Love
Kashonia

I want to say something that has come up from your fantastic article which is just as confounding about what to do about things as anything. I am an Independent voter, and I listened to the 08 campaign very carefully, deciding to help elect Obama. From day 1 I have been concerned and disappointed. Because still eagerly watching all the tv footage, I saw a moment fleet across him when he stepped out from reading the letter the last President left him, or something to do with meeting with Bush. I saw such weakness, such a paled personae, it was such an ‘oh shit’ moment for me. I knew he wasn’t up for it. Now, I think I have some insight into what he learned.

That said, we are in a rock and a hard place here in politics, it’s going to take more than a person or a party to heal the US of A as you say. It’s global baby and the people pulling the strings (corporations?) must be in an epic battle. What the Teamster Unions have done for workers here is turn them into slaves as if channeling the caliber of the Chinese model that is waning. Shoulder to the wind for Christine Lagarde!

I always love making people happy, so I’m glad you were able to have “fun” with me.

When I wrote my last response, I actually wanted to include a quote, but I couldn’t find it until now.
So here it is. It will explain much better than I did previously what I meant when I said we are talking different languages.

But first a short story …
I began my PhD in Ethics with the Graduate School of Management (GSM), however all previous Ethics degrees were with the School of Philosophy. And so I didn’t realise that there were actually two totally different types of ethics – Philosophy-based Ethics and Social Science-based Ethics. My first supervisor from the GSM was most definitely a Social Science-based Ethicist. Indeed, everyone at the GSM was either a social scientist of some form with a few engineers. They had never had a philosopher enter their doors before.

Day one, my Social Science-based Ethicist supervisor gave me a peer reviewed paper that he’d written and of which he was very proud. I went home that night and read it and thought what rubbish, as far as ethics is concerned.

It was relatively interesting, but if I had been marking it as an undergraduate ethics paper, I would have failed it.

I would say things to my supervisor that he thought were rubbish, and vice versa.

Shortly (thank goodness) after, I found the paper from which the following story comes.

The paper is called “Business ETHICS/BUSINESS ethics: One Field or Two?” Trevino & Weaver (1994)

The focus of the paper is on the difference between Philosophy-based Ethics and Social Science-based Ethics. It starts out with a wonderful scenario which I used to give to all of my ethics students.

SCENE: A conference on business ethics where academics from liberal arts philosophy departments (business ETHICS) and business schools (BUSINESS ethics) are gathered to share their past year’s work:

Business School Faculty Member: “These philosophers don’t seem to know much about business. Their papers are full of mumbo jumbo that no one else can understand, least of all business managers. What does all of this tell us about management in the real world, anyway? I’d like to be a fly on the wall when they attempt to deliver these incomprehensible abstractions and stories to the local Chamber of Commerce”.

Philosopher: “Oh no, a panel discussion by business school faculty on employee theft. Someone will probably talk about the relationship between unauthorized paper clip acquisitions and variations in office lighting, holding moonlight constant, of course. Big deal! That won’t improve anyone’s character, nor give the genuinely puzzled a guide for moral living. It’s no surprise, though; they really haven’t even studied ethics”.

******

That’s what I mean about talking different languages. Unlike the scientist, a good philosopher will rarely make any definitive statements of fact. They present all of the evidence on both, or all, sides and then give an opinion but not necessarily a so-called factual conclusion.

Also, I know my audience/readers and so I am writing to them in a way that they understand and appreciate.

Nevertheless, having said that, believe it or not, but I did appreciate some of your comments – they did make me think that I need to be a little more rigorous.

The most frustrating thing for me was the lack of time to argue against many of the points you highlighted. If I had had the time, I too could have had fun with you.

So I’m glad you are now going to leave me alone and move onto someone more deserving of your attention.

Just one thing before I go.

I’d love you to look at this video at http://youtu.be/wyG0vcIqUQo

It only runs for 2 min 50 secs.

I’ve posted it on my blog too.

The video is of Prof. Mark Van Stone – originally a physicist and then got into ancient hieroglyphs and did his doctoral thesis on Maya Hieroglyphs – who like the both of us thinks that a lot of Maya stuff on the Internet is, and I quote, “crap”.

But Christopher please take special note at the way he talks about it and the people who subscribe to that “crap”. He does it in such an understanding and gentle way, even though he disagrees with most of it.

You could really learn a lot from him and his social skills.

All the best
Kashonia

Can you tell me how you got the numbers for the different examples above.

Take McDonalds as just one example. All the letters add up to a total of 31 – which indeed reduces to a 4. But can you explain how you came to 764.

Is it 7 (vowels)+ 6 (constantant) = 4?

I too have studied numerology and there isn’t anything really special about the number 4. It is normally a number of truth and honesty where we have the 4 sides of stability. Often in a 4 year people might build a house or move to a new house.

You’re obviously a great football fan.
I’ll have to ask Tania about Tom Brady – but if she said his numbers are 4378 – then I’m sure she’s right.

I’m so glad that you like Tania’s segment.

Love
Kashonia

Love
Kashonia

To me it is clear that the government shot down that plane 6 miles from Shanksville in the forest where they immediately prevented anyone entering the area. Then the fighter plane that shot UA93 down went over the Shanksville field and shot a rocket into the ground and did a roll and flew away.

The eye witness videos make it all so clear.

Then knowing that the US public would not be impressed that the government had shot and killed all those people the Shanksville story began.

I’m so glad you appreciate the article. It’s a story I am very passionate about.
Love
Kashonia