To Clear Things Up, I Do Not Believe That Alison Brause Misunderstands RO

E. Forrest Christian Theory 3 Comments

Although that certainly didn’t read clearly in the original post.

The guy who wrote the article on Brause’s work didn’t understand RO. That was my point. It was obvious reading the piece that he thought of RO as fascist. IMHO. He has some type of axe to grind. I can make some speculations about what happened but I won’t.

I definitely did not mean to say that Ms Brause misunderstands RO: that would be ludicrous! I send people to that summary beause, even though I would want to see additional research done, it so clearly describes the ideas of CIP. Very handy when I’ve reached the end of my descriptions in my RO evangelism. Which has gone relatively well, I should say, although I don’t think that the Jaques estate has made a ton off of royalties yet but there have been library borrowings.

I publically apologize to Ms Brause for the misunderstanding. My intent was to rant about the the Boston article which I thought did a disservice to both her work and to RO theory in general.

Boy is this embarrassing!

And I added a comment to today’s earlier post that should make my thoughts either more clear or simply reveal how muddled they really are.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming….

About the Author

Forrest Christian

Twitter Google+

E. Forrest Christian is a consultant, coach, author, trainer and speaker at The Manasclerk Company who helps managers and experts find insight and solutions to what seem like insolvable problems. Cited for his "unique ability and insight" by his clients, Forrest has worked with people from almost every background, from artists to programmers to executives to global consultants. Forrest lives and works plain view of North Carolina's Mount Baker.  [contact]

Comments 3

  1. The addition did clear it up very well. Don’t take it all too personally! Your forum does a real service to RO. Having read the article I agree the author does not understand CIP very well and is set upon marginalizing the validity of the subject matter.

  2. Which leads to the point of whether the press should develop conclusions or report facts or both. My postulation is that the press has always developed conclusions, but as yet I don’t have any real foundation for that other than gut opinion. The danger is in the press taking liberties with their conclusions by building their facts to fit (half truths, no competing conclusions, truths out of context). This is always an interesting discussion in an election year when spin is king, but clearly applies to other issues as well. (It was clear from the Boston Globe article that the author had facts spun his way with conclusions.)

  3. Agreed, and the point highlights the significance of the media in the ordering of society. In north America this media coverage is largely right wing and sets forth to manufacture both demand and consent. Big business as a result has at its disposal the resources required to set context, create demand, and deceive and influence the average citizen to a position of consent, either derived through fear or the promise of euphoria, not only through the media but also by lobbying government to influence legislation. This is the essence of corruption and unfortunately the declarative and cumulative processors that make up 80% of the general population in many ways are dependent on both business and government to assist in safeguarding their well-being.

Tell Forrest how wrong he is: