[From Rick Marken (981220.1200)]
Marc Abrams (981219.2009)--
Rick, this isn't PCT'ish so if you want to respond to this
post I think we should continue it privately.
I think it's very PCTish (everything people do is PCTish).
I think lying is not a particularly good thing to do under _any_
circumstances.
You mean you cannot think of a scenatio where you would perceive
lying as precisely the _right_ thing to do? For me its easy;
I would lie to a Nazi who asked if I were a Jew; I would lie to
a Nazi about someone else I knew to be a homosexual. In a
hierarchical control system you _have to_ vary the reference
for lower level perceptions (like the perception of honesty) to
control for higher level perceptions (like the perception of
principles like protecting the innocent). Hierarchical control
theory shows that the desire for absolutes (the state of some
perception is always the _only_ right one) is inconsistent with
one's own human nature.
Testifying is _one_ thing. Telling the truth _while_ testifying
is another.
Ok. It's wrong to tell a lie while testifying under oath. But how
wrong is it? Is it as wrong as asking the question? In my judgement
the wrong of asking a person an irrelevant question about their
sex life (knowing that the person would probably lie to control
for not admitting to an embarassing -- but irrelevant -- fact) is
far worse than the wrong of actually telling the lie. Perhaps
there is nothing that you would mind admitting to under oath;
but I think many people can see that the questions asked of
Clinton were simply attempts to control his behavior -- get him
impeached -- by getting him to tell what could be officially seen
as a lie, knowing he would do this to protect himself from
embarassment.
After many years of investigating the details of Clinton's
financial and political life the only "crime" they could find
that Clinton committed was one he was _entrapped_ into commutting;
a crime so minor as to be laughable. But it can be called a
"lie" and the right wing has always been saying that Clinton's a
liar so now they finally had him in his great lie -- about a minor\
sexual dalliance that he didn't even initiate.
I realized this morning that the analogy to what has happened is
in Hugo's novel Les Miserables; Jean Valjean commits the most
minor of "crimes" -- he steals bread for his hungry family --
and is hunted down for this crime for the rest of his life by Javert,
who is an absolutist like Starr. To Javert, theft is theft and
that's it. So Javert hunts Jean Valjean, whom I see as very similar
to Clinton -- a good man doing good works who is tainted for the
rest of his life by the most minor of indiscretions.
Like Clinton relative to Starr, Hyde and Co. Jean Valjean is 100
times the person Javert is; indeed, this is probably one why
Clinton's enemies hate him so; it's just raw jealousy; Clinton is
better looking, smarter, sexier, funnier and kinder than his
enemies. This must drives absolutists like Javert and Starr nuts!
What about all of his friends who had to pay for legal counsel
because of his lack of forthrightness.
I don't know about this. What friends had to pay for legal counsel
because he didn't admit to a sexual irrelevancy?
Clinton is not a "bad" guy. I don't think he is any better or
worse then any of us. I believe he had some major lapses in
judgement. No one cares about his sex life. But I _do_ care
about his ability to tell the truth and own up to what he does.
Why? Why do you care so much about lying? Clinton says he
wants the minimum wage increased. If he's lying he won't work
to get that to happen and he's no better than a truthful Republican
who doesn't want it raised. Who cares? It's what people _do_ that
matters. I might be disappointed if he ran for office saying
he would raise the minimum wage and he didn't; but even then the
lying wouldn't be the big deal; it would be the action that matters.
I am _not_ condoning the way Ken Starr investigated this.
I should hope not. This is a man who actively tried to control
the behavior of another person through the process of sexual
McCarthyism. He has wasted tons of time and effort on nothing
other than trying to destroy another person -- for what?? To
protect the country from a guy who will lie about having
consensual sex; or to protect the country from a guy who might
be telling the truth about raising the minimum wage?
That's a different story.
I think it's the only story. Clinton did nothing very wrong;
a minor offense (like Valjean's). Starr and his right wing
cronies are vicious, violent, conflict crazed meanies who
could have done much more for the country by spending their
time and money whacking off for the last 6 months while listening
to the Tripp tapes.
Clinton an Asshole it is because _he_ could have avoided _all_
this silliness. Not because I think he's a "bad" person.
Yes. And the Hollywood 10 could have avoided all that silliness
if they had just admitted that they had been members of the
Communist Party. The best are always pulled down by the worst;
and it's always in the same way; through the use of absolutist
morality. That's why we love Les Miserables so much; in that one,
the envious oppressor (Javert) finally sees what a creep he is a
kills himself.
His lack of judgement number 1 and his continuous lies. Two
qualities I prefer our President did not have in huge quantities.
This guy has been President for 6 years and seems to have shown
pretty good judgment; and I don't know of any lies he's told
except the one about a minor sex tryst. I think you are really
listening to the bad guys too much. And they are bad guys becuase
they are control freaks.The absolutists want to control the
President (get him out of office) and they want to control
other people (make them behave the way they think is moral).
The people who are fighting Clinton are the people who really
could use a solid grounding in PCT -- either that or they should
get an audio version of Les Miserable and listen to it on the
way to work each day.
Why lie about such petty things.
Why ask about such petty things? Unless you are trying to
control someone else's behavior in order to hurt them.
Me:
I don't see that he committed _any_ crime (is it a crime to
interpret "sexual relations" to mean only "intercourse"?
Marc:
If that's your position, don't go ranting on about OJ.
What? The same thing applies to the OJ case. Mark Fuhrman was
shown to have "lied" about having used the N-word in the last
10 years. This "crime" became more important than the actual
crime -- OJ killing two people. Like Clinton's "lie", Furhman's
lie was neither material nor important -- except to people
who cared about racial epithets. Like Fuhrman's lies, Clinton's
"lies" are being used as a diversion from the real crime
that is taking place -- which is the attempted overthrough of
the president of the US. In the OJ case, the "lies" subtrefuge was
used by people on the political left; in the Clinton case it's
being used by people on the right. This is not a right/left
problem; this is a control problem. It's people using McCarthyism
to control other people in order to achieve their own goals --
freeing OJ or overthowing the government.
Again, Starr's tactics are a _different_ matter. Clinton _lied_.
Starr's tactics are the _only_ matter for me. Clinton's "lies" are
_nothing_ compared to what Starr did.
Clinton lied. Not once but many times.
Did he really? What is a lie, Marc? Is it so clear? Suppose you
ask me "Are you Jewish?" and I answered "no", would that be a
lie? I think it would not. I don't practice Judaism; I don't
much care for any organized religion; I'm not Jewish. But
if I said "yes" that would _also_ not be a lie. I am cultually
Jewish; I would be considered a Jew by Hitler; etc. See the problem
with this verbal approach to truth? What constitutes a _lie_ is
not always easy to say. Poeple who are preoccupied with "lying"
are preoccupied with something other than the truth; they are
preoccupied (I believe) with controlling other people. And I
think that preoccupation is the root of all the problems in the
world. Starr and Mr. Hyde are prime examples of how people would
_not_ behave if they understood PCT.
Rick, it's not about the sex. it's about the deception.
Yes, I know. And who the hell cares about deception expect 1)
people (like Hilary) who may have negotiated a contract with
the would-be deceiver that he not do the behavior that is the
subject of the deception or 2) people who want to control the
behavior of the would-be deciever.
If he is annd was willing to decieve on such trivial bullshit,
how reliable is he on other more important issues.
Just the same as everyone else. Deceiving isn't a "trait"; it's
a means of control. Everybody does it at one time or another?
One definition I have of an asshole is someone who has total
disregard for the effects their controlling has on others,
even when they are made aware of the unintended side effects.
Well, to me an asshole is a person like Starr who acts to control
another person to acheive his own ends. No one can know the
actual side effects of their actions; they can't adjust their
own controlling for the benefit of others. But people can control
their own controlling; or they can lower the gain on it. PCT
shows that they _must_ learn how to do this if they want to
get along together in groups. Controlling one's own inclination
to control other people -- especially when those other people
are not interfering with your own ability to control -- is what
is known as _common decency_. This is what Starr, Hyde and
the rest have not yet mastered; they have not learned how _not_
to achieve their ends by controlling other people; they have not
learned to negociate and conciliate; they have not learned the
essential lesson of PCT (which should be the lesson of the season):
common decency or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
