the psychopath as leader

8/9/2019 The Psychopath as Leader

1/92

Institute of Noetic CapitalUnit 116, 634 - 2nd Avenue NE, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2E 0E8

Tel.: (403) 474-0632 Fax: (403) 289-7152 Email:[email protected]

noospherepragmaticessentials.com

scribd.com/ClementBlakeslee

Twitter: @clemblakeslee

The Psychopathas Leader

By Clement Blakeslee, B.A., M.A.,M.Sc.Retired public affairs broadcaster, political journalist, human resourcesconsultant, native affairs advocate, social science academic, and environmentaladvocate

Buddha graphicby Wilfredor / CC BY-SA 3.0
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Budda.svghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Budda.svg


2/92

Table of Contents

Introduction 3The Human Quest: A Relentless Confusion 4Has the Celebration of Remorselessness Gone Too Far? 7When Your oss is Almost a !s"#ho$ath %%Ho& Can You Tell if 'omeone is a !s"#ho$ath? %(

Section I: Insightful Perspectives 16The 'o#io$ath)s Co*e %7%( Rules for +ealin, &ith 'o#io$aths in -.er"*a" /ife %01e" '"m$toms of !s"#ho$ath" 2(

Section II: Summaries of Key Literature 25Without Cons#ien#e 23

The 'o#io$ath e5t +oor (6'naes in 'uits (2The /iar)s Tale (3The 8Honest Truth9 About +ishonest" 4%The Foll" of Fools 4The ;oral /an*s#a$e 40Tamin, the Ti,er Within 3%

Section III: Leadership: Positive Perspective 6!/ife 3The Co*e of Humanit" 33The Charter for Com$assion 37

The 'a,e)s Co*e: T&el.e Transformati.e oeti# -ssentials 3


3/92

ntroduction


4/92

"he #uman $uest: %elentless &onfusion

!or "00#000 years# since the e$ergence of ho$o sapiens#

hu$an%ind has been plagued by per&asi&e confusion# that is'(o) do indi&iduals or social groupings distinguish bet)een that)hich is dangerously fraudulent fro$ that )hich istranscendentally $iraculous*

The rise and fall of ci&ili+ations ha&e been for thousands of yearsplagued by this essential confusion. ,estructi&e dictators ande&en so$e religious leaders ha&e achie&ed success through thepropagation of dangerous fraud. !ortunately hu$an%ind has alsogenerated great sages )ho# in their presence# ee$plify that

)hich is transcendentally $iraculous.

Todays )orld is as plagued by psychopaths )ho gain greatfollo)ing as )ell as social $o&e$ents led by sages.

These t)o realities ha&e $any ea$ples historically andcurrently. (opefully this )ebsite )ill aid in pro&iding tools forunderstanding and identifying ideas and persons )ho are eithersagely or psychopathic. The interplay of the noetic and bioticreal$s are currently in the forefront of acade$ic and scienticin&estigation. The literature is rich )ith ideas and profoundinsights are being generated by a )ide range of subect areas.

After "00#000 years# hu$anity $ay be ready to understand thedi1erence bet)een $agic and science# bet)een psychopath andsage# bet)een fraud and $iracle# and bet)een that )hich isrichly spiritual fro$ that )hich is destructi&ely anti-social.

n the follo)ing $onths# loo% for)ard to the human =uest ina#tionin a rich and &ibrant fashion.

This docu$ent atte$pts to delineate those characteristics of thehu$an $ind )hich are creati&e# constructi&e and generati&efro$ those )hich are negati&e# destructi&e and predatory.

Leadership: "'o &ritical (imensions

2y ati&e $other often o1ered the obser&ation# )hich clearlyde$onstrated her &ie) of those in authority or# if you )ill# people


5/92

)ith leadership. 4What you dont see is $ost of )hat you get.4Although this obser&ation is harsh# it sho)s a reality aboutleadership eperienced by ordinary people. 5eadership can bedecepti&e and eploiti&e. This style of leadership is co$$onenough to )arrant a clear and descripti&e label.

-5$loiti.e lea*ershi$ is a label choose to use for those persons)ho deal )ith their o)n constituency in decepti&e# $anipulati&e#and ruthless self-ser&ing strategies. t is the self-ser&ing aspect ofsuch leadership# )hich can pro&e to be destructi&e and di&erting.

6ne of the $ysteries of hu$an eistence surrounds proble$s ofeploiti&e leaders. Why do ordinary intelligent people allo)the$sel&es to be led by self-ser&ing leaders* We see destructi&e#eploiti&e leaders abroad and at ho$e. They can ac7uire

leadership at the national or local le&el. This $ystery $ay ne&erbe ans)ered8 ho)e&er# there is an alternati&e style of leadership.

!ortunately# the hu$an 7uest is blessed by leaders )ho focus onconstructi&e and creati&e forces )ithin the hu$an co$$unity.Such leaders are responsible leaders. 9esponsibility in leadershipis dra$atically opposite of the characteristics of eploiti&eleaders.

The essence of a responsible leader $eans gi&ing of yourself in agenerous and generati&e style. 5eadership in&ol&es pri&ilege#although a responsible leader ac%no)ledges that )ith pri&ilegeco$es responsibility.

The health of any organi+ation:s$all or large:depends onresponsible leadership. The po)er of the hu$an spirit and the&itality of the indi&idual $ind is culti&ated and enriched byresponsible leaders. Through careful $easuring# responsibleleaders can facilitate syste$atic in&est$ent in hu$an resources.

This in&est$ent in social capital is by far the $ost i$portantin&est$ent# )hich can be $ade at all le&els of society fro$

neighbourhood to nation.

The follo)ing graphic represents the points $ade abo&e.


6/92


7/92

)#as the &ele*ration of %emorselessness +one"oo ,ar-." !atri#ia !earson

;ublished in the !riday# Aug.


8/92

The diagnosis $ay be clinical# but the issue# funda$entally# is $oral.What %ind of a society do )e )ish to inhabit# )ith )hat %inds of leadersand heroes*

Inhuman humans

ust to be clear# the )ords psychopath and sociopath areinterchangeable8 neither is an oIcially sanctioned clinical ter$. n thene)est &ersion of the ,iagnostic and Statistical 2anual of 2ental,isorders J,S2-@K# the disease that describes so$eone )ho is ruinous#re$orseless# self-interested and rec%less is Danti-social personalitydisorder.E

;sychopath-sociopaths are neither )ise nor conscientious# becausethey lac% a capacity for e$pathy and possess no e$otional depth.They $ay be cogniti&ely lucid# say eperts )ho study this pathology#

but they are $orally insane.

;sychopaths aren?t necessarily $urderous# but anyone )ho hasencountered the personality L the cold# e&aluati&e stare# the radicalobectication of others# the utter indi1erence to su1ering L )illeperience it as shatteringly inhu$an.

Why# then# ha&e inhu$an hu$ans beco$e sources of inspiration*

The trend to)ard nor$ali+ing psychopathic beha&iour $ay ha&estarted# innocently enough# in the real$ of T@ co$edy )riting.

Det)or%s used to ha&e rules about ho) characters had to beMli%eable#? not too o1ensi&e or i$$oral#E says Toronto-based script-de&elop$ent eecuti&e Anne !enn. Then ca$e 'einfel*# follo)ed byCurb Your -nthusiasmandArreste* +e.elo$ment)hich all allo)edthe )riters and the audience to pee% inside characters? uglier#narcissistic $oti&ations.

Dt?s diIcult to say )hich ca$e rst L the need for $ore interestingcharacters as a result of this ne) style of co$edy# or audiences?boredo$ )ith traditional sitco$#E 2s. !enn says.

DBut because these psychopathic characters )ere originally safelyensconced in the real$ of co$edy# nobody )orried $uch about it. t)as ne) and shoc%ing to see characters li%e this and they $ade uslaugh# )hich )as %ind of the point.E

So$e)here along the line# the co$ic psychopaths softened ouracceptance of dra$atic psychopaths. Whereas# earlier in dra$atic)riting# the ruthless )ere pursued by the good# @ laa$es Bond and


9/92

his &illains# no) the ruthless &erethe good# or at least thesy$pathetic.

Consider ,eter# the thoughtful serial %iller )ho )or%s for 2ia$i 2etro;olice# or (annibal 5ecter# a courteous psychiatrist )ho engages in

cannibalis$ Jforeshado)ing The 'ilen#e of the /ambs9# or e&eryone?sbelo&ed Walt# the $eth-coo%ing che$ist in reain, a*.

D;eople enoy )atching sociopaths on tele&ision as a %ind ofco$pensation for their o)n feelings of po)erlessness andhelplessness#E says Chicago cultural critic Ada$ ots%o# author of Wh"We /o.e 'o#io$aths: A Gui*e to /ate Ca$italist Tele.isionAs )e are red# du$ped# ignored and bossed around by auto$ated&oices# )e percei&e the )orld as increasingly psychopathic.Transgressi&e characters stand in for our inchoate rage. >ma,ine if &e#oul* Bust s#re& e.er"one o.er the &a" the")re s#re&in, us o.er2ean

begets $ean.

As tele&ision increasingly panders to this appetite# feeding it )ithhandso$e and often gla$orous &ersions of the sociopath# al$ostine&itably# into plain sight# co$e the real sociopaths# as if eiting ani$prisoning closet.

(ere is ,r. !allon# a professor of psychiatry at HC r&ine# describing)hat he assu$es fa$ilial lo&e $eans' D;eople close to you naturallydesire to be treated in a &ery special )ay e$otionally# and not beingable to deli&er that connecti&ity fro$ the heart can be a big proble$

for such relationships.E (is feelings for his fa$ily# he concedes# are nodi1erent than his feelings for strangers.

D don?t get $y ollies fro$ doing har$ to other people#E he insists.

D si$ply don?t feel that bad if happen to hurt so$eone in pursuit of$y o)n goals or e&en a$use$ent.E

6f course# there )as that ti$e he deliberately positioned his brotherbet)een hi$self and so$e hyenas in Africa N

2s. Tho$as# )ho says she teaches la) as )ell as Sunday school# ise7ually sure that )hat she )rites is reasonable# una)are of its $oralinsanity' D2ost people )ho interact )ith sociopaths are better o1 thanthey other)ise $ight be. Sociopaths are part of the grease $a%ing the)orld go around. We fulll fantasies# or at least the appearance offantasies. n fact# )e are so$eti$es the only ones attenti&e topro&iding for your deepest )ants and needs.E


10/92

As for the bestselling author ,r. ,utton# his idea of )isdo$ inpsychopaths is that they sho) Dfearlessness# focus and a Mtalent? foridentifying the e$otions of others.E

Ah# )here to begin* D,utton?s argu$ent see$s to be that so$eti$es

)e could all use a little of )hat he ter$s Mthe se&en deadly )ins? Lruthlessness# char$# focus# $ental toughness# fearlessness#$indfulness and action#E )rites Boston-based clinical psychologist2artha Stout )hile re&ie)ing his boo% for The e& Re$ubli#. D daresay)e could L but those beha&ioural features do not represent a Mdose ofpsychopathy#? to use ,utton?s epression. n reality# a touch ofpsychopathy )ould $ean a $alignant strea% of brutality# oiliness#predatory single-$indedness# callousness# carelessness# eclusi&e self-in&ol&e$ent and clinical i$pulsi&ity.E

9eal-life psychopaths do not rese$ble char$ing# focused and ruthless

business leaders and politicians# or breathta%ingly intelligentin&estigators li%e Sherloc% (ol$es. nstead# they are i$pulsi&e andgreedy. Their conduct destroys co$panies and de&astatesco$$unities. n his boo% The !s"#ho$ath Test# British ournalist on9onson points to (aitian death s7uad leader $$anuel Toto Constant#a char$ing brute )ho$ he inter&ie)ed in e) Yor%# and Al ,unlap# apri$e corporate predator )ho e&iscerated the labour force atSunbea$. These $en# 2r. 9onson argued# )ould be $uch closerapproi$ations of a clinically assessed psychopath than the fair-$inded ,eter.

DWhat )orries $e#E says culture critic 2r. ots%o# Dis the )ay that this%ind of literature can legiti$i+e the selsh and heartless beha&iour that)e often see a$ong our business and political elites. f )e &ie) suchpeople as especially )ise or deser&ing# it undercuts our ability tode$and better fro$ the$ L and it $a%es the a&erage person# )ho isnot going to be able to sto$ach the %inds of actions a psychopath)ould be )illing to ta%e# feel li%e they?re lac%ing so$ething# )henreally it?s the psychopath )ho?s lac%ing.E

"he po'er of empathyAny bid to nor$ali+e or e&en celebrate psychopaths? absence of

e$otional intelligence is disturbing to those )ho see co$passion ande$pathy as critical to social gro)th. D$pathy is actually the essen#eof a life that contributes to ci&il society#E says 2ary Oordon# theCanadian founder of a celebrated school progra$ called 9oots of$pathy# )hich is no) )or%ing# for ea$ple# )ith ;rotestant andCatholic children in orthern reland to o&erco$e decades of &iolenthostility. Df )e cannot connect# )e cannot collaborate.E


11/92

This is true not only in ci&ic and interpersonal life# but in business. Apushbac% against ruthlessness has been going on for so$e ti$e# ledby people )ho %no) ho) to spea% the right language. We need totransfor$ the perception of e$pathy as a Dsoft Pu1y s%ill best left tothe dolly birds in (9#E says Belinda ;al$er# chief eecuti&e oIcer of

British social-$edia co$pany 5ady Oee%# )ho recently launched )hatshe calls DThe $pathy raE ca$paign.

2s. ;al$er# understanding her business audience# points out thatDe$pathy leads to $ore prot. 2ost large corporate cultures arepolitical# hierarchical and based on fear# and thus are $issing out onre&enue. A$ong the 5?6rQal sales force# the best e$pathi+ers soldnearly R


12/92

)/hen 0our oss is lmost a Psychopath.b" ulia ;#1innell;ublished in the August "0# "0 8or +oes 'omeone > 1no&9 Ha.e a !roblem &ith ;ani$ulation an* /a#of -m$ath"? t helps identify the 4al$ost psychopath4 in your $idst#

)hether its your boss# doctor or caregi&er.

Schouten esti$ates


13/92

The authors reco$$end confronting the person and stating yourissues asserti&ely. A&oid using apologetic )ords such as# 42aybe $too sensiti&e# but....4 That language 4al)ays puts you one do)n inaddressing a conPict# and for an 4al$ost psychopath#4 that sho) of)ea%ness can be li%e blood in the )ater to a shar%.4

f confrontation es nothing# le a report )ith hu$an resources.4!ra$ing your concerns in the contet of the )elfare of theorgani+ation rather than saying# Shes pic%ing on $e# goes a long )ayto)ard establishing your reasonableness.4 The %ey point is to get yourconcerns on the radar of $anage$ent. 4&en if the conclusion is thatnothing can be done right no)# there )ill be a trac% record ande&entually it )ill catch up )ith the Oretas of the )orld.4

!or the 4al$ost psychopath4 doctor# the end goal is usually se )ith apatient. 4f so$ething sort of tingles and you go# (ey# )ait a secondGyou o)e it to yourself to pay attention to that#4 urges Schouten. (ead&ises patients to research a doctors $edical credentials. et# chec%the diplo$as on the doctors )all. 4f the diplo$a says they )ent to(ar&ard but the )eb page says they )ent to the Hni&ersity of SouthernWhere&er# theres a proble$.4

The elderly are particularly &ulnerable to the 4al$ost psychopathic4caregi&er. 4n the cartoon &ersion# the patient has died and changedtheir )ill in the last four )ee%s. They&e cut out the charity# left apittance to the fa$ily# and left it all to the young house%eeper#4 theauthors )rite. 4ts funny in the cartoons but it really does happen. Tell arelati&e or friend# (ey# theres this ne) person in $y life and suddenlythe relationship is ra$ping up. o) shes bringing her daughter aroundand $ beco$ing an industry for the entire fa$ily.4 n the end# 4thereare no great ans)ers#4 la$ents Schouten. 4Oet other people in&ol&ed.E


14/92

)#o' &an 0ou "ell if Someone is aPsychopath-.

" ;i#hael !osner

;ublished in the 6ctober "# "0


15/92

pressure# narcissis$# appetite for ris%# the need to control# e$otionaldetach$ent and/or lac% of conscience.

6nly in etre$e cases is sadistic cruelty added to the list. ,r. ,uttonsfa&oured analogy is the $iing board of a recording studio' ach

control represents a di1erent characteristic# and each can be$odulated to di1erent le&els# producing an innite array of beha&iouralresults.

4Cran% all the dials to $a# and youll end up doing 30 years#4 he says.4But if so$e are up and so$e do)n# you can adust# andU be 7uitesuccessful.4

ndeed# stripped of the stereotypes lurid sensationalis$# bona-depsychopaths are )al%ing a$ong us in serious nu$bers. Jsti$atesrange fro$ 0.= to " per cent of the population.K We elect# obey and

idoli+e $any of the$.

Bill Clinton# Ste&e obs# !ran%lin 9oose&elt# a$es Bond# ohn !.ennedy# @ladi$ir ;utin# ing ,a&id# the Apostle ;aul L all of these# ,r.,utton suggests# )ould doubtless score )ell on any psychopathic test.J(e is not prepared to o1er udg$ent about Barac% 6ba$a or his9epublican presidential ri&al# 2itt 9o$ney.K

2es$eri+ing chief eecuti&e oIcer# type-A la)yer or cardiac surgeon#charis$atic clergy$an# gal&anic politician# seducti&e lead actor L all ofthese# he says# display psychopathic tendencies# and all the $ore

e1ecti&e because they are so carefully &eiled.

The co$$on deno$inator is high achie&e$ent. Their $ethods $aynot al)ays pass the s$ell test. They $ay lea&e &icti$s callouslystre)n in their )a%e. But the syndro$e does ha&e rede$pti&e &alue.!unctional psychopaths get things done L often# things that contributeto the broader social good.

4A 2artian )or%ing at a clinic treating hu$an sun-related conditions#e&erything fro$ $elano$a to dehydration# )ould be forgi&en forthin%ing# 5ets ban the sun. ts bad# 4 ,r. ,utton says. 4But you and

%no) the sun is only bad in large doses. n fact# )ithout it# )e )ouldntbe here at all. ts the sa$e )ith psychopaths. posed to one all day#youre going to get carcino$a of the personality. But regulatedpsychopathy can ha&e intrinsic benets L personality )ith a good tan.4

;sychopaths are such brilliant actors that potential &icti$s $ay notreali+e )hat they are dealing )ith# says ,r. ,utton# )hose rst boo%#Fli$nosis: The Art of '$litE'e#on* !ersuasion# )as translated into


16/92

languages. But certain social cues facilitate recognition# he $aintains.s your husband deceitful Jstatistically# psychopaths are predo$inantly$aleK* s your boss $anipulati&e* ,oes your colleague steal your ideasor shift bla$e for failures to other sta1 $e$bers*The %ey di1erence bet)een a cri$inally $inded and a functionally

successfully psychopath is self-control. 4The for$er has his i$pulsi&itydial turned up higher#4 ,r. ,utton says. 4The other is $uch better ableto defer gratication.4

ts not surprising that politics attracts a disproportionate nu$ber ofpsychopaths. 4;oliticians $ust be self-condent# fearless# &ery good atpersuasion and $anipulation# and be $entally tough to deal )ithcrises#4 he says. 46ne senior British 2; L he shall re$ain na$eless Ltold $e the only )ay to see )ho )as stabbing you in the bac% )as tosee their rePection in the eyes of the person stabbing you in the front.4

Because apples seldo$ fall far fro$ their tree# as%ed ,r. ,utton)hether he harboured the sa$e psychopathic instincts as his latefather. 4Well# ll tell you# 2ichael#4 he says# sounding &ery $uch li%ethe ;etticoat 5ane $ar%et trader his father )as. 4&e got too $uch of aconscience.4

But# in other respects# ,r. ,utton is clearly his fathers son. (e fra$esco$ple ideas in si$ple )ays# de$onstrates the sa$e glib facility )ith)ords and establishes instant fa$iliarity by dropping $y na$efre7uently into the con&ersation.

And# lest )e forget# sales$anship' &en though he argues thatpsychopathic %illers are ust a s$all fraction of the psychopathicpopulation# ,r. ,uttons )ebsite is designed li%e an ad&ertise$ent forA i,htmare on -lm 'treet)ith shoc%-horror typography.

4Thats called getting the best of both )orlds# $y friend#4 he said.4You&e got to reel the$ in so$eho). And its called $ar%eting.4

Psycho or hero-

As e&in ,uttons ne) boo% illustrates# the sa$e characteristics that

)e $ight use to describe societys leaders ust need a little push tobeco$e traits that dene full-throttle psychopathy.

Leadership traits

Charis$a

Self-condence

Ability to inPuence


17/92

;ersuasi&eness

@isionary

9is%-ta%ing

Action-oriented

Ability to $a%e hard decisions

Psychopathic traits

Supercial char$

Orandiosity

2anipulation

Con artistry

$pulsi&ity

!abrication of stories

Thrill-see%ing

$otional coldness


18/92

Section nsightful ;erspecti&es


19/92

"he Sociopaths &odeWith e5#er$ts from The >V 5a)s of ;o)er b" Robert Greene

Since the da)n of acade$ic )riting o&er three $illennia ago# in botheast and )est# sages ha&e )restled )ith the proble$ of po)er. @irtueis seen as the positi&e use of po)er and sin is often seen as thenegati&e use of po)er.

(u$an society appears to be plagued )ith the inability to di1erentiatethe sage fro$ the psychopath as leader. !or $y purposes nd theter$ psychopath and sociopath as interchangeable ter$s# although$any acade$ics )ould argue &ehe$ently about signicant di1erencesbet)een the t)o ter$s.

The >V 5a)s of ;o)er generated by 9obert Oreen is o1ered as aneutral analysis of po)er ac7uisition. (o)e&er# see these >V 5a)s asa brilliant delineation of the personality prole best described associopathic.


20/92

3. Wor% on the hearts and $inds of others.

>>. ,isar$ and infuriate )ith the $irror e1ect.

>=. ;reach the need for change# but ne&er refor$ too $uch at once.

>. e&er appear perfect.

>. ,o not go past the $ar% you ai$ed for8 in &ictory# learn )hen to stop.

>V. Assu$e for$lessness.


21/92

!4 13 %ules for (ealing 'ith Sociopaths inveryday Life% from The Sociopath et ,oor b" ;artha 'tout

=0.% . ". >n a #ontest bet&een "our instin#ts an* &hat is im$lie*

b" role a $erson has taen one*u#ator *o#tor lea*er animallo.er humanist $arent,o &ith "our instin#ts

=.

=. Whether you )ant to be or not# you are a constantobser&er of hu$an beha&iour# and your unltered i$pressionsthough alar$ing and see$ingly outlandish# $ay )ell help youout if you )ill let the$. Your best self understands )ithout beingtold# that i$pressi&e and $oral-sounding labels do not besto)conscience on anyone )ho did not ha&e it to begin )ith.

=V.=F. 3. When #onsi*erin, a ne& relationshi$ of an" in* $ra#ti#e

the Rule of Threes re,ar*in, the #laims an* $romises a $ersonmaes an* the res$onsibilities he or she has ;ae the Rule ofThrees "our $ersonal $oli#"

0..=. 6nce again:trust your o)n instincts and anieties#especially those concerning people )ho clai$ that do$inatingothers# &iolence# )ar# or so$e other &iolation of your conscienceis the grand solution to so$e proble$. ,o this e&en )hen# orespecially )hen# e&eryone around you has co$pletely sto$$e*7uestioning authority. 9ecite to yourself )hat Stanley 2ilgra$taught us about obedience' At least si out of ten people )ill


22/92

blindly obey to the bitter end an oIcial-loo%ing authority in their$idst. The good ne)s is that ha&ing social support $a%es peopleso$e)hat $ore li%ely to challenge authority. ncourage thosearound you to 7uestion# too.

.

37 =. 'us$e#t atter"V.F. Co$pli$ents are lo&ely# especially )hen they are sincere.n contrast# atter" is etre$e and appeals to our egos inunrealistic )ays. t is the $aterial of counterfeit char$# andnearly al)ays in&ol&es an intent to $anipulate. 2anipulationthrough Pattery is so$eti$es innocuous and so$eti$es sinister.;ee% o&er your $assaged ego and re$e$ber to suspect Pattery.0..7 . >f ne#essar" re*ene "our #on#e$t of res$e#t.

. Too often# )e $ista%e fear for respect# and the $ore fearful)e are of so$eone# the $ore )e &ie) hi$ or her as deser&ing ofour respect.V.

F. ha&e a spotted Bengal cat )ho )as na$ed 2uscle 2an by$y daughter )hen she )as a toddler# because 69 e&en as a%itten he loo%ed li%e a professional )restler. Oro)n no)# he is$uch larger than $ost other do$estic cats. (is for$idable cla)srese$ble those of his Asian leopard-cat ancestors# but byte$pera$ent# he is gentle and peace-lo&ing. 2y neighbour has alittle calico )ho &isits. &idently# the calicos predatory charis$ais huge# and she is brilliant at directing the e&il eye at other cats.


23/92

Whene&er she is )ithin fty feet# 2uscle 2an# all fteen poundsof hi$ to her se&en# cringes and crouches in fear and felinedeference.V0.V


24/92

F


25/92


26/92

m$ulsi.e:4Can be associated )ith creati&ity# li&ing in the no)#being spontaneous and free.4

!oor beha.ioral #ontrols 4@iolent and aggressi&e outbursts $ay bea defensi&e $echanis$# a false front# a tool for sur&i&al in a ungle.4

Weed for e5#itement:4Courage to reect the routine# $onotonous# oruninteresting. 5i&ing on the edge# doing things that are ris%y#eciting# challenging# li&ing life to its fullest# being ali&e rather thandull# boring# and al$ost dead.4

/a# of res$onsibilit"I'houl*nJt focus on hu$an )ea%nesses thatare co$$on.4

-arl" beha.ior $roblems an* a*ult antiso#ial beha.ior K is a#riminal re#or* ree#ti.e of ba*ness or non#onfonformit"?

%((

. nterestingly# he had nothing to say about lac% of re$orse orguilt.


27/92


28/92

134 /ithout &onscience% " Robert + Hare !h+


29/92

lac% all personal &alues' t is i$possible for the psychopathU tota%e e&en a slight interest in the tragedy or oy or the stri&ing ofhu$anity as presented in serious literature or art# Clec%ley)rote. (e is also indi1erent to all these $atters in life itself.(are cites pro&ocati&e ne) e&idence that the brain function of

psychopaths $ay di1er fro$ that of nor$al adults' t see$s thatthe speech of psychopaths is controlled by both he$ispheresrather than by ust the left# as is typical. n addition# neitherside of the psychopaths brainU is typical in the processes ofe$otion. While all the i$plications of psychopathic brainfunction re$ain unclear# (are $a%es a strong case for the &ie)that psychopaths are born# not $ade--and that# crucially# littlecan be done to un$a%e the$. While ad&ocating the r$ trainingof psychopaths to consider rationally the outco$e of theiractions- -substituting head for heart--the author )arns thatdenying the incorrigible nature of these cold# calculating beings

)ill allo) e&en $ore of the$ to prey on society. A chilling# eye-opening report--and a call to action.=.

1!64 ma9ons editorial revie':.V. 4;sychopaths are social predators )ho char$# $anipulate#

and ruthlessly plo) their )ay through life# lea&ing a broad trail ofbro%en hearts# shattered epectations# and e$pty )allets.Co$pletely lac%ing in conscience and in feelings for others# theyselshly ta%e )hat they )ant and do as they please...4 n

Without Cons#ien#e9obert (are argues con&incingly that4psychopath4 and 4antisocial personality disorder4 Ja psychiatricter$ dened by a cluster of cri$inal beha&iorsK are not the sa$ething. ot all psychopaths are cri$inals# he says# and not allcri$inals are psychopaths. (e proposes a psychopathy chec%listthat includes e$otional/interpersonal traits such as glibness#grandiosity# lac% of guilt# and shallo) e$otions# as )ell as socialde&iance traits such as i$pulsi&eness# lac% of responsibility# andantisocial beha&ior. (is )riting is lucid and illustrated )ithnu$erous anecdotes. The nal chapter# 4A Sur&i&al Ouide#4 isespecially reco$$ended' as (are )rites# 4;sychopaths are found

in e&ery seg$ent of society# and there is a good chance thate&entually you )ill ha&e a painful or hu$iliating encounter )ithone.4

F.


30/92

154 Some selections from %o*ert #ares 'e*site7hare4org

1514 (riven to Lead: +ood7 ad and ;isguidedLeadership

% " !aul R /a&ren#e


31/92


32/92

. --!ro$ the inside Pap


33/92

1

that your e )as not ust $isunderstood. (es a sociopath. Andyour boss# teacher# and colleague* They $ay be sociopaths too.


34/92

)ith that %no)ledge* To ar$ us against the sociopath# ,r. Stoutteaches us to 7uestion authority# suspect Pattery# and be)arethe pity play. Abo&e all# she )rites# )hen a sociopath isbec%oning# do not oin the ga$e.

"0[ of the population areconscienceless sociopaths )ho ha&e no e$pathy or a1ectionatefeelings for hu$ans or ani$als. As Stout JThe ;"th of 'anit"Keplains# a sociopath is dened as so$eone )ho displays at leastthree of se&en distinguishing characteristics# such asdeceitfulness# i$pulsi&ity and a lac% of re$orse. Such peopleoften ha&e a supercial char$# )hich they eercise ruthlessly inorder to get )hat they )ant. Stout argues that the de&elop$entof sociopathy is due half to genetics and half to non-geneticinPuences that ha&e not been clearly identied. The author o1ersthree ea$ples of such people# including S%ip# the handso$e#brilliant# superrich boy )ho enoyed stabbing bullfrogs near hisfa$ilys su$$er ho$e# and ,oreen# )ho lied about hercredentials to get )or% at a psychiatric institute# $anipulated hercolleagues and# $ost cruelly# a patient. ,ra$atic as these tales

are# they are co$posites# and )hile Stout is a good )riter andher eploration of sociopaths can be arresting# this boo%occasionally appeals to readers paranoia# as the boo%s title andits guidelines for dealing )ith sociopaths indicate.

"0."0V.

"0F.

214 iography7 availa*le on /i8ipedia:"


35/92

"


36/92

214 Sna8es in Suits: /hen Psychopaths +oto /or8% b" !aul abia an* Robert + Hare

224 Summary7 from the *oo8 ?ac8et""


37/92

)arning signs of psychopathic beha&ior and be able to protectyourself and your co$pany -- before its too late.

224 %evie'7 from Publishers Weekly"30."3


38/92

authors refer to as 4an accelerated# dispassionate business)orld4.

">0.">>.">=. Business structures and procedures ha&e changed

dra$atically since the early "0th century# )hen the turgid

bureaucratic $odel opti$i+ed producti&ity. The $ergers#ac7uisitions and ta%eo&ers of the . Si$ilarly# technological sophistication accelerated the rate

of change.">V. 4A tre$endous burden has been put on large

organi+ations#4 Babia% and (are )rite# 4forcing the$ to rein&entthe$sel&es 7uic%ly in order to re$ain co$petiti&e.

">F. 4As al$ost a defensi&e $aneu&er# so$e large corporationsha&e needed to $erge# ac7uire other co$panies or do)nsi+e.4

"=0."=


39/92

"=3. To corporate psychopaths# success is the best re&enge.ice girls# they reason# dont get the corner oIce. n What Would2achia&elli ,o* The nds ustify the 2eanness# satirist StanleyBing counsels aspiring players' 4Crush the$. (ear their bonesbrea%# their )indpipes snap.4

"=>."==. Characteri+ed by a disturbing lac% of e$pathy#psychopaths ha&e little insight into their beha&ior. Their lifeudg$ents are poor# as e&idenced by the disastrous fa$ily li&esof $any corporate high-Pyers# and they rarely learn fro$eperience# $eaning that dysfunctional beha&ior is repeated adinnitu$. Their hall$ar%* ;athological lying.

"=."=. 4They cross bac% and forth easily bet)een lying and

honesty during con&ersations#4 the authors obser&e# 4becausethey do not ha&e the guilty feelings the rest of us ha&e )hen )e

try to tell a lie.4"=V."=F. Another dening characteristic is the refusal to ta%e

responsibility. ;sychopaths are ne&er accountable. All bla$e iseternali+ed Jcircu$stances# fate# luc%# brain)ashing# the)eatherK. 4;ointing the nger at others#4 Babia% and (areconclude# 4ser&es the dual purpose of reinforcing their o)npositi&e i$age )hile spreading disparaging infor$ation aboutri&als and detractors. They do this by positioning their bla$e ofothers as a display of loyalty to the listener.4

"0. The psychopaths eperience of 4pri$iti&e or proto-

e$otions such as anger# frustration# and rage4 is refracted asirresistible char$. Their i$pression $anage$ent is fa$ouslynear-faultless. All that $atters is the obecti&e' that is# todiscredit those )ho see through the$.

"


40/92


41/92

264 "he Liars "ale% " erem" Cam$bell

".

2. Beginning )ith a discussion of e&olutionary biology and the

necessity Jand ulti$ate &alueK of deceit in the ani$al %ingdo$#Ca$pbell as%s the unsettling 7uestion of )hether falsehood$ight# in fact# be instinctual# or at least natural. !ro$ there

Ca$pbell describes the classical philosophical foundation of truthas the ulti$ate category of %no)ledge and organi+ations#focusing on Aristotle and his battle )ith the Sophists# earlyphilosophers )ho clai$ed that truth )as unstable and illusory.This di&ision )ithin classical thought has reappeared throughouthistory# e&en in the uropean enlighten$ent# )hich centered onthe possibility of indi&idual %no)ledge and liberty. Ca$pbell?ssea$less integration of art# literature# and philosophy sho)s ho)


42/92

the


43/92

he also sees a critical cultural di1erence bet)een todaysdisse$blers and the crafty Oree%s. Conte$porary philosophers)ho debun% the search for truth and replace it )ith thein&estigation of $eaning represent not a $arginal counterculturebut the pre&ailing ponticators of $eaning for todays )orld. n

his &ie)# this ne) %ind of sophistry ele&ates lying to the statusof an art and neutrali+es untruth by proclai$ing that all languageis inherently untrust)orthy. n that spirit# )e absol&e oursel&esof scruples o&er fabricated autobiographical details and ourcultural icon# for$er ;resident Bill Clinton# has his alibi for apost$odern ri1 on the $eaning of is. ,espite the authorsob&ious relish for the irre&erence of $any of these outsiders# histale ends on a $onitory note' )hile post$odern culture $ay freethe i$agination by re$o&ing the traditional anchors# dissol&ingthe foundations# it could also unleash a certain %ind of$adness that )ould plunge us into an 6r)ellian )orld )here

telling the truth )ould be a re&olutionary act."F>."F=. To his credit# he has carefully researched and tirelessly

)restled )ith the intricacies of so$eti$es 7uite obscurethin%ers. (e presents diIcult intellectual $aterial )ithoutdu$bing it do)n. The story is spiced )ith enough anecdotes andhu$or to %eep the reader engaged. (e suggests# for ea$ple#that iet+sches ani$us against the truth $ight ha&e beensoftened )ith a bit of ;ro+ac. Still# this is hardly &acation reading#ecept perhaps for those )ho enoy their Sorel and Saussure onthe beach. Ca$pbell# )ho )rites a good deal here about irony

and suspicion# possesses his o)n ironic detach$ent# )hichensures no thin%er )ill be ta%en too seriously. At its subtle bestthat )or%s 7uite )ell8 at other ti$es# though# his habit of placingdePating +ingers at the end of paragraphs see$s little $ore thanan annoying ournalistic tic.

"F."F. Ad&ance notices for the boo% dre) a contrast )ith Sissela

Bo%s )ell-%no)n )or%# 5ying# and clai$ed that Ca$pbellsboo% )ill turn the for$er on its head Janother usefuleaggeration*K. 5ying# ho)e&er# is a )ise and straightfor)ardethical treatise# )hereas The 5iars Tale operates on a )holly

di1erent plane. t reads $ore li%e the underside of that oldclassic# The Story of ;hilosophy# by Will ,urant. Ca$pbellspost$odern t)ist calls to $ind Yi-!u Tuans scapis$ and (illelSch)art+s Culture of the Copy Jboth re&ie)ed here a fe)years agoK8 both of those authors challenged the pre-e$inentclai$s of reality o&er the escape and the original o&er thecopy. f the facsi$ile can be as true as the original# and theescape as real as reality# then )hy cannot falsehood be as useful


44/92

as the truth* Whats net* The ad&antages of e&il* The delightsof the repulsi&e* Ah# but ha&ent those already been )ritten*

"FV."FF. At the heart of this story there is a critical and troubling

issue. Ca$pbell fails to pin do)n in any satisfactory )ay the

basic concepts of falsehood and truth. 6n a &ery basic le&el# adeliberate lie is opposed to a si$ple truth. But to get the tale o1and running# Ca$pbell has to epand his notion of falsehood toinclude natural deceptions and illusions# suspicions and ironies.$agination and possibility are e&en considered ene$ies of thetruth. But that is surely si$plistic. A unicorn is a product of thei$agination# but it is hardly false in the sa$e )ay as co&er-upsby politicians of scandals or their lies about a1airs. Ca$pbelle1aces the di1erences a$ong all his senses of falsehood# in partbecause he &ie)s truth as one-di$ensional. n the fa$iliar but$isleading $etaphor he uses# the lie has $any faces )hile truth

has but one. Truth# then# plays the part of an ane$ic foil ratherthan the robust reality it assu$es in tradition. There is a sense in)hich truth too can be $ultifaceted -- scientic truths# poetictruths# political truths -- and# con&ersely# a single lie can close o1the innite possibilities that a liberating truth o1ers. n a less$elodra$atic presentation of truth and lies# the $ore subtleintellectual positions -- fro$ Socrates ironic )isdo$ that he%no)s he doesnt %no) the truth up to (eideggers atte$pt tobridge ancient and $odern thought by eploring the $eaning oftruth -- )ould co$$and $ore attention.

300.

30


45/92


46/92

itself re7uires us to prefer habit to %no)ledge. The 4truth4 thatthe s%eptical intellectual nds in the solitude of his studies isli%ely to see$ utterly i$probable in the )orld outside. Ca$pbell7uotes insteins praise of (u$es Treatise of (u$an ature#)hich he clai$ed prepared hi$ to concei&e of the theory of

relati&ity.3


47/92

32!4 iography from the pu*lisher7 /4/4 =orton3"=.3". ere$y Ca$pbell is the author of The /iar)s Tale# Winston

Chur#hill)s Afternoon a$# and The Grammati#al ;an. (e is theWashington correspondent for the -.enin, 'tan*ar*and li&es in

Washington# ,C.


48/92

3".

32.

3354 %evie' from Scientifc American Min7 *y @ordanLite33.33. 5iars' they populate our ne)s feeds# perfor$ e&il deeds on

our fa&orite tele&ision sho)s and infuse dra$a into our dailyli&es. The psychological origins of both Bernard 2ado1Lscale;on+i sche$es and the $undane dishonesties $ost of us parta%ein:lching oIce pens# padding epense reports or secretlytoting a counterfeit designer purse:are the subect of ArielysThe 8Honest9 Truth about +ishonest".

33V.

33F. Ariely# a professor of psychology and beha&ioralecono$ics# suggests that a $oral s)eet spot guides ourdecisions# so that )e Dbenet fro$ dishonesty )ithout destroyingour o)n self-i$age.E We dial up our lies )hen )e percei&e the$as beneting a friend Jthats altruis$GK and tend to eaggerate$ore liberally )hen )ere sporting fa%e designer sunglassesJhey# )ere already fudging our fashion# )hy not push a fe)$ore boundaries*K. 9ather than applying a cost-benet analysis


49/92

:)ill get a)ay )ith it*:Ariely argues that )e decide )hetherto beha&e truthfully by considering co$ple internal anden&iron$ental inPuences.

3>0.3>F.350.The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty, Dan Arielys new book about the

nature of cheating, includes this truly remarkable assage!3=


50/92

lapels# da$age to )ithdra)# the husband-)ife bac% and stu1. Weread in the ne)spaper and ust s$ile. But these days fe)erpeople belie&e in )i+ards.E

3=>.3==. The good ne)s is that 2r. Ariely did not )rite this. (e only

bought it. (e )ent to essay $ills that supply dishonest students)ith research papers and co$$issioned


51/92

readers. J DWhat do you thin% happened*EK And then he )illsu$$ari+e )hat happened and )hy.

33.3>. t cannot ha&e escaped the notice of 2r. Ariely or anyone in

publishing that readers lo&e the fast# blin%y reasoning behind

such boo%s. And 2r. Ariely is an ac%no)ledged leader in the eld8he is often cited as an authority by other authors )ho o&er$inethe sa$e subect $atter. t helps that this ne) boo% has adisar$ing personal touch# as )hen 2r. Ariely refers Jas he haspre&iouslyK to his painful eperiences as a burn &icti$ to pro&e apoint' that dishonesty can be a good thing. (e gratefullyre$e$bers being told during his long hospital stay that he )ouldso$eday be all right# e&en )hen the $edical e&idence )as lessreassuring.

3=.3. But $ost of this boo% is about the do)nside of cheating

and lying. 2r. Ariely says that cheating is contagious# and that agroup?s beha&ior )ill ha&e a po)erful e1ect on each indi&idual.Botto$ line' DThere are rational forces that )e thin% dri&e ourdishonest beha&ior : but don?t. And there are irrational forcesthat )e don?t thin% dri&e our dishonest beha&ior : but do.E nother )ords# lying# cheating and 2r. Ariely?s already fa$ouspredictable irrationality are all closely connected.

3. n o1ering practical applications fro$ his insights 2r. Arielyturns to e&erything fro$ golf to ban%ing to political-actionco$$ittees. !or one relati&ely elaborate eperi$ent a studentactor is enlisted to beha&e badly : and set a standard for

cheating : at Carnegie 2ellon Hni&ersity. This gure )ore as)eatshirt fro$ the ri&al Hni&ersity of ;ittsburgh# ust to get theCarnegie 2ellon students in a hostile# dishonesty-prone $ood.

3V.3F. 2r. Ariely duly $easured ho) the rest of the group

responded )hen the actor ob&iously cheated on a test and )hathappened )hen he only see$ed confused about ho) the rules ofthe test )or%ed. Confusion-based dishonesty pro&ed $orecontagious than the cri$inal %ind.

30.3


52/92

324

334 iography7 from danariely4com3>.3=. ,espite our intentions# )hy do )e so often fail to act in our

o)n best interest* Why do )e pro$ise to s%ip the chocolateca%e# only to nd oursel&es drooling our )ay into te$ptation)hen the dessert tray rolls around* Why do )e o&er&alue thingsthat )e?&e )or%ed to put together* What are the forces thatinPuence our beha&ior* Ariely is dedicated to ans)ering these7uestions and others in order to help people li&e $ore sensible:if not rational:li&es. Ariely?s research and interests span a )iderange of beha&iors# and his so$eti$es unusual eperi$ents areconsistently interesting# a$using and infor$ati&e# de$onstratingprofound ideas that Py in the face of co$$on )isdo$

3.

3. n addition to appoint$ents at the !u7ua School ofBusiness# the Center for Cogniti&e euroscience# the ,epart$entof cono$ics# and the School of 2edicine at ,u%e Hni&ersity#Ariely is also a founding $e$ber of the Center for Ad&anced(indsight. Ariely is the author of $any e& YorTimesbestselling boo%s including !re*i#tabl">rrationalJ(arperCollins# "00VK# )hich he )rote )hile a 2e$berat the nstitute. 6ther titles include The 8Honest9 Truth About+ishonest"J(arperCollins# "0


53/92

3


54/92

also confesses to being a pothead# so ?$ pretty sure $yrecollection is accurate.

3F0.3F


55/92

3FV.3FF. 6ur big brains and co$$unication s%ills $a%e us $aster

disse$blers. &en before )e can spea%# Tri&ers notes# )e learnto cry insincerely to $anipulate our caregi&ers. As adults# )eengage in Dconr$ation bias#E )hich $a%es us sei+e on facts

that bolster our preconceptions and o&erloo% contradictory data.We )ittingly and un)ittingly inPate the 7ualities of oursel&es andothers in our religious# political or ethnic group. We denigratethose outside our in-group as )ell as seual and econo$ic ri&als.

>00.>00". 6ne intriguing the$e running through DThe !olly of !oolsEis that self-deception can a1ect our susceptibility to disease# forill or good. Tri&ers speculates that so$e illusions : for ea$ple#a daughter?s insistence that her alcoholic# abusi&e father is agood $an : re7uire so $uch e1ort to $aintain that they drainenergy a)ay fro$ our i$$une syste$s. Con&ersely# religious

funda$entalis$# )hich often restricts $ating or e&eninteractions )ith outsiders# $ay help protect the faithful fro$parasites carried by indels. According to Tri&ers# religions are$ore li%ely to split into ri&al factions in regions )ith high rates ofinfectious disease.

>03.>0>. Tri&ers )ill no doubt alienate $any readers )hen he turns

his attention to politics. Although he indicts $any nations fordenying their sins# he is especially incensed by srael?s treat$entof ;alestinians and the Hnited States? treat$ent of A$ericanndians# blac%s# the @ietna$ese# ra7is# Afghans and other

groups. found Tri&ers too shrill in these sections# e&en though$y political &ie)s o&erlap )ith his. Also 7uestionable are his put-do)ns of cultural anthropologists# )ho$ he accuses of denying: for ideological rather than scientic reasons : biologicalresearch that can deepen our understanding of hu$an beha&ior.n $y eperience# e&olutionary scholars are at least as dri&en byideology as cultural anthropologists are.

>0=.


56/92

>0. But cut Tri&ers slac% for his denunciations of othersbecause he is so hard on hi$self. Throughout the boo%# he recallsinstances in )hich he lied : to girlfriends Jhe has apparently had$anyK# )i&es Jt)oK# children J&eK and colleagues. n oneespecially poignant passage# Tri&ers recalls )al%ing do)n a city

street )ith an attracti&e young )o$an# Dtrying to a$use her#E)hen he spots Dan old $an on the other side of her# )hite hair#ugly# face falling apart# )al%ing poorly# indeed sha$bling.ETri&ers abruptly reali+es he is seeing his rePection in a store)indo)' D9eal $e is seen as ugly $e by self-decei&ed $e.E

>0.>0V. Tri&ers is not an elegant stylist li%e ,a)%ins# Wilson or

;in%er. (is technical eplanations can be $ur%y# his politicalrants cartoonishly crude. But Tri&ers?s blunt# unpolished $anner: )hich assu$e is not feigned : $a%es $e trust hi$ $orethan so$e slic%er )riters. DThe !olly of !oolsE re$inds $e of

other irreducibly odd classics by scientic iconoclasts li%e DThe!ractal Oeo$etry of ature#E by the $athe$atician Benoit2andelbrot# and DThe Society of 2ind#E by the articial--intelligence pioneer 2ar&in 2ins%y.

>0F.> percent considered the$sel&es to be abo&ea&erage in their elds. D plead guilty#E Tri&ers adds. That# surely#is false $odesty. 2ay his ne) boo% gi&e hi$ the attention he sorichly deser&es.

>


57/92

!124 %evie'7 from the conomist>"0. All of this deceit co$es at a price. 2r. Tri&ers suggests that

the $ost cunning people J)hether conscious bbers or notK tendto benet at the epense of e&eryone else. (e highlights the )ayo&ercondent Wall Street traders $ay hurt in&estors andtapayers at little personal ris%. Then there are politicians )hospin stories of national greatness to bolster support for costly

)ars in )hich they )ill not be ghting.>""". There is certainly no shortage of hu$an folly to consider.

2r. Tri&ers o1ers so$e fascinating e&idence of our biologicalcunning# yet the science of self-deception often ta%es a bac% seatto his political &ie)s and s%epticis$ of the social sciences. Thisboo% could probably do )ithout his long digressions about thesraeli-;alestinian conPict and the ra7 )ar. But by the ti$e


58/92


59/92

!24 "he ;oral Landscape% " 'am Harris

!2"F.>30. Sa$ (arris?s rst boo%# The -n* of Faith# ignited a

)orld)ide debate about the &alidity of religion. n the after$ath#(arris disco&ered that $ost people:fro$ religiousfunda$entalists to non-belie&ing scientists:agree on one point'Science has nothing to say on the subect of hu$an &alues.ndeed# our failure to address 7uestions of $eaning and $oralitythrough science has no) beco$e the $ost co$$on usticationfor religious faith. t is also the pri$ary reason )hy so $anysecularists and religious $oderates feel obligated to DrespectE

the hardened superstitions of their $ore de&out neighbors.>33". n this eplosi&e ne) boo%# Sa$ (arris tears do)n the )all

bet)een scientic facts and hu$an &alues# arguing that $ostpeople are si$ply $ista%en about the relationship bet)een$orality and the rest of hu$an %no)ledge. (arris urges us tothin% about $orality in ter$s of hu$an and ani$al )ell-being#&ie)ing the eperiences of conscious creatures as pea%s and&alleys on a D$oral landscape.E Because there are denite factsto be %no)n about )here )e fall on this landscape# (arrisforesees a ti$e )hen science )ill no longer li$it itself to $erely

describing )hat people do in the na$e of D$oralityE8 in principle#science should be able to tell us )hat )e ought to do to li&e thebest li&es possible.

>33.>3>. Bringing a fresh perspecti&e to age-old 7uestions of right

and )rong# and good and e&il# (arris de$onstrates that )ealready %no) enough about the hu$an brain and its relationshipto e&ents in the )orld to say that there are right and )rongans)ers to the $ost pressing 7uestions of hu$an life. Becausesuch ans)ers eist# $oral relati&is$ is si$ply false:and co$esat increasing cost to hu$anity. And the intrusions of religion into

the sphere of hu$an &alues can be nally repelled' for ust asthere is no such thing as Christian physics or 2usli$ algebra#there can be no Christian or 2usli$ $orality.

>3=.>3. Hsing his epertise in philosophy and neuroscience# along

)ith his eperience on the front lines of our Dculture )ars#E (arrisdeli&ers a ga$e-changing boo% about the future of science andabout the real basis of hu$an cooperation.


60/92

>3.

!33F.

>>0. Sa$ (arris heads the youth )ing of the e) Atheists. The-n* of Faith# his blistering ta%e-no-prisoners attac% on theirrationality of religions# found hi$ $any fans and# notsurprisingly# a great body of detractors. n /etter to a Christianation# a follo)-up pro$pted by the responses of Christiansunhappy )ith his rst boo%# he set out# he said# Dto de$olish theintellectual and $oral pretensions of Christianity in its $ostco$$itted for$s#E and so ac7uired# no doubt# $ore friends and$ore ene$ies. Certainly both boo%s ha&e had a )ide andani$ated readership.

>>>". (is ne) boo%# DThe 2oral 5andscape#E ai$s to $eet head-on a clai$ he has often encountered )hen spea%ing out againstreligion' that the scientic )orld&ie) he fa&ors has nothing tosay on $oral 7uestions. That clai$ often %eeps co$pany )iththe thesis# elaborated by the e&olutionary biologist Stephen ayOould# that science and religion ha&e Dnono&erlapping$agisteria.E The authority of science and the authority of religionco&er di1erent do$ains# Oould thought# and the $ethods of eachare inappropriate for the study of the other?s proble$s. 9eligiondeals )ith 7uestions about )hat (arris calls D$eaning# $oralityand life?s larger purpose#E 7uestions that ha&e no scientic

ans)ers.>>3.>>>. (arris# )ho has a doctorate in neuroscience# holds the

opposite &ie). 6nly science can help us ans)er these 7uestions#he says. That?s because truths about $orality and $eaning $ustDrelate to facts about the )ell-being of conscious creatures#E andscience alone : especially neuroscience# his eld : can unco&erthose facts. So rather than consulting Aristotle or ant Jlet alonethe Bible or the oranK about )hat is necessary for hu$ans toPourish# )hy not go to the sciences that study conscious $entallife*

>>=.>>. (arris $eans to deny a thought often ascribed to ,a&id

(u$e# according to )hich there is a clear conceptual distinctionbet)een facts and &alues. !acts are susceptible of rationalin&estigation8 &alues# supposedly# not. But according to (arris#&alues# too# can be unco&ered by science : the right &aluesbeing ones that pro$ote )ell-being. Dust as it is possible forindi&iduals and groups to be )rong about ho) best to $aintain


61/92

their physical health#E he )rites# Dit is possible for the$ to be)rong about ho) to $ai$i+e their personal and social )ell-being.E

>>. But )ait' ho) do )e %no) that the $orally right act is# as(arris posits# the one that does the $ost to increase )ell-being#

dened in ter$s of our conscious states of $ind* (as sciencereally re&ealed that* f it hasn?t# then the pre$ise of (arris?s all-)e-need-is-science argu$ent $ust ha&e nonscientic origins.

>>V.>>F. n fact# )hat he ends up endorsing is so$ething &ery li%e

utilitarianis$# a philosophical position that is no) $ore than t)ocenturies old# and that faces a battery of fa$iliar proble$s. &enif you accept the basic pre$ise# ho) do you co$pare the )ell-being of di1erent people* Should )e ai$ to increase a&erage)ell-being J)hich )ould $ean that a )orld consisting of one blisscase is better than one )ith a billion ust slightly less blissful

peopleK* 6r should )e go for a cu$ulati&e total of )ell-beingJ)hich $ight fa&or a )orld )ith +illions of people )hose li&es areust barely )orth li&ingK* f the $ental states of conscious beingsare )hat $atter# )hat?s )rong )ith %illing so$eone in his sleep*(o) should )e )eigh present )ell-being against future )ell-being*

>=0.>==".>=3. That?s the case e&en )ith so$ething as basic as )hat?s

$eant by )ell-being. (arris often )rites as if all that $atters isour conscious eperience. Yet he also insists that truth is ani$portant &alue. So does it count against your )ell-being if yourhappiness is based on an illusion : say# the false belief that your)ife lo&es you* 6r is subecti&e eperience all that $atters# in)hich case a situation in )hich the husband is fooled# and the)ife gets pleasure fro$ fooling hi$# is $orally preferable to onein )hich she ac%no)ledges the truth* (arris ne&er articulates his

central clai$ clearly enough to let us %no) )here he )ould co$edo)n. But if he thin%s that )ell-being has an obecti&eco$ponent# one )ants to %no) ho) science re&ealed this fact.

>=>.>==. (arris )as a philosophy $aor at Stanford# but he is

inclined to scant $ost of )hat philosophers ha&e had to sayabout )ell-being. There is# for ea$ple# a $o&e$ent inconte$porary philosophy and econo$ics %no)n as Dthe


62/92

capabilities approach#E )hich ta%es seriously the 7uestion ofidentifying the co$ponents of )ell-being and $easuring the$.But neither of the t)o leading eponents of this approach : thephilosopher and econo$ist A$artya Sen and the philosopher andclassicist 2artha ussbau$ : gets a $ention in the boo%.

>=.>=. The $ost co$pelling strand in DThe 2oral 5andscapeE is itsunspooling diatribe against relati&is$. (arris insists that thereare correct ans)ers to all 7uestions of right and )rong#regardless of anyone?s culture or religion. And# though so$e7uestions $ay escape our in7uiries# $any can be ans)ered byscience8 none# he appears to thin%# can be ans)ered )ithout it.

>=V.>=F. You $ight suppose# reading this boo%# that this anti-

relati&is$ )as contro&ersial a$ong philosophers. So it $ay be)orth pointing out that a recent sur&ey of a large proportion of

the )orld?s acade$ic philosophers re&ealed that they are $orethan t)ice as li%ely to fa&or $oral realis$ : the &ie) that thereare $oral facts : than to fa&or $oral anti-realis$. T)o thirds ofthe$# it turns out# are also )hat )e call cogniti&ists# belie&ingthat $any Jand perhaps allK $oral clai$s are either true or false.And (arris hi$self concedes that fe) philosophers Dha&e e&erans)ered to the na$e of M$oral relati&ist.? E Oi&en that# he $ightha&e spent $ore ti$e )ith so$e of the $any argu$ents againstrelati&is$ that philosophers ha&e o1ered. f he had# he $ightha&e noticed that you can hold that there are $oral truths thatcan be rationally in&estigated )ithout holding that the

eperi$ental sciences pro&ide the right $ethods for doing so.>0.>


63/92

>3. Yet such science is best appreciated )ith a sense of )hat)e can and cannot epect fro$ it# and a real contribution to theold proect of a Dnaturali+ed ethicsE )ould ha&e re7uired a fullerengage$ent )ith its contradictions and co$plications. nstead#the landscape that the boo% calls to $ind is that of a city a fe)

days after a sno)stor$. A $ar&elously clear a&enue stretchesbefore us# but the loo$ing ban%s to either side betray ho) $uchhas been uncere$oniously s)ept aside.

!6!4

!654 %evie'7 from the New York Review o! "ooks7 *y#4 llen Crr

>.

!64 14>V.>F. 6nce upon a ti$e popular science )as the atte$pt to

eplain the achie&e$ents of scientists to a broad audience. This)as a noble endea&or that perfor$ed a useful function. (o) else)as the public to learn )hat physicists# che$ists# or biologistshad acco$plished* 9ecently# ho)e&er# a ne) genre of popularscience has appeared# one that shifts the tense fro$ past tofuture. These ne) boo%s focus on the great things thatscience&illachie&e# and allegedly soon. Thus# before the hu$angeno$e )as se7uenced# )e )ere treated to tal% about ho) theproect )as destined to change our &ie) of hu$anity. J6ne hears

considerably less about this no)# after the fact.K The latest entryin this ne) genre of popular science is Sa$ (arris?sThe ;oral/an*s#a$e.

>0.># he publishedThe -n* of Faith# a erce attac% on organi+edreligion. The boo%# )hich propelled (arris fro$ near obscurity tonear stardo$:he has appeared onThe +ail" 'hoThe ColbertRe$ort# andThe M)Reill" Fa#tor:is one of the canonical )or%s of

the e) Atheist $o&e$ent# along )ith 9ichard ,a)%ins?s TheGo* +elusionJ"00K and ,aniel ,ennett?sreain, the'$ellJ"00K. (arris see$ed $ostly to play the part of pole$icistin the $o&e$ent. (e possesses a sharp )it and an e&en sharperpen# and his attac%s on $ainstrea$ religion had a scorched-earth intensity. n "00# (arris follo)ed this up )ith/etter to aChristian ation# an unco$pro$ising response to his Christiancritics.


64/92

>".>3. n his latest boo%#The ;oral /an*s#a$e# (arris shifts his

sights so$e)hat. (e is no) concerned )ith the sorry state of$oral thin%ing a$ong both religious and secular people in theWest. While the for$er are con&inced that $oral truths are

handed do)n fro$ on high# the latter are perpetually $uddled#fre7uently belie&ing that $orals are relati&e# the product ofarbitrary tradition and social conditioning. (arris hopes to s)eepaside both %inds of confusion# con&incing his readers thatobecti&e $oral truths eist and that )e possess a JproperlysecularK $eans for disco&ering the$.

>>.>=. t $ay not co$e as a surprise that (arris thin%s these

re7uired $eans are scientic. Science# he insists# )ill so$edaysho) us the )ay to the good life. (arris?s clai$s are both boldand# as epected fro$ his pre&ious )ritings# plainly put' D )ill

argue that $orality should be considered an unde&eloped branchof science.E ndeed# as the subtitle of his boo% pro$ises# he )illsho) Dho) science can deter$ine hu$an &alues.E Though (arrisconcedes that the science re7uired for this tas%# particularlyneurobiology# re$ains in its infancy# the re7uisite de&elop$ents#he suggests# $ay be on the hori+on. We $ust all face up to thefact that Dscience )ill gradually enco$pass life?s deepest7uestions.E

>.>. t?s clear that (arris?s $ission inThe ;oral /an*s#a$eis

loosely connected to his earlier one. 9eligion has# for $illennia#

been thought the pri$ary source of $orality. But if# as (arrisbelie&es# religion is both Pa)ed and )ic%ed# an alternati&e isneeded. Science can pro&ide it.

>V.>F. (arris is a)are that such large clai$s )ill in&ite charges of

nai&e scientis$# but he is unfa+ed. n particular# he is )ell a)arethat a long intellectual tradition insists that anything rese$blinga science of $orality is i$possible' science trades in facts andethics trades in &alues and# according to the tradition# facts canne&er ustify &alues. So (arris?s proect )ill re7uire hi$ to dobattle )ith so$e deep# and )idely shared# &ie)s.

>V0.>V


65/92

(arris ties these chapters only loosely to his $ain thesis. t turnsout that so$e of this later $aterial is $ore or less i$ported fro$(arris?s earlier scientic publications or fro$ 6p-d pieces oronline essays that he?s )ritten. one of this $a%es for aparticularly coherent presentation and the boo% see$s# in places#

ai$less. By the end# one )orries that (arris has lost focus on theostensible point of his boo%' that a science of $orality ispossible.

>V".

!V>.>V=. (arris?s story begins )here it $ust# )ith the notion of a

di&ide bet)een fact and &alue. This di&ide )as rst e$phasi+edby ,a&id (u$e in hisA Treatise of Human atureJV. (o) can state$ents about facts e&er lead to# $uch lessustify# state$ents about &alues* (u$e?s is/ought distinctionsuggests that they cannot.O.. 2oore# in his!rin#i$ia-thi#aJV.>VV. To $any# then# the )orld of facts Jdescribed by scienceK

and the )orld of &alues Jdescribed by ethicsK $ust re$aindistinct. Any hope of a science of $orality $ust# conse7uently#be abandoned as not only hubristic but nonsensical. As (arrise$phasi+es# the taboo against the idea of a scientic $orality is)idely accepted in s$art circles# including s$art scienticcircles. ndeed )e scientists# and especially biologists# are taughtearly to steer clear of anything that rese$bles the naturalistic

fallacy' ne&er confuse your scientic facts )ith ethical nor$s.>VF.>F0. (arris )ill ha&e none of this. (e $a%es at least three big

clai$s inThe ;oral /an*s#a$e. The rst is that he belie&es thatthe is/ought proble$ is a nonproble$. ndeed the di&ide bet)eenfacts and &alues is# he says# largely illusory. (arris o1ers se&eralreasons for this conclusion but he see$s fond of t)o.euroi$aging studies of the hu$an brain at )or% re&eal that the


66/92

sa$e regions of our brains are acti&e )hen people udge thetruth or falsity of both factual state$ents JDSpain is a countryEKand ethical state$ents JD2urder is )rongEK. n particular#functional $agnetic resonance i$aging Jf29K studies# perfor$edby (arris and colleagues as part of his doctoral research# re&eal

that blood Po) to certain regions of the brain increase duringsuch udg$ents' belie&ing the truth of factual and ethicalstate$ents in&ol&es increased blood Po) to the $edial prefrontalcorte# for instance# )hile disbelie&ing factual and ethicalstate$ents in&ol&es increased blood Po) to the left inferiorfrontal gyrus# a$ong other regions. JHncertainty about the truthor falsity of such state$ents in&ol&es increased blood Po) to yetother regions of the brain.K n the face of such neurologicalndings# it is hard# (arris says# to sustain the &ie) that a di&ideseparates facts and &alues.

>FF.

>F. The &ery idea of Dobecti&eE %no)ledge Ji.e.# %no)ledge

ac7uired through honest obser&ation and reasoningK has &aluesbuilt into it# as e&ery e1ort )e $a%e to discuss facts dependsupon principles that )e $ust rst &alue Je.g.# logical consistency#reliance on e&idence# parsi$ony# etc.K.

>FV.>FF. Oi&en all this# ho) can one possibly dri&e a )edge bet)een

facts and &alues* (arris concludes that one cannot' DThe splitbet)een facts and &alues:and# therefore# bet)een science and$orality:is an illusion.E Contrary to recei&ed )isdo$# then#nothing )ould see$ to stand in the )ay of a science of $orality.

=00.

=0


67/92

religious traditions# our future spiritual sel&es in an afterlifeK andit?s hard to see ho) concern for a conscious creature couldin&ol&e anything but concern for its )ell-being. A science of$orality $ust# then# be concerned )ith )hat contributes to )ell-being' a Dprosperous ci&il society#E for instance# or an

at$osphere of Dbenecence# trust# creati&ity#E and the pursuit ofD)holeso$e pleasures.E J(arris also concludes that those# li%eserial $urderers# )ho )ould cha$pion so$e per&erselyeccentric conception of the good are so far outside thecon&ersation that they needn?t be refuted# only ignored.K

=0".=03. (arris further suggests that this notion of the good is

associated )ith a D$oral landscape.E This landscape is ahypothetical

=0>.=0=. space of real and potential outco$es )hose pea%s

correspond to the heights of potential )ell-being and )hose&alleys represent the deepest possible su1ering. ,i1erent )aysof thin%ing and beha&ing:di1erent cultural practices# ethicalcodes# $odes of go&ern$ent# etc.:)ill translate into$o&e$ents across this landscape and# therefore# into di1erentdegrees of hu$an Pourishing.

=0.=0. (arris ac%no)ledges that the $oral landscape $ight ha&e

$ultiple pea%s:there $ight )ell be se&eral or perhaps $any)ays in )hich people can $ai$i+e their )ell-being:but thereare still facts of the $atter here. So$e D)ays of thin%ing and

beha&ingE are obecti&ely better than others.=0V.=0F. And this leads to (arris?s third $ain clai$. Oi&en that the

$oral landscape rePects a )orld of facts# it can be studied byscience. Science can $ap the topography of the landscape andhelp us to tra&erse it# eIciently ascending pea%s of )ell-being.(arris ac%no)ledges that )e ha&e no guarantee that sciencecan# in all cases# unco&er the rele&ant obecti&e facts about$orality. But this doesn?t change the fact that these obecti&efacts eist. JAs he says# there is a di1erence bet)een Dans&ersin $rin#i$leE and Dans&ers in $ra#ti#e.EK

=


68/92


69/92


70/92


71/92

Hnited States to help alle&iate the proble$ of ho$elessness intheir o)n co$$unities* s there so$e brilliant idea that no onehas thought of that )ould $a%e people&antto alle&iate theproble$ of ho$elessness $ore than they )ant to )atchtele&ision or play &ideo ga$es*NSuch 7uestions open onto a

)orld of factsN.=>".=>3. ndeed they do. But this &ision of the role of science is

)holly uncontro&ersial. 6f course science can help us reachso$e end once )e?&e decided )hat that end is. That?s )hy )eha&e $edicine# engineering# econo$ics# and all the other appliedsciences in the rst place. But this has nothing to do )ithblurring the is/ought distinction or o&erco$ing traditional 7ual$sabout a science of $orality. f you?&e decided that the ulti$ate&alue is li&ing a long life JDoneou,htto li&e as long as possibleEK#$edical science can help JDyouou,htto eerciseEK. But $edical

science can?t sho) that the ulti$ate &alue is li&ing a long life.2uch ofThe ;oral /an*s#a$eis an etended eercise inconfusing these t)o senses of ought.

=>>. ,espite (arris?s bra&ado about Dho) science candeter$ine hu$an &alues#EThe ;oral /an*s#a$edeli&ers nothingof the %ind.

=>=.

5!64 !4=>.

=>V. suspect that part of the proble$ )ithThe ;oral/an*s#a$eis that (arris $ay $ista%e his target. t see$s clearthat )hat really angers and ani$ates hi$ is $oral relati&is$# notthose )ho 7uestion the possibility of a scientic $orality.The;oral /an*s#a$eis lled )ith i$passioned# and generallypersuasi&e# denunciations of politically correct acade$ics )hoespouse the relati&ity of $orals. 2y fa&orite ea$ple'

=>F.==0. don?t thin% one has fully enoyed the life of the $ind untilone has seen a celebrated scholar defend the DcontetualElegiti$acy of the bur7a# or of fe$ale genital $utilation# a $erethirty seconds after announcing that $oral relati&is$ doesnothing to di$inish a person?s co$$it$ent to $a%ing the )orlda better place.

==


72/92

dangerously )ith $oral relati&is$. But this needn?t be. 6ne canbe s%eptical of a science of $orality and abstain fro$ relati&is$.(ere?s the proof' religious people ha&e no interest in scientic$orality but no one?s e&er accused the$ of $oral relati&is$. 6r#loo%ing in a secular direction# so$e ha&e suggested that $oral

truths ha&e an a priori status# rather li%e $athe$atical truths. fso# $orality )ould ha&e no need of e$pirical ustication8 indeed$orals )ould ha&e a stronger clai$ to truth than )ould e$piricalfacts. This is about as far fro$ $ushy $oral relati&is$ as onecan get.

==3.==>. t?s also i$portant to see that one can ha&e doubts about

(arris?s particular atte$pted scientic $orality )ithout closingthe door entirely on so$e sort of naturali+ed ethics# one# that is#that?s tied to the )orld of physical and biological nature. # forone# ha&e no particular proble$ )ith the notion that our

e&olutionary history played so$e part in shaping our $oralsense# though reason and culture play conspicuous parts too. Weare ani$als# not angels# and it )ould be bi+arre if naturalselection had nothing )hate&er to do )ith the e$ergence of our$oral intuitions. But )e are also rational and culture-creatingani$als and it )ould be e7ually bi+arre if these forces played nopart in shaping our $oral nor$s.The point is that it?s one thingto say that (arris fails to plausibly sol&e the is/ought proble$#another to say that it can?t be sol&ed.

===.==. n the end# it?s odd that one can share so $any of (arris?s

&ie)s and yet nd his proect largely unsuccessful. certainlyshare his &ision of the )ell-being of conscious creatures as asensible end for ethics. And agree that science can and shouldhelp us to attain this end. And certainly agree that religion hasno $onopoly on $orals. The proble$:and it?s one that (arrisne&er faces up to:is that one can agree )ith all these thingsand yet not thin% that $orality should be Dconsidered anunde&eloped branch of science.E

==.

55


73/92

changing our sense of ho) )e should li&e.

2r. (arris and his )or% ha&e been discussed inThe e& YorTimes#Time#'#ienti# Ameri#an#ature# Rollin, 'tone# and$anyother ournals. (e has )ritten forThe e& Yor Times#The

/os An,eles Times#The -#onomist#The TimesJ5ondonK#Theoston Globe#The Atlanti##The Annals of eurolo,"#a$ongothers. (is )or% has been published in $ore than


74/92

5624 "aming the "iger /ithin% " Thi#h hat Hanh

=3.

56!4 Summary7 from the cover==. Acclai$ed scholar# peace acti&ist# and Buddhist $aster

re&ered by people of all faiths# Thich hat (anh has inspired$illions )orld)ide )ith his insight into the hu$an heart and$ind. o) he focuses his profound spiritual )isdo$ on the basichu$an e$otions )e all struggle )ith e&ery day.

=.=. ,istilled fro$ the pages of his $any bestselling )or%s#

Ta$ing the Tiger Within is a handboo% of $editations# analogies#and rePections the o1er prag$atic techni7ues for di1using

anger# con&erting fear# and culti&ating lo&e in e&ery arena of life:a )ise and e7uisite guide for bringing har$ony and healing toour li&es and relationships.

=V.

564 %evie'7 from Pu*lishers /ee8ly570.@ietna$ese ]en Buddhist $aster Thich hat (anh has authored

three national bestsellers that deal )ith negati&e e$otions'Anger# Ooing (o$e and o ,eath# o !ear. (ere he distills so$eof the best 7uotations fro$ those three boo%s# o1ering ad&ice onho) to con7uer rage# ealousy# fear and the desire for re&enge.

6ften the thoughts are ust a sentence long# and rarely $orethan three8 the boo% is designed to be sa&ored o&er ti$e throughdeep rePection. So$e of (anhs suggestions are practical Jsuchas )al%ing to di1use anger or )riting a lo&e letter to a cherishedindi&idualK# )hile others )ill re7uire $ore ru$ination. 6ne %ey toreducing anger# for ea$ple# is to practice 44deep loo%ing44 andrecogni+e that all beings are interconnected8 the angry person isinetricably intert)ined )ith the one she i$agines is her ene$y.Though spare# e&en Spartan# this boo% holds seeds of profound)isdo$. (o)e&er# $ore serious readers )ill )ant to del&e intothe three classics that this boo% dra)s upon# since they are

already accessible# brief and easy to understand.=


75/92

n this collection of $editations and rePections# he o1ers ad&iceon dealing )ith the diIcult e$otions that ser&e as roadbloc%s topeace and happiness. These 7uotations are dra)n fro$ hisboo%so +eath o Fear8An,er8 and Goin, Home. This &olu$e isdi&ided into sections on recognition# care of anger# $indfulness

of others# fear and ti$e# nding refuge and thenU %no)ingfreedo$# and the lo&e that springs fro$ insight. (ere is asa$pler of 7uotations fro$ (anhs teachings'

==.576. Cn nger

=.Whene&er anger co$es up# ta%e out a $irror and loo% atyourself. When you are angry# you are not &ery beautiful# you arenot presentable. (undreds of $uscles on your face beco$e &erytense. Your face loo%s li%e a bo$b ready to eplode.

=V.

579. Cn Punishment=V0.;unishing the other person is self-punish$ent. That is true ine&ery circu$stance.

=V.585. Cn ,ear

=V.o fear is the ulti$ate oy. When you ha&e the insight of no fear#you are free.

=V.

5


76/92

=F3. Thich hat (anh has published o&er s -.er" 'te$# The ;ira#le

of ;in*fulness# The Art of !o&er# True /o.eandAn,er.=F>.=F=. Thich hat (anh has been a pioneer in bringing Buddhis$

to the West# founding si $onasteries and do+ens of practicecenters in A$erica and urope# as )ell as o&er


77/92

0


78/92

6!4Life

605.0. The ad&enture of life is

to learn.0. The purpose of life is

to gro).0V. The nature of life is to

change.0F. The challenge of life is

to o&erco$e.


79/92

. The oy of life is tolo&e.

615.616.William Arthur Ward


80/92

61


81/92

3=. choose the principle ofsharing.

3.3. choose to beco$e a co-creator

in life and li&e it $ore abundantly.3V.3F. --!ro$ creati&egroup.org


82/92

6!4&harter for

&ompassion>". "he principle of compassion lies at the heart of

all religious# ethical and spiritual traditions# calling usal)ays to treat all others as )e )ish to be treatedoursel&es. Co$passion i$pels us to )or% tirelessly toalle&iate the su1ering of our fello) creatures# todethrone oursel&es fro$ the centre of our )orld and put

another there# and to honour the in&iolable sanctity ofe&ery single hu$an being# treating e&erybody# )ithouteception# )ith absolute ustice# e7uity and respect.

>3.>>. It is also necessary in both public and pri&ate

life to refrain consistently and e$pathically fro$inPicting pain. To act or spea% &iolently out of spite#chau&inis$# or self-interest# to i$po&erish# eploit ordeny basic rights to anybody# and to incite hatred bydenigrating others:e&en our ene$ies:is a denial ofour co$$on hu$anity. We ac%no)ledge that )e ha&efailed to li&e co$passionately and that so$e ha&e e&enincreased the su$ of hu$an $isery in the na$e ofreligion.

/e therefore call upon all men and 'omentorestore co$passion to the centre of $orality andreligion--to return to the ancient principle that anyinterpretation of scripture that breeds &iolence# hatred

or disdain is illegiti$ate--to ensure that youth are gi&enaccurate and respectful infor$ation about othertraditions# religions and cultures--to encourage apositi&e appreciation of cultural and religious di&ersity--to culti&ate an infor$ed e$pathy )ith the su1ering ofall hu$an beings:e&en those regarded as ene$ies.


83/92

/e urgently needto $a%e co$passion a clear#lu$inous and dyna$ic force in our polari+ed )orld.9ooted in a principled deter$ination to transcendselshness# co$passion can brea% do)n political#

dog$atic# ideological and religious boundaries. Born ofour deep interdependence# co$passion is essential tohu$an relationships and to a fullled hu$anity. t is thepath to enlighten$ent# and indispensable to thecreation of a ust econo$y and a peaceful globalco$$unity.

>=.

>. --!ro$ charterforco$passion.org


84/92

6!4 "he Sages &ode:

"'elve "ransformative=oetic ssentials>V.

"#$% & am de'eloing a curriculum based on the oints listed below%

& en'ision this course to be the core hilosohy regarding the

ositi'e ersonal otentials 'is*a*'is a noetic aroach to human

life% Any comments or suggestions would be areciated%

% +lay % onder

-% .ratitude

#% /eauty

0% 1oy

"% 2timism

3% 4eason

5% +urose

$% Harmony6%7omassion

% .enerosity

%8irituality

654

6514 1B Play: Serious Pu99le=".=3. The rst ite$ in $y list of t)el&e transfor$ati&e noetic

essentials is the notion of play. nd play to be a diIcultessential to dene. Co$$only# $uch is included in play such asruthlessly co$petiti&e sports# aggressi&ely pursued ga$es# andacti&ities )hich in&ol&e struggles for do$inance or decepti&eacti&ities.

=>.==. !or $e play is a pursuit )hich lac%s obsessi&e agendas or

tightly structured strategies. !or $e play is a condition of delight


85/92

in&ol&ing a nu$ber of people or e&en solo enoy$ent of nature.!un and relaation are the essentials of play8 a delight in theco$$on place and an intuiti&e appreciation of social )ar$th andnatural )onders.

=.

=. could only generate a short list of boo%s supporting thisnotion. )ould appreciate additional suggestions.=V. - The '$ell of the 'ensuous# by ,a&id Abra$=F. - ;usi# /esson# by @ictor 5. Wooten0. - The Han*# by !ran% 9. Wilson

""%

6624 2B /onder: #o'7 /hy3. Wonder is the nu$ber t)o transfor$ati&e noetic essential

in $y list of t)el&e. Wonder is a 7uality of the hu$an condition)hich dri&es the curiosity )hich epands hu$an culture. This

curiosity can be cos$ic in nature or deeply personal.>.=. ha&e chosen a literature base for )onder# )hich eplores

the $iraculous and the $ysterious fro$ cos$ology toconsciousness. a$ listing &e di&erse boo%s )hich if read inse7uence eplores the full di$ension of hu$an curiosity. Andthey are'

.. - The Fifth ;ira#le# by ;aul ,a&iesV. - ature Lia urture# by 2att 9idleyF. - The A$e an* 'ushi ;aster# by !rans de Waal

0. - !eri$heral Lisions# by 2ary Catherine Bateson


86/92


87/92

ulti$ate capacity to be a force of sal&ation for hu$an %ind. in&ite contributions to this discussion.

14 5B @oy F #appinessn '$ite of >t All# by en eyes# r.3s -.er" 'te$# by Thich hat (anh


88/92

3". - The 1na# of Dsin, Your 'ub#ons#ious ;in*# by ohn .Willia$s

33. - Your ;a5imum ;in*# by (erbert Benson3>. - The A#t of Creation# by Arthur oestler3=. - Treat Yourself to /ife# by 9ay$ond Charles Bar%er

3. - Hea* First# by or$an Cousins3. - !ositi.e /i.in, an* Health# by the editors of !re.ention$aga+ine

3


89/92

=.=V. ha&e selected se&en boo%s rele&ant to this topic )hich

)ill list in a se7uence for building a coherent approach topurpose and leadership.

=F. - The !o&er of Four# by oseph 2arshall

0. - ;ain, Wa.es an* Ri*in, the Currents# by Charles(alpern. - ;anJs 'ear#h for ;eanin,# by @i%tor . !ran%l=. - /o.e >s /ettin, Go of Fear# by Oerald O. a$pols%y. - o oun*ar"# by en Wilber. - The Roots of Coin#i*en#e# by Arthur oestlerV. - The !henomenon of ;an# by Teilhard de ChardinF. - The oo of alan#e an* Harmon"# by Tho$as ClearyV0. - Tao Te Chin,# by 5ao T+uV

V=.


90/92

V. n $y list of t)el&e noetic transfor$ati&e essentials#co$passion is nu$ber ten. !or untold centuries# Buddhis$ hasfocused on co$passion as a central the$e. !or )ell o&er acentury# )estern thought has been borro)ing fro$ easternphilosophical strea$s. 9ecently# co$passion has beco$e a

$ainstrea$ line of social analysis and e&en scientic research.2any concepts are )o&en together related to co$passion. belie&e co$passion is the $ost acti&e perception of such ideas#ho)e&er# there are $ore passi&e conceptions such as tolerance.

V.VV. ha&e chosen se&en boo%s )hich de&elop this line of

thought in orth A$erican culture. f read in se7uence aspresented# these se&en boo%s pro&ide a po)erful shift in the&ie) of the hu$an condition )ith potential sal&ationali$plications for the future.

VF.

F0. - orn for /o.e# by 2aia S+ala&it+ and Bruce ;erryF. - Wire* to Care# by ,e& ;atnai%F=. -A !ara*ise uilt in Hell# by 9ebecca SolnitF. - The ;oral /an*s#a$e# by Sa$ (arrisF.FV.FF.


91/92


92/92

V3>. - elon,in, to the Dni.erse# by !ritof Capra X ,a&idSteindl-9ast

V3=. - The Great Transformation# by aren Ar$strongV3. - Gnosis# by urt 9udolphV3. - -ssa"s on Worl* Reli,ion# by (uston S$ith

V3V. - 'hamanism# by Shirley icholsonV3F. - 'tates of Gra#e# by Charlene Spretna%V>0. - !ea#e /o.e O Healin,# by Bernie S. SiegelV>". -An Altar in the Worl*# by Barbara Bro)n Taylor

V>>.

the psychopath as leader

Documents