Moody's warns that UK could lose coveted triple-A credit rating
Are we now perverting even christianity into a fauxgiving religion? (Wait for both the Anglican Church, the Pope AND the Vatican Bank to bless this bullshit.) Surely there were at least some ancient religious or tribal advisories against coveting control of social credit perspectives? Or have we not yet scaled up cultural thinking to handle the pace of current economic dynamics? Has the sheer volume of jumbled semantics simply overwhelmed the clarity of group thinking?
Fauxgive & fauxget? Is that's how the financial gods & "their" flock are supposed to live in faux-ever harmony? The lying will lie down to the flambe, (and then eat them AND their lunch)? Forget Moody's, I've heard more convincing warnings from PEVA, the People for the Ethical treatment of VegetAbles.
Propagandists are now crazy like a faux?
We're caught in a Koch-22. It's a real Boehner.
We are now entering a faux version of "The Semantic Zone." Speak out of context at your own peril, since you have to know your diverse audiences well enough to know what emotions will be triggered by the words themselves, not just their highly context-specific supplied meaning. Facebook it, not everyone thinks or parses situations at the same rate (if at all). That's why advertising and propaganda works. In large-scale policy debates, your own words can and will be misused against both you and your little electorate too. :(
People knew 3500 years ago that a tower of babble was useless without adequate parsing tempo. Then, 1200 years later, the Sophists brought it back as an amusing diversion, with potential for misuse that alarmed Socrates. Surely the sophists never dreamed that - 2300 years later - even the unprecedented but increasingly segmented brilliance of a nation of NAICS codes could be so easily led astray by sophist-icated idiot savants like Lee Atwater and his little Karl Rove.
Making the weaker group-logic appear the stronger to divided individuals is an escalation of Sophistry. Such diversions equate to choosing national deadends over Adaptive Paths. Those mistakes, when they occur, result from using the wrong methods, for example, applying an individual instead of a group paradigm to guide group outcomes.
Rushing to do so equates to selecting accelerated group demise over Adaptive Rate. To do that takes effort and momentum. So if we're going to make any effort at all, and co-align individual efforts into meaningful group effort, why not invest in an electorate that can think? That's how we can invest in democracy. We need an electorate that can parse it's own, distributed thoughts fast enough to achieve national policy agility. Achieving group agility requires being aware of and seeing through the diversity of simultaneous semantics.
Sophistry and it's cousing propaganda are of very little adaptive use to a culture and economy. If we're going to use a lean, highly dynamic language, with multiple, context-dependent re-use of the same words, then for heaven's sake, we need to tighten tolerance limits on accurately redefining terms before attempting policy discussions. You have to think that Socrates would be appalled to hear our Congress or electorate trying to discuss policy details while carelessly mixing so many semantic metaphors with such functional incompetence.
Any current grammarian or linguist would be appalled just trying to diagram the word meanings recklessly misused across every discussion of currency operations and fiscal policy. At a minimum, everyone should be aware that Credit Ratings apply only to Currency Users, and are irrelevant to Currency Issuers.
Why should educated electorates be moody over Moody's? Completely separate from monetary operations, we need to distribute enough semantic currency to make that discrimination a simple memetic liquidity event. :)
Are we now perverting even christianity into a fauxgiving religion? (Wait for both the Anglican Church, the Pope AND the Vatican Bank to bless this bullshit.) Surely there were at least some ancient religious or tribal advisories against coveting control of social credit perspectives? Or have we not yet scaled up cultural thinking to handle the pace of current economic dynamics? Has the sheer volume of jumbled semantics simply overwhelmed the clarity of group thinking?
Fauxgive & fauxget? Is that's how the financial gods & "their" flock are supposed to live in faux-ever harmony? The lying will lie down to the flambe, (and then eat them AND their lunch)? Forget Moody's, I've heard more convincing warnings from PEVA, the People for the Ethical treatment of VegetAbles.
Propagandists are now crazy like a faux?
We're caught in a Koch-22. It's a real Boehner.
We are now entering a faux version of "The Semantic Zone." Speak out of context at your own peril, since you have to know your diverse audiences well enough to know what emotions will be triggered by the words themselves, not just their highly context-specific supplied meaning. Facebook it, not everyone thinks or parses situations at the same rate (if at all). That's why advertising and propaganda works. In large-scale policy debates, your own words can and will be misused against both you and your little electorate too. :(
People knew 3500 years ago that a tower of babble was useless without adequate parsing tempo. Then, 1200 years later, the Sophists brought it back as an amusing diversion, with potential for misuse that alarmed Socrates. Surely the sophists never dreamed that - 2300 years later - even the unprecedented but increasingly segmented brilliance of a nation of NAICS codes could be so easily led astray by sophist-icated idiot savants like Lee Atwater and his little Karl Rove.
Making the weaker group-logic appear the stronger to divided individuals is an escalation of Sophistry. Such diversions equate to choosing national deadends over Adaptive Paths. Those mistakes, when they occur, result from using the wrong methods, for example, applying an individual instead of a group paradigm to guide group outcomes.
Rushing to do so equates to selecting accelerated group demise over Adaptive Rate. To do that takes effort and momentum. So if we're going to make any effort at all, and co-align individual efforts into meaningful group effort, why not invest in an electorate that can think? That's how we can invest in democracy. We need an electorate that can parse it's own, distributed thoughts fast enough to achieve national policy agility. Achieving group agility requires being aware of and seeing through the diversity of simultaneous semantics.
Sophistry and it's cousing propaganda are of very little adaptive use to a culture and economy. If we're going to use a lean, highly dynamic language, with multiple, context-dependent re-use of the same words, then for heaven's sake, we need to tighten tolerance limits on accurately redefining terms before attempting policy discussions. You have to think that Socrates would be appalled to hear our Congress or electorate trying to discuss policy details while carelessly mixing so many semantic metaphors with such functional incompetence.
Any current grammarian or linguist would be appalled just trying to diagram the word meanings recklessly misused across every discussion of currency operations and fiscal policy. At a minimum, everyone should be aware that Credit Ratings apply only to Currency Users, and are irrelevant to Currency Issuers.
Why should educated electorates be moody over Moody's? Completely separate from monetary operations, we need to distribute enough semantic currency to make that discrimination a simple memetic liquidity event. :)
