Elect a hypocrite (in praise of flexibility,)

[Hoping4Change]

Kerry has to start selling his flexibilty as a strong point.

Interesting article

"I know that a lot of you think you are opposed to hypocrisy. You want to cast your vote for a straight arrow, a man who sticks rigidly to his word and never breaks promises, a leader of unwavering conviction. This may sound appealing at election time, but it is always a mistake.

A little bit of hypocrisy makes for good politics. If you examine history's most successful politicians, you will not find the leaders who invariably kept their word and stuck close to their goals. Quite the contrary: Take a turn through the biography shelf, and you will find creative, flexible people who reacted to their environment in novel, successful and varying ways, throwing consistency to the wind. During their time in office, they were often called hypocrites and turncoats.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040612/DOUG12//?query=doug+saunders

[Mokito]

1. Flexible and hypocritical are not synonyms

[myopic4141]

2. Not all evaluators are hypocrites

Hypocrites are those evaluators who pretend to be better than they are. The greater the deviation from pretense, the greater the hypocrisy. The most extreme hypocrites are those who do not even attempt to live up to who they pretend they are. Non-hypocritical evaluators are those who live up to the higher level goals they set. There is no pretense to who they are for they never try to be who they are not.
Shrubby is an extreme hypocrite for he pretends to be an individual of principal; however, there is not even an attempt to live up to those principles. Shrubby raises an interesting issue regarding the definition strictness of evaluators vs wantons. Evaluators must be able to evaluate position and to perform evaluation, one must have intellectual curiosity to gather information. Shrubby lacks that intellectual curiosity; therefore, is he a true evaluator or a wanton pretending to be an evaluator? If he is a wanton pretending to be an evaluator, then is he a hypocrite since wantons cannot be hypocrites? An interesting dilemma. Any answers?

[Hoping4Change]

4. Shrub is not an evaluator.

Hypocrisy is being defined here as the “collision of first-order and second-order thought” and is the product of strong evaluation. It is not being defined as pretense.

First order thinkers are said to be wanton because personal desires and aspirations are their only goals.

Second order thinkers look beyond personal needs to larger principles and goals. These thinkers (strong evaluators) are “constantly wrestling with the conflict between first-order and second-order thought."

Strong evaluators are not as you write “those who live up to the higher level goals they set”. Strong evaluators are those who constantly wrestle with the conflict between first-order and second-order thought. Shrub does not fall into this category because he doesn’t engage this intellectual wrestling; he, like pigeons and rats, is consistently rational which means he is looking out for his own interest. The more civilized human stands above mere rationality in defense of higher principles.

Truly civilized people are guided by higher principles than personal desire but appear to be hypocritical and irrational to low-order thinkers who place a premium on consistency. Shrub's first-order thinking creates the illusion of high principle because it is so rigid and so simple. In fact, it is wanton self-interest.

[myopic4141]

6. Conflict vs hypocrisy.

There is nothing that brings greater confusion to an issue than the changing of definitions (a wanton thought).
I would have called the "collision between first and second order thought" conflict rather than hypocrisy. That would better describe the relationship between first (instinctual) and second (rational) order thought; thus, keeping the definition of hypocrisy as "the pretense of living within established confines from first and second order thought conflict resolution" (another wanton thought). Wantons are said to be "those living mostly within first order thought"; but, there is an implication that once a conflict has been resolved (a principle of balance between a first and second order collision has been established), the Wanton instinctively accepts (possibly over adhering to) the principle. Evaluators appear to be those who establish principles via conflict resolution (hypocritical thinking if hypocrisy defines the collision?).
A real interesting item is that "hypocrisy is a product of strong evaluation" which is in conflict with hypocrisy being defined as "the collision between first and second order thought". The latter implies that any collision between the two orders is considered hypocrisy whereas the former implies that evaluation of any collision is considered hypocrisy. Usage of the term strong adds another dimension via an implication that weak evaluations exist. Would weak evaluators also be hypocrites then becomes an issue.
Only under the changing of the definition of hypocrisy could one assert that a Wanton would view an Evaluator as a hypocrite. A Wanton would view the Evaluator as a heretic rather than a hypocrite from an established principle acceptance point of view and there is no term covering that from a purely instinctual point of view.
I think I will keep hypocrisy as "the pretense towards living within the bounds of established principle" thank you very much which keeps the term not acceptable. This also keeps Shrubby a hypocrite for he does not live within the bounds of his espoused established principles. Shrubby's self made intellectual eunuchism via lack of intellectual curiosity makes him incapable of critical analysis which is required to evaluate the conflict between first and second order thought for resolution definitely removes him from any consideration that he may be an Evaluator placing him in the class known as Wantons.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

3. I love Doug Saunders.

Probably my favorite journalist in the world.
He can write about anything. He actually interviewed me once about my Canada For Clark site and did a story about it. Really cool guy..

Great article also.

[Hoping4Change]

5. I too iove Saunders

I always forward to his columns. He always has a unique slant.