that matter can be verified- especially a matter that has been so controversial for so many years-it’s best to hold on to a healthy measure of doubt. Tentative truths need not deal with conspiracy theories or other issues of major importance. They can deal with issues as simple as this: Volvos get 30 miles per gallon.

This is a matter of fact, and it sounds like something that should be accepted as true, but unless you got in a Volvo and drove around, you may not be able to verify it. You can tentatively accept it as fact especially if the source is credible. Credibility is the key determinant of whether you should accept facts you can’t verify yourself. The next lesson shows you how to determine credibility.

<Your writings get Published, Read, and Paid!!!> <Join Triond now!!!>

 Click here >> http://www.triond.com/rw/203279

A wake-up call

On 11 September 2001, terrorists viciously attacked the United States. Now, a war is on once again. The planes are in the air. Everyone’s attention is towards combat. It will be a conflict of new dimensions, but not only in the manner that world leaders describe. Techniques will include direct military assaults and will include intelligence operations, commando raids, and psychological warfare. This elevated level of conflict will challenge our very way of life, but in ways perhaps not to be foreseen by average Western peoples. It is possible that the immediate conflict will extend globally and be transformed into a war for the hearts and minds of the participants.

To grasp the implications of these events, we should understand the meaning of terrorism. What is it, exactly? Usually, the event is dramatic, but the casualties are small compared to the number of people whom the terrorists want to be in fear. Six thousand lives lost in the 11 September event is a terrible (hence, “terror”) toll, but the number of persons affected is in the millions. There are two basic types of terrorist goals. The first is immediate and particular, such as obtaining money and supplies. The second is long-range, as in toppling governments and changing value systems. It is to the latter we need to direct our attention to the 11 September events as an assault on our way of life. What IS our way of life? Just what are our values? For a sample of how the writers for more staid media, such as the New York Times, present how we live and think, consider the following from the New York Times.

October 2, 2001
FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Eastern Middle School

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Our values are “…a spirit of respect for the individual, a spirit of tolerance for differences of faith or politics, a respect for freedom of thought as the necessary foundation for all creativity and a spirit of unity that encompasses all kinds of differences. Only a society with a deep spiritual energy, that welcomes immigrants and worships freedom, could constantly renew itself and its sources of power and wealth.” …

“These terrorists so misread America. They think our strength lies only in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon — the twin pillars of our wealth and power — and if they can just knock them down we’ll start to fold: as if we, like them, have only one truth, one power center.” …

“The terrorists can exploit the U.S.- made Internet, but in their suffocated world of one God, one truth, one way, one leader, they could never invent it.”

(http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/opinion/02FRIE.html )

If Friedman truly describes us and our values, there really is very little that separate us from the Taliban in terms of the source of our thinking. Friedman talks of our technology as strength, but one should know, too, that there is a difference between being clever and being intelligent. Creating gadgets (often with the aim of getting them out the door with a minimum of testing and selling them) is not equivalent to thinking philosophically. Do we need to be reminded of Viet Nam? They surely did not have the NEED to invent the Internet. The Viet-Cong victory was propelled by zeal and ideology, not technological prowess. It surely was not an open society.

There is an ostensible respect for the freedom of thought in the US, but we should understand that it is not thought, itself that matters so much as the type and quality of that thought. Thought includes the mental process involved in designing gadgets, as well as abstractions. Abstract thinking normally is the object of discussions about open societies. Members of the Taliban have a complete freedom of this thought as long as it is within the confines of fundamentalist Islamic ideology. What lacks in their culture is an open examination of the methods for finding truths. Our society has the potential for nourishing that love of wisdom, or philosophy. Conversely, philosophy is the lifeblood of the open society. For our part, an ominous period lies ahead if sustaining our society depends upon a philosophical population. Friedman, probably unwittingly, highlights why this may be so.

Friedman’s description of our way of life may be accurate in two senses. There is his allusion to the “spiritual” side, where persons unite in terms of crises. However, it is questionable that unity in the face of disaster is unique to the United States.

His expression, “Worships freedom” is an oxymoron that belies a more fundamental problem and clouds his support for the foundation of an open society.. We must be aware of the distinction between worship and freethinking. The word “worships” is adoration, usually non-critical. It is an obeisance to authority, for it places the worshiper hierarchically below that which is worshipped. Unrestrained “freedom”, however, by its very nature, acknowledges no such hierarchy. Members of the Taliban worship. Participants in an open society think freely. Somewhat as an aside, but worthwhile to note, there is a night and day distinction between “freedom” and “liberty”, as any well-heeled political philosopher knows. Freedom is what one can do before the institution of authority. Under a contract states, such as described by Hobbes in the Leviathan, persons give up their sovereignty to a state in return for security. The state then dispenses liberties, or freedoms with limits set by the state. If one refers to any freedom, it is only to a liberty of that freedom, i.e., liberation by the state of some of the freedoms it holds. Thus, there is liberty to varying degrees in every state.

Freethinking cannot be defended simply on the basis of the desire to think freely. Freethinking persons require education if they are to be the citizenry preserving the open society. The vehicle needs fuel, and we lack the latter. To understand the magnitude of the problems facing us, we should be cognizant of the present intellectual environment and consider why philosophy is so vital to an open society. We will examine the first, and then, the second.

The current state of affairs in our awareness of the world around us

What evidence do we have for what seems to be important for most people? Then, let us posit some reasons why. . Besides formal polls, we can do a quick analysis of subjects of daily concern as presented by the popular media. I have selected the following mainstream on-line newspapers, because they are found in large cities and target a considerable portion of this country’s population. Listed are the papers and their topical sub-headings. Since we are discussing philosophy, science, and education as bulwarks of an open society, let us see how important these are to the news media) to which millions of Americans are exposed on a daily basis) by how much coverage they get.

http://www.usatoday.com/ – Shortcuts are News briefs , Scores , Markets , Baseball , NFL , People , Talk Today , Travel , Hot Sites , and City Guides . This paper is distributed nationwide.

On 31 October 2010 it was:

• Home

• News

• Travel

• Money

• Sports

• Life

• Tech

• Weather

Nothing has changed substantially.

http://www.boston.com/globe/ – There is a link to science only on Tuesday. There are no links to education

31 October 2010:

Home

• Today’s Globe

• News

• Your Town

• Business

• Sports

• Lifestyle

• A&E

• Things to do

• Travel

• Cars

• Jobs

• Real Estate

Nothing has changed substantially.

http://azcentral.com/ – Links are to “news, sports, entertainment, community, computing, home and garden, travel and outdoors, health, and fun”. This paper is distributed to an area of about 3 million people in the metropolitan Phoenix area.

31 October 2010:

• News

• Sports

• Money

• Things To Do

• Style

• Travel

• Moms

• Weather

• Health

• Food

• Home

• Today’s Deal

• Jobs

• Cars

• Real Estate

• Rentals

• Classified

Nothing has changed substantially.

Well, you get the drift. These others haven’t changed substantially, either:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/ – only a section on technology.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/ (space and technology, but no education)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ – There is a link to education, but no science.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/ – Atlanta Journal-Constitution – Link to technology only on Sunday

http://www.slfp.com/SLFP-NEWS.htm – St Louis News – All major links to business and “entertainment” (31 October 2010 – http://www.stl-news.com , but no substantial changes)

Seemingly willing to address non-materialist and thought-oriented values are:

http://www.dallasnews.com/ – Links to health, science, and religion

http://www.cnn.com has links to “sci-tech, space, health, and education”.
http://www.nytimes.com/ – has links to technology, science, health, and education.

The http://www.latimes.com/ seems to be the most balanced, incorporating all areas..

In summary, all papers have a large emphasis on politics, business and money, sports, and “entertainment”. There are more subcategories of these, giving the illusion of balance.

To illustrate, let’s examine briefly USA Today, because it is so widely distributed nationwide and represents the problem. This paper, like so many others, gives the illusion of balance. The category “sports” is broken into “scores”, “baseball”, and “NFL”. Almost invariably, the first part of the banner (leading top part of the page) has some sports item, visually demonstrating this paper’s priorities. A political headline normally follows. Then, entertainment and money/business items often form the third and fourth parts. On a rare occasion, there will be an item, such as in the 29 September edition on bioethics: “Bioethics Boy or girl? Clinic plans to introduce gender selection, raising question of whether parents should be offered the choice.” Normally, money/business, “entertainment”, and sports dominate the front pages of USA Today. Surely, there are no standing sections listed on the front page regularly devoted to science, education, and philosophy.

Now, taking all the newspapers as a whole, distant to the main areas of politics, money/business, sports, and “fun” are sections devoted to education and science, and only in some cases at that. Philosophy is non-existent. Religion and culture are absent in most cases, as well. In essence, the media emphasizes material concerns – hedonism and little, save for cursory political commentaries, that promotes the reflective, abstract thinking vital to an open society.

One may ask whether it is the function of news media to give coverage to anything except politics, money/business, sports, and “fun”. Surely, CNN, the New York Times, and the newspapers for Dallas and Los Angeles think so, and, after all, does not “news” occur in these areas, as well? While the average reading level is geared to the 6th to 9th grade, there is nothing to say that the content could not be a bit more elevating.

Now, what about the quality of news content, itself? How balanced and critically thoughtful is it? Numerous organizations have extensive discussions about how we really should not trust even the accuracy of what we read, let alone the quality of analyses. It is worthwhile to research on one’s own for an appreciation of the problem. For a critique of the character and content of media presentations, see Michael Parenti, “Methods of Media Manipulation” (http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/17-5/manipulation.html) While Parenti’s emphasis is on politics, the analysis easily could apply to the devotion to the trinity of business/money, “entertainment” and athletics, signs of non-think, the emphasis on physique and fashion, narcissism, and hedonism. Parenti considers himself a socialist and argues that the ethics that drives corporate culture permeates and biases the news. However, we have a similar observation from political conservatives. See, Accuracy in media, http://www.aim.org/ , arguing that news writers omit or alter salient facts in stories. There also is Fairness and Accuracy In Media, http://www.fair.org/ , that advocates “…greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints”. One can check that “The Council for Media Integrity can actively promote the importance of scientific literacy, and the appreciation of the scientific method and critical thinking.” (http://www.csicop.org/cmi/ )

The content survey I gave above and the critical review given by media watchdog organizations indicates that the media pays scant attention to critical thinking, science, education, and philosophy.

On a higher level, though, there exist problems, as well. In a 1995 “Study of 38 Public Universities and 28 Private Universities To Determine Faculty Emphasis on Critical Thinking In Instruction“, (http://www.criticalthinking.org/schoolstudy.htm ) (Principal Researchers: Dr. Richard Paul, Dr. Linda Elder, and Dr. Ted Bartell), “telephone interviews with a cross-section of education and subject matter faculty in both public and private colleges and universities in California”, revealed that “only 19% could elaborate on their concept of thinking.”. When students fail to be educated in how to reason or even be aware of basic common knowledge, the consequences can be devastating. A July 1999 Gallup poll revealed that 20% of Americans (and 26% of Germans, indicating the crisis extends to other Western countries, as well) don’t know that the earth revolves around the sun. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr990706b.asp) Forty percent of Americans, according to a February 2001 poll, favored the teaching of Creationism instead of evolution in the public schools. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010214c.asp ).

Consider that a 1997 Yankelovich Partners poll indicated the following:

(http://www.csicop.org/articles/poll/ )

So, if large parts of the population are weak in basic knowledge, belief in pseudoscience, and both sides of the political spectrum hold that accounts are notoriously inaccurate, we can see why Friedman’s description of our way of life may be accurate in that people rely more upon adulation than critical thinking and philosophy for the source of their values.

The importance of philosophy in an open society

Both Plato (The Republic) and Aristotle (Politics, especially the part on constitutions towards the end of the book) stated that without an educated population, a democracy cannot last. Coupled with this is the maxim asserted by both philosophers that evenly distributed wealth is the best guarantor of social and political stability. More modern political philosophers, such as John Dewey (Democracy and Education), John Stuart Mill (On Liberty), and Leonard Peikoff (Ominous Parallel) have repeated the same views.

However, writers through the centuries have questioned whether a general population is capable of thinking philosophically, raising question of whether an ideology is necessary for social and political coherence and stability. For example, Alexis De Toqueville said that the mere “habits and laws of the people” result in tyrannies worse than those existing in 19th century Europe. Yet, “…studies of this nature (philosophy) are far above the average capacity of men.” (Democracy in America – Mentor Publishing. 1956. P. 150)

Does the fact that so many people lack basic knowledge, subscribe to pseudoscience, emphasize hedonistic values (if the press, indeed is giving the people what it wants), and are not philosophically confirm de Toqueville’s observations? Does it also support Plato, who advocated a philosopher-king, saying, like Aristotle that the average person simply isn’t capable of governing? All philosophers, however, say that education is necessary for a democratic society to continue.

Given these views, it appears that we need to rise to the occasion. So many others in world leadership in areas that have experienced the centuries of turmoil of the democracy – violence – tyranny – democracy cycle look to the United States, perhaps with some degree of skepticism, to see if we have the ability to overcome this cycle.

But, other than making informed choices, what about the integrity of the individual and individual identity? This is where we discuss the “core” of the person. What is truly important?

Where do we go from here?

My response to all this is immediate and long-range. Life is not about “money-making”, having a “good time” and athletics. Ethics is about values formation, but there is a context and process in which this occurs. It is quite pointless to direct one to issues unless they have the thinking skills to deal with them. My remarks above lay the foundation for the rationale and approach used in this course. That we can be studying ethics is a partial attest to the existence of ours as an open society – at least relatively so. If we do not pay attention to the process of its becoming, we may not be able to sustain the challenges to it. In physics, there is entropy, or the natural tendency to degradation and subsequent disorder, or maximum dispersion of energy. Entropy threatens philosophy and the arenas of abstract thinking it sustains, as well. For the while, we may be able to stave off the assault of entropy by affirming our will to think.

You will recall how I started the course out – issues – values – method. What I am hoping to do is for everyone to be able not only formulate values but be keenly aware of HOW they are formed. Emoting is not enough. More often than not, a person critically reflecting on a matter will reconsider judgments and emerge with a view grounded in viable sources and sound reasoning. In some colleges, there is a program called “Thinking Across Curriculum”, meaning that reasoning, critical thinking, logic, values clarification, and epistemology are integral parts of arriving at views.

How does this apply to business ethics? People make claims all the time, raise issues, and often base their conclusions on faulty data and poor reasoning. However, examining issues follows a common route. Let’s take any issue, such as privacy. What is it? What is its value? Then, what about the integrity of the individual making the claim? We need to ask who the person is, what research that person has done, what that claimant’s value system is, and what method the person used in arriving at it. It is really hard to enter and survive a discussion about ethics unless you an idea of what constitutes a value system and how it is formed. Let us say that someone argues that you should give up your rights to privacy in a corporation. You may get so far as to as whose interest will be served by the outcome. Can you evaluate why privacy is important? Can you address the philosophical basis of a person’s identity?

I do not see an extended discussion in the text about how to arrive at one’s own values, save for the discussion about Kant and Bentham. The chapters devoted to these philosophers do give a good descriptive account, but it is important to reflect on the meaning of each. What about workplace democracy being compatible with political democracy? In fact, what IS workplace democracy and it meaning to human identity? But, you have to know about values, their sources, and the implications of persons having an integral part in economic decision-making. . In a deeper sense, what REALLY matters in life? Is it simply a squabble about corporate power, greed, and bean counting, or is there something called a “human being” with VALUES and PHILOSOPHY involved? What is the basic PHILOSOPHY of those advocating the dominance of corporate power and the primacy of the “bottom line”? What is the PHILOSOPHY (the what and WHY of life) of those willing to put the interests of “money-making” above the dignity of the individual? Why is it important to consider Kant carefully and the principle of Universalism? It is not simply that hedonism is piggish, as John Stuart Mill said, but WHY? Is business the servant of humanity, or is humanity the servant of business? How might we apply these “deeper questions” to business ethic situations?

As we go through the text, there emerges a set of criteria for decision-making. Among the major parameters we see:

• Material payoff

• Budgets – bottom line – cost effectiveness

• Property acquisition and access

• Corporate structural integrity –

Let us do so algorithmic thinking and consider the common denominator of the mentality driving those who simply want to beat you out of a dollar and preserve the company. Then, consider what really is worthwhile in your life and how much of your waking hours is spent tending to those really worthwhile elements. Then, you realize how most of your waking hours goes to physical concerns. How much of your time is wasted by persons:

• Creating cheap products so you have to replenish them

• Concocting false needs through advertising

• Forcing you to sift through endless lies and distortions of truth about goods and services

• Forcing you to spend hours researching comparing goods and services, which are not substantially different but appear to be, according to clever propaganda

• Manufacturing scams, coupons, and “bargains”, rather than spending time on more elevated activities that would benefit humanity?

• Someone who values hedonism over the general good?

What is the mentality of these persons, who would rather lie, besiege you with propaganda, and peddle some object or service that you may not need, rather than erring on the side of the greater good and having a higher consciousness other than mere material concerns? Perhaps, these people are experiencing social burnout and frustration with working for the greater good. It may be the “I give up” syndrome. Never mind, for it is rare that philosophers and those who have higher values experience this. However, you have to ask about the state of your mind and thinking of matters other than how to keep your body “happy”. In effect, we have substituted the Angst of M. Luther with the angst thrust upon us by assumptions about our economic structure and method that we have failed to question seriously For example, a materialist-economy might be vindicated if all resources are used in the service of self-discovery. To use an analogy, consider how you determine what is deductible on your tax form. – If your activity was directed to making an income, then it is deductible. So, if your economic activity is directed to the betterment of humanity and self-discovery, isn’t that nobler than what the motive(s) of hedonistically oriented consciousness? Now, it may be answered that the base is the norm for humanity, or that it is “human nature” to be this way. “Human nature” is a fixed quality, not subject to change. But, i if it humans are imbued with it in the deleterious manner described above, then, the species may not last because of this Achilles’ heel. Carl Sagan thought that at this pace, humanity could survive only 200 years. Stephen Hawking is a bit more generous with a thousand years.

It would not be that easy to maintain you physically, even if these crass persons did not exist. Now, we are focused on violent terror, but we must consider whether there is a very much more subtle form of intimidation purveyed by the values underpinning our economic system. I am talking about an anxiety created by job insecurity, lack of a universal health care, insufficient affordable housing, and decent education. Addressing these concerns in our society often occurs within a very controlled framework, where some fundamental assumptions do not get appropriate review because the larger population simply does not have the education that emphasizes critical thinking and philosophy. For example, consider the assumption that a healthy economy is one based upon amount of production, competition, and consumer choice, with the minimum of social regulation. Policymakers consider “solutions” only within the framework of these assumptions. I refer to the citations, above, that focus upon media distortions.

This “soul searching” takes us to an examination of our core, the source of all values. It is the furnace energizing our intellectual integrity. It is the foundation of Business Ethics, and if one does not deal with it, the subject matter in text will be absolutely meaningless.

Substitutes for introspection (through exercises, such as “the mirror”) and philosophy will not be sufficient to apprehend the substance of ethics. Often, we hear persons avowing to do right because of some externally imposed morality, such as “God will punish me”, and Friedman may be in this camp with his implied obeisance to authority. We see other signs of the domination of an externally-imposed morality, such as video cameras and omnipresent authority in the form of police and clergy. Fear and a compulsion to obey authority is the chief mechanism of compliance. There is little reliance upon an internally and independently developed value system. Friedman keeps emphasizing religion and worship as the bulwark of strength of American values. He, like so many others, does not refer to the capacity to think on one’s own and arrive at a value system that can be sustained by philosophical thinking. Leonard Peikoff in Ominous Parallel suggested that pre-1932 Germany saw essentially the same situation existing in contemporary America. Paradoxically, the more we talk of “freedom”, the less there may be of it. Freedom is like a muscle. One has to practice it intelligently for it to last.

A longer view

Freedom, then, is a process that is just as much a part of the object of freedom as the object itself. If we try divorcing process from object there will result a detachment of our identity from that which gives rise to it, resulting in alienation and subsequent not being aware of becoming. We live in an integrated world, one not only commanding our thought but action. That is, we must live the idea that is us.

We have a tendency to want to isolate matters into little capsules without taking account of the context. Most people I find think like this. Later, the response is, when encountering problems, “I didn’t think of that!” This brings me to the second half of my response to the problem. To this end, I have proposed in a paper, “Towards a philosophy of education” a program that would be a component for a society such as ours wrestling with how to clarify its values.

Surely, there is a freedom of thought, but do people exercise it, rather than adhere to an ideology? Thinking is an exercise, and it takes constant practice in order for it to be keen. More often than not, a state founded upon fanaticism and ideology often fails, as the Soviet Union, Iran, Viet-Nam, and even Cuba either have succumbed to the pressures for more open thinking and practices or are in the process of changing to a more open society. Yet, for an open society to last, there must be persistent attention to the foundations upon which that society is based. Otherwise, the sentiment that gives rise to it ossifies into an ideology, and the cycle of tyranny and subsequent violence repeats itself.

Jeremy Horne, Ph.D.

31 October 2010

http://www.parascope.com/articles/0797/em1.htm

Also, its parent website is: http://www.parascope.com.) You will find a great number of publications in this style, where the author will cite other works that appear to have popular-sounding titles and these works will be used as sources for critical data. For example, the author (whose name we don’t really know) cites numerous projects (MKULTRA, MKDELTA and others) but cites a work under footnote 3, Operation Mind Control. Titles like these that are emotional or inflammatory may or may not contain accurate information. Another source, “William Bowart “, is cited for note 4. Emotional titles and vague authors raise a red flag, and there are two actions you should take: 1) try verifying the information independently, and 2) research conflicting claims (which you should do, anyway for all assertions).

Now, the document, itself, appears to be a “leak”, and, while the author seems to have access to classified information she or he cannot cite the original sources. (In footnote 15, the author does refer to “stolen” documents.) In such cases, the writer is forced to use “covering sources” and frame arguments to lead to the same conclusions that are in classified material. How, then, are we to evaluate the integrity of information?

Army intelligence, I think it was, used (and, I think, still does) five general levels of information integrity, ranging from A-1 for official documents produced by G-2 Intelligence to F-5, or rumor. Some main criteria for determining the value of a source are:

• Who is the author?

• What is her/his background – what qualifications does s/he have to write about the subject?

• With what organizations or individuals is/are the author(s) associated that might suggest a bias?

• Under what circumstances is the author writing that might contribute to a bias?

• How current is the information?

• In what context is the information framed?

• What method was to obtain the information?

• In what location was the information prepared or formulated?

• How plausible is the information? How skeptical should you be?

• How tight is the argumentation?

• How well is the information documented?

This list applies to ALL information, including encyclopedias, magazines, and even peer-reviewed articles.

Now, how do we arrive at information? The integrity of the information when used as a premise in an argument contributes to the argument’s soundness. Attention to logic, both inductive and deductive, assists, here. With respect to precise or technical information, scientific methods winnow the wheat from the chaff. There are myriads of articles, books, and courses on methodologies (realm of epistemology, or HOW we know).

Now, back to our paper on the Parascope website.. Citing a paper like this as a reference would not necessarily be an academic catastrophe, if you used it as a prompt for further research. The author presents many viable arguments, and a number of assertions are scientifically correct, such as the ones about electromagnetic radiation’s effects on biological structures. So, we look at the overall thrust of the paper – its renditions of alleged facts and overall argumentation. If these two, plus a number of references appear to be appropriate, then we can say that the paper should prompt us to dig further. However, as to citing facts, one should go to the original, or prime source.

Original sources mean just that, the information originated from a point, and that point is the “prime source”. Thus, you would cite “Parascope” as the prime source when talking about the allegations, but not when discussing whether various organizations, such as the CIA exist or the effects of millimeter wave radiation (MMW) on human biological structures. For information about the existence of the CIA, you would go to a source like the Government Organization Manual , issued by the Government Printing Office, and to scientific peer-reviewed articles for the research on MMW. Sometimes, information simply isn’t published, but the author has reason to think that it exists. In such case, one must resort to secondary information produced by top-notch academicians knowledgeable in the areas under review, along with well-reasoned arguments to support the claim.

(Thought = Word = Deed and shows up in one’s life as Actions)
by: Jodie Picken (all rights reserved)
From “The Reverse Neuro Linguistic
Programming Internet Series”
 Shade Law and Jodie Picken ©2003- 2010

Dobbing’ is an Australian word, and also is known in different countries as ’sneaking’, ‘grassing’, ‘informing’ and ‘narking’. It means to inform against, report or betray. It is a particularly vicious pastime usually practised by disgruntled employees, dissatisfied ex-wives or ex-girlfriends, envious neighbours, and informants paid by the state. But that’s not all, it IS a socially unacceptable practise and dobbers are given the tag of being untrustworthy. Generally informing or reporting is conducted over trivial matters and for all the wrong reasons.

Dobbing was done extensively in the former USSR and in Nazi Germany where people were encouraged to inform on others, even children on their parents. Many Jews were turned in this way, and ended up being murdered in concentration camps, including the famous Anne Frank and her family, all thanks to ‘upright citizens’ doing their duty. For some years after the war it was in such disrepute that even our governments did not encourage it, except secretly with serious crime.

In current times dobbing has proliferated.

Need a way to get back at someone? Know something that could land someone in trouble or in the least cause them additional stress? Want to get your co worker’s shifts? Or want your neighbour to shut up about various issues?

Or perhaps you just delight in the thought of causing someone else pain, emotional, physical or financial. So, in essence, dobbing is betrayal with animosity and sadism as the major intent, in other words it is an act of malevolence.

Community develops on a basis of trust and hence relationships are developed. Not only is trust a primary foundation for community, but also for economy. We need to trust the brands we buy, the people that sell them, trust the people that pay our wages and trust our banks with our money. Without trust, not only does our community become fractured, but also the economy.

As human beings we expect our confidences to be maintained, we trust those we care disclose our lives to. We expect support, not to have those confidences used against us, especially with malevolence. We have a reasonable level of expectation, that minor indiscretions will remain just that and that we will not be the object of someone’s malicious intent and be dobbed in for every minor mistake.

The new culture of dobbing denies community an opportunity to sort out issues, for individuals to fix problems within their community, family, relationship and financial affairs. Dobbing prevents the initial foundation of any complaints procedure or policy from being effective. What happened to starting on the lowest level usually being discussion among affected parties, before moving up the ladder to a higher power? So now we’ve destroyed the ability to negotiate and yet negotiation is keystone in forming and maintaining any level of relationship.

“In totalitarian socialist and fascist societies, the state broke down civil society to such an extent that people would report even their own family members for any perceived minor infractions. Memoirs recall citizens being reported not out of desire to do the right thing but out of petty and unrelated personal grievances.” http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-ramifications-of-dobbing-for-australians/2007/01/20/1169096025266.html

We now have a situation where trivial issues are being reported, not because they are against the law, but because personal grievances become the motive. There is a distinct intent to harm, hurt or injure when dobbing in your work colleague or neighbour. Perhaps it’s time to stop and think…Would I report MYSELF for the same thing I want to dob someone in for?

Time to reflect on one’s reasons and motives…Am I dobbing because the person has committed a breach of law or do I want this person to get in trouble for my own reasons?

We already have many fights on many fronts, war, financial strain, economic uncertainty, unemployment, relationship issues, discrimination, and racism.
Do we really need to be fighting each other, when as a community we should be finding solidarity?

 Jodie Picken ©2003- 2010

Obviously being in academia with the backing of a university or college will give a sociologist a head start in being able to get his research out, It will also popularize his work to companies and government looking for answers to questions on social problems, behavioural patterns, alternative forms of living and other sociological interests that concerns bureaucracies, employment and economic and political change and stability.

A sociologist must be able to analyze relationships between people and society as a whole. Since the science has been broken up into specific fields over the years because of the emergence of specific facets of social interests, sociologists have been able to influence community awareness and political change. To do so the person must obtain an education so that he has at least Bachelors in Sociology.

This means the person must be able to measure statistics, plot curves and tabulate results so that he can interpret his findings. One tool to be used that is mathematically based is bio-statistics or the use of statistics concentrating on the biological sciences, which can characterize a sociological phenomenon. The person who would want to use such a method to analyze the data he observes and use it to describe social events would be a scientist who thinks critically and is unbiased. Ideally he should be able to connect to related branches in studying human interaction or the nature of human life and existence like psychology, anthropology, socio-biology and philosophy.

Today with relatively new social trends like punk bands and same-sex marriage, the sociologist should be open to understand alternative ways of behavior away from mainstream social views and practices. His work will shed light on a variety of human conditions that may be less common universally than mainstream movements and they may fall in a subcultural category but that does not make them any less valid and real.