The Dire Search for Meaning and Purpose in a Finite Life.

[Victor Pross]

The Dire Search for Meaning and Purpose in a Finite Life

by Victor Pross

“I LOVE LIFE” the t-shirt read. “Life is a gift” I overheard a quasi-religious individual declare sitting next to me at the restaurant booth. “What is the purpose of life?” asked another, taking a more philosophical turn. “Life should be lived!” said a third party unaware of the circularity of the proclamation.

We have all heard the bromides “life is too short” and “this is not a dress rehearsal” and each cliché is meant to underscore the message of how brief and precious life is---and sometimes the extreme is taken where one is exhorted to live everyday “as if it were one’s last”—which could have profound ethical ramifications if carried out to its logical conclusion.

In connection to the brevity of life, Schopenhauer has a rather unique approach: “To our amazement we suddenly exist, after having for countless millennia not existed; in a short while we will again not exist, also for countless millennia.”

Life’s relatively epigrammatic span, for some people, renders it meaningless. “What’s the point?” they ask. “It’s all going to come to an end”. This is a state of mind I have never been sympathetic to. For others, it is this very fact, the fact that life will end one day—and this fact alone—that imbues their life with vitality and meaning [“This is not a dress rehearsal!”] After all, what would be the purpose to set objectives and goals if life were something infinite? NEVER-ending! I believe it would zap life of any meaning.

Granting the reality of the inevitable end, the search for a meaningful and purposeful life goes on. And with varying degrees of stumbling in the dark, large amounts of people find varying degrees of satisfaction while others seem hopelessly unfulfilled, as measured by their own standards. Of course, the question of the “meaning and purpose of life” hints of philosophy and theology---two schools of thought that have radically different approaches and therefore have radically different conclusions.

“What is the meaning of life?” is the classic inquiry of philosophers down the ages. Both Philosophers and theologians, in fact, have stepped up to the plate to offer their wares to the age old angst question, and millions have found contentment in the “words of the wise” while others still feel a hollowness at the center of their being---regardless of the large intakes of eclectic belief systems, esoteric philosophies and pop self-help books. It’s rather sad.

Some people are on an ever urgent quest to find meaning and purpose in this finite life, hungry for adventure, new experiences and romance at every corner, while others are languishing through their lives, taking their anguish and muted despair as a “natural state of affairs”--never questioning their proclivity to not question their intellectual indolent stagnation. They have somehow bought into the whole “nausea of nothingness” and the absurdity of life.

Happily, the search for a meaningful and purposeful life goes on. Sadly, that quest can take some rather bizarre and sad turns in this dire search for meaning and purpose in a finite life: religion, psychoanalysis, Anthony Robins, chakras, crystals, herbs, Prozac, recreational drug use, sexual promiscuity, marriage and children, philanthropy, Zen Buddhism, graduate school, meditation, primal screams, Dr. Laura, Deepack Chopra---and for others “the big sleep” is the big reward [Those are the types who speak of there being “something better” after this earthly life; the projection of a ‘post-mortem happiness’ as being the “meaning of life” has troubling logical implications, and I don’t care to explore it in this essay].

Science and religion represent two great systems of human thought. For the majority of people, however, religion is the dominate influence over the conduct of their affairs.*(1.1) “Religion is the only means,” writes Schopenhauer “of introducing some notion of the high significance of life into the uncritical heads of the masses, deep sunk as they are in the mean pursuits and material drudgery, and of making it palpable to them.” The fact of declining church attendance in the prevailing world does not disapprove or discredit Schopenhauer’s observation of the power of religion’s control of modern man. If the church is ignored today it is not because science and rationality has finally won out its age-old battle with religion, but because it has drastically reoriented our society that “the biblical perspective” of the world now seems totally irrelevant.**(2)

As a result, many disillusioned believers have turned to “fringe” religions that seem more in tune with an era of Star Wars and microchips.*(1.2) We live in a world that, in spite of appearances, is still fundamentally religious—it is, as Schopenhauer describes it, a “folk metaphysics.” The huge rise in popularity of cults associated with UFOs, ESP, spirit contacts, scientology, transcendental meditation and other technology-based beliefs testifies to the continued persuasiveness of faith and dogma in a superficial rational and scientific society.*(1.3)

The search for a deeper meaning to life continues.

Some people seek their meaning in life....by providing others with a meaning of life. It’s interesting to observe the power-lusters in our presence—those who have grasped and exploited this seemingly ingrained “folk metaphysics” but to disastrous consequences. As Schopenhauer wrote:

“The fundamental, secret and primal piece of astuteness of all priests, everywhere and at all times, whether Brahmin or Mohammedan or Buddhist or Christian, is as follows. They have recognized and grasped the enormous strength and the ineradicability of the metaphysical need of man: they then pretend to possess the means of satisfying it, in that the solution to the great enigma has, by extraordinary channels, been directly communicated to them. Once they have persuaded men of the truth of this, they can lead and dominate them to their heart’s content.”

No one was more aware of Schopenhauer’s maxim than the evil Ellsworth Toohey of The Fountainhead. Toohey is---as Ron Merrill described him, a “Moriarty of the mind” or a “brilliant specimen of demonology”---having as his arsenal a grasp of the “metaphysical needs of man” and a plethora of ideologies to serve up to his spiritually starved followers. “I inherited the fruits of their efforts and I shall be the one who’ll see the great dream come true!” Toohey boasts. Toohey seeks power, and his means to achieve it is not through armed troops or physical force, but via the power of dogma, of faith and collectivism. Unlike his real life counter parts, Toohey seems bent on destroying others as an end in itself and his lust to control for some practical end is secondary.

(NOTE FROM MSK: Ron Merrill never wrote the words attributed to him and Rand's Toohey statement is misquoted. The correct is: "I inherited the fruit of their efforts and I shall be the one who'll see the great dream made real.")

“The whole of life is a fire pit," writes Kao Feng, “With what state of mind can you avoid being burned,” he asks.

But let’s return to the subject of meaning and purpose, and let the Ellsworth Tooheys of the world serve as a cautionary moral tale---before we drink our next ideological cup of Kool-aid. An active mind is an alert mind.

As far as I’m concerned, our time here is precious---literally irreplaceable. So live authentically. The catch there is that you—and you alone—have to figure out what living authentically means to you, but one thing it surely implies is engagement with—not the withdrawal from—life itself.***(3.1)

Life is the search for an intellectual and emotional Atlantis, as Angie said--and in this regard, let me quote Ayn Rand:

“When people look at their childhood or youth, their wistfulness comes not from the memory, not of what their lives had been in those years, but of what life had then promised to be. The expectation of some indefinable splendor, of the unusual, the exciting, the great, is an attribute of youth—and the process of aging is the process of that expectation’s gradual extinction. One does not have to let it happen."

No, one does not have to let it happen.

Humans are, by nature, thinking creatures. And thinking, by nature, is a volitional function carried out autonomously by individual minds.****(4) Use your free will to choose renewed appreciation of every moment rather than despair.***(3.2) “Nothing contributes so much to tranquilize the mind as a steady purpose,” writes Mary Wollstonecraft, “a point on which the soul may fix its intellectual eye.”

After all, life is too short, and this is not a dress rehearsal.

Victor

NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR:

* Plagiarized from God and the New Physics by Paul Davies. The original passages read as follows:

(1.1)

Science and religion represent two great systems of human thought. For the majority of people on our planet, religion is the predominant influence over the conduct of their affairs.

(1.2)

As a result, many disillusioned believers have turned to 'fringe' religions that seem more in tune with the era of Star Wars and microchips.

(1.3)

The huge rise in popularity of cults associated with UFOs, ESP, spirit contacts, scientology, transcendental meditation and other technology-based beliefs testifies to the continued persuasiveness of faith and dogma in a superficially rational and scientific society.

** Plagiarized from "The New Biology and International Sharing - Lessons from the Life and Work of George P Smith II" by The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG (Justice of the High Court of Australia). The original passage reads as follows:

(2)

Professor Smith, himself a religious man, writes(34):

"If the Church is largely ignored today it is not because science has finally won its age-old battle with religion, but because it has so radically re-oriented our society that the biblical perspective of the world now seems largely irrelevant.

(Footnote 34) G P Smith,

Judicial Decisionmaking

, above n 29, at 100.

*** Plagiarized from Plato, Not Prozac!: Applying Eternal Wisdom to Everyday Problems by Lou Marinoff (but quoted online by Todd F. Eklof here). The original passages read as follows:

(3.1) (p. 209)

Our time here is precious—literally irreplaceable. So live authentically. The catch there is that you have to figure out what living authentically means to you, but one thing it surely implies is engagement with—not withdrawal from—life itself.

(3.2) (p. 209)

Use your free will to choose renewed appreciation of every moment rather than despair.

**** Plagiarized from "Individualist Philosophy - The Foundation of Independent Living" by Logan Feys. The original passage reads as follows:

(4)

Humans are, by nature, thinking creatures. And thinking, by nature, is a volitional function carried out autonomously by individual minds.

OL extends its deepest apologies to Paul Davies, George P. Smith II and The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, Lou Marinoff, and Logan Feys.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Barbara Branden]

I like this, Victor. It comes across as authentic, as you, Victor Pross. I'd like to have seen you develop the positive aspect, however, the part that begins with "But let's return to the subject of meaning and purpose. . . "

Barbara

[Victor Pross]

Thanks, Barbara.

I would have liked to have developed that line of though further, but this armchair philosopher grew tired as the clock strikes four in the morning. Still, I could always return to it. Meanwhile I encourage others to expand on this post.

I’m happy you enjoyed it.

Victor

Edited August 26, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

This is a very good piece of work, Victor. Barbara said it- it sounds like you .

I understand, sympathize, and maybe even commiserate with you regarding many of your comments about religion. Understand that is coming from a person who experienced spiritual conversion. All I wish to suggest to you is that individual religious consciousness is as unique as a fingerprint, as unique as each person. There is, often, a tendency for Objectivists to use "religion" as a meta-term; not, for one, separating the individual religious experience from the ecclesiastical. If you look at the bad things that come out of organized religion (and, there are many good things done), you could just as well be talking about "organized politics," organized durn near anything. Religion just happens to give the corrupt access to great power, because it addresses the biggest of all issues: mortality. But, the true religions, the true religious practicioners of the world are not evil, nor or they corrupt. I think you know much of this. I'm just giving you the other perspective. I'm in kind of a unique position because I was an extremely orthodox Objectivist from about 1979 until just over two years ago, when things changed for me. I know both sides of the fence. As a matter of fact, I believe them to be fully compatible, despite arguments to the contrary.

All that said though, again- this is a very authentic piece of writing, and I enjoy your "flow" very much!

[Victor Pross]

Thanks Rich,

What religion and philosophy have in common is to remind us that man does not live by bread alone--there is an intellectual and spiritual need. Mind you, all the relgious people I know make it a point to tell me that they are 'not religious, but spiritual.'

It's interesting to observe Rand using the "language of religion" that she says has been preempted.

Anyway, you're a profoundly religious man, Rich--in your own way.

Victor

PS

[Actually, Rich, what are your thoughts on the connection of philosophy and religion?]

Edited August 26, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

Yeah, the "I'm spiritual" thing has been in vogue for awhile, now. I like to think it's mostly true. Usually, the people I hear that from are in fact what we call "seekers;" going about it on their own because they ran from one kind of funky religious dogma or another. Seeking can go on for years. I thought my seeking ended with Objectivism, because that's how profoundly it changes one's life. But in my case, on the deeper, interior level, the thing that spoke deepest was along Taoist lines, and I always had conflict between those two. On the whole, Objectivist principles are how I operate in the "we" part of the world, particularly in business- it just shines there, and as far as providing inspiration for moving and shaking, I find it par none (other than maybe Sun Tzu's The Art of War , which to this day I contemplate several times a month; it sits by my nightstand). In my interior domain, the Taoist mindset is now more of a portal to get to my personal, true way of connecting to "spirit" (or whatever you want to call it).

I think the common answer to your religion/philosophy question is that philosophy is a more pure thing- religion covers certain elements of it, notably the ethics/morality piece. The conflict I run into when debating with some Objectivists is simple- they do not believe in a state higher than what Ken Wilber calls "eye of mind," or at least not higher than "eye of contemplation," whereas I do, and believe that contemplative practices can open up that higher consciousness (eye of Spirit). You can see how all this kind of talk would get me in the ropes pretty quick. But, I experienced something, and if people want to talk about it, fine, if not, fine too. It's not possible to provide "objective" external evidence of something that happens in the interior domain (outside of taking measurments, as has been done with Zen masters and such).

More important to me is to enjoy dialogue, to accept and enjoy the fellowship. What's most important to me, in a finite life, are my friends, family, colleagues, and of course, my mate. I love "stuff" and I adore cash, and all that, but those things come and go; very important, but not as important as, say, who I'm going out swing dancing with tonight! What I experience being with her you can't buy at your local retail store.

[Victor Pross]

Rich,

You Objectivist heretic! Be gone with you! May you be damned to listening to Toohey’s speech to Keating for all of eternity! Over and over again! ;)

Seriously….

Hmm, damn! you are an interesting guy, Rich. I didn’t know this about you, and I have been reading plenty of your posts---even the old HQSOLO posts. Well, let’s set down with a cup of cyber coffee and have a chat, as I’m very interested in learning more about you. Would I be incorrect to assume that you take a defensive position when talking about your beliefs? Have you been attacked by Objectivist rage machines? Well, don’t expect that from me. I’m looking forward to an acrimonious exchange---not!

Anyway...

You said: “The conflict I run into when debating with some Objectivists is simple- they do not believe in a state higher than what Ken Wilber calls "eye of mind," or at least not higher than "eye of contemplation," whereas I do…” and you also say: “I believe that contemplative practices can open up that higher consciousness (eye of Spirit).”

I’m sorry, I’m not sure of your intended meaning here, or maybe I’m just not familiar with the lingo. What are the “eye of the mind” and an “eye of the spirit” that puts you in conflict with some Objectivists, as you say? I vaguely recall the “eye of the tiger” or something like this, and that was a Rocky movie. And I’m sure you are not speaking of that. I’m afraid this language is a bit little too technical for me [hee-hee].

You also said: “But, I experienced something, and if people want to talk about it, fine, if not, fine too. It's not possible to provide "objective" external evidence of something that happens in the interior domain (outside of taking measurements, as has been done with Zen masters and such).”

If you don’t mind my asking, what happened to you? If you don’t want to repeat here what you might have already wrote about, is there a link you could refer me to?

Rich, I’m fascinated with by what you call your “interior domain”—and I presume we are speaking of the spiritual element within a human being. This is the element that would include or involve those you love---the lady in your life, your friends and family and so on. Is this right? Now you say---and I’m paraphrasing you here---that the Objectivist “you” plays a large part in the operating of your life—particularly in business. Is this right?

Now let me ask you: do you regard Objectivist as a “worldly” philosophy and being so, [if so] you find it rather “spiritually” deficient? Is that it? Keep in mind: When I say “spiritual,” I mean, of course, what you coined as the “interior realm.” How does Objectivism fail here? That is, if you think is does.

Now you also said: "I thought my seeking ended with Objectivism, because that's how profoundly it changes one's life. But in my case, on the deeper, interior level, the thing that spoke deepest was along Taoist lines, and I always had conflict between those two."

A conflict between what? Objectivism and the Taoist religion? Objectivism and the 'deeper, interior realm'?

You know, I recall this radio interview Rand gave during the 1970s, and it may speak to some of the issue we are talking about here. The person who was interviewing her seemed to feel uneasy about her high praise for making money and capitalism. He said to Rand:

“Miss Rand, you place a high value on production and trade, and the virtue of making money and in your book, Atlas Shrugged, it gets very involved, very intensely, and I wanted to ask you: what about the non-material considerations of man? I mean, once a man as amassed enough material wealth---well beyond what he could ever spend in a single life time…”

Rand then interrupted and chortled in good-humor, and asked: “Now what on earth makes you think I advocate a mind-body dichotomy?

When I read your posts, I was reminded of this interview.

As for my questions, I’m very serious: I do want to understand where you are coming from. And that's the God's honest truth. Soon...

Victor

Edited August 27, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Let me put this in a language for you to have common ground to talk with Rich, since I know where you both come from.

Rich has had an intense inner experience - a subjective one. It has been repeated many times. It is not sharable through the five senses so you cannot point to it and say, "This is what I am talking about."

However, he has encountered many others who report having the same experience. He groups with them. They get together regularly on the basis of this experience so that they all can understand it better and possibly share it somehow. Also, having similar experiences creates strong bonds of friendship.

In the language they use, the word "higher" and other similar ones appear because this is a historical leftover from religious dogmas (being that "higher" gave the priests or whomever ascendancy over the rabble), but what they mean is "different than normal" or "extrasensory." They do not mean that a mystical experience is superior to a sensory experience or that one negates the other. They add this new experience to their experience of the senses.

The intensity of the experience is such that a person would have to lie to himself to negate it or rationalize it. It comes with the same feeling of certainty as seeing light or feeling heat or hearing sound, etc. Thus, for a person to maintain his integrity, he must come to terms with it, not just brush it off.

It is a case of rational induction. Either you take your experience seriously and try to understand it, especially if it is repeatable, or you evade it in the strict sense of the word - and that would be irrational.

Rich has been subjected to a great deal of mocking from Objectivists because he will not bow his head to their intimidation and kneejerks to words like "mysticism." He stays true to himself and his experience. I admire that enormously.

That should clear up the initial stuff. From here, you guys work out the rest.

Michael

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Victor,

Rich has been subjected to a great deal of mocking from Objectivists because he will not bow his head to their intimidation and kneejerks to words like "mysticism." He stays true to himself and his experience. I admire that enormously.

That should clear up the initial stuff. From here, you guys work out the rest.

Michael

Really? Rich, mocked by Objectivists. Say it ain't so. I can't see why, Michael. If what you're saying is indeed what Rich believes then, Rich, and others like him, have this extra sense modality that we all lack. He's certain of this. He can't prove it to us. He expects us to accept it on faith. Objectivists should admire that? These so-called "Seekers" ( a term popular amoung Religious apologists) that Rich talks about are nothing more than gullible fools waiting for the latest trendy "spiritual" bull shit.

[Victor Pross]

Damage,

How did you get that charming personality of yours? It must have been your brother's midnight wedgie raids, and you have been pissed off at the world ever since, huh? Rich is a cool guy. You, on the other hand, have the glazed-over "Prophets of the Caribbean" manner. Y' know, there's nothing more boring than somebody who is rabid about an issue that is utterly cosmically inconsequential.

Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Damage,

Since you are obviously hostile to OL, please make your true identity known to me or Kat, or preferably to all of us here. You can send a private message, email or make a post.

We have suffered a hacker attack, so we can no longer allow a hostile relationship grow with a person who hides behind a pseudonym. Besides, that's cowardice anyway and you are obviously an Objectivist hero.

24 hours.

Michael

Edit: NOTE TO OL MEMBERS:

Please accept my apology for being heavy-handed here. Kat and have changed our posting guidelines (Please see No. 6 here). We did not want to do this, but it was unfortunately necessary due to the need to increase security against hostile anonymous attacks.

I have no qualms about disagreement with anything if it is done civilly. Sniping from behind pseudonyms is not part of what I understand as civil disagreement. Those who do so on OL will be tried and hung.

Michael

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Damage,

Since you are obviously hostile to OL, please make your true identity known to me or Kat, or preferably to all of us here. You can send a private message, email or make a post.

We have suffered a hacker attack, so we can no longer allow a hostile relationship grow with a person who hides behind a pseudonym. Besides, that's cowardice anyway and you are obviously an Objectivist hero.

24 hours.

Michael

On the Contrary, Michael, 'm not hostile to OL. I'm hostile to pollyanna Objectivists who lack the balls to speak their mind. It's so cravenly politically correct. Objectivism is hostile to certain things. E.g. those who advocate that they've had experiences that can't be objectively verified. Rich's so-called "spiritual conversion" cannot be squared with Objectivism. The epistemological/ethical implications of his "experience" are a definite threat to human life.

It's true that, as Objectivists, we use Objectivism as a tool for living. But, we live in a world where we need to fight for our values. I find that those who cozy up to the Branden's, David Kelley, et al, sometimes give short shift to this uphill battle. We can win, but, not with rose coloured glasses on.

On the other hand, there are the Objectivists who are afraid to honestly investigate ideas for themselves because many don't want to be judged negatively (I'll speak positively about Bidinotto or Kelley, if I think the context warrants it). Years ago I read "Truth and Toleration" and gave positive feedback to Dr. John Ridpath. I know I was judged negatively because of this exchange. But, as the years passed, and my experiences grew (I was at the ISIL conference in London Ont Canada in 2000, I met Barbara Branden, Tibor Machan, and John Hospers there) I moved to the mushy middle.

I now consider myself a homeless Objectivist. But, if I had to choose between ARI and The Atlas Society (or whatever the fuck they're called now) I would choose ARI. After 9-11, I noticed a lack of honesty from David Kelley. As Linz said: they're new aging Objectivism. This soft sell approach doesn't work. The irony for the soft sellers is that Ayn Rand never sold her ideas this way. Could any of you picture Ayn Rand delivering the speech that David Kelley did recenting to a Muslim group? Kelley is still a great mind. But,

he has a theory-practice dichotomy. I will not be able to prove this right now (see the speech online for evidence) but, it's there with his views on evil.

As for the hacker attack. I wouldn't and couldn't do such a thing. I have no problem letting you know my identity. It's...

Wayne Simmons

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wayne,

Thank you for identifying yourself. Welcome to OL (I think... )

Rich's so-called "spiritual conversion" cannot be squared with Objectivism. The epistemological/ethical implications of his "experience" are a definite threat to human life.

I wonder how on earth you can know this since you cannot climb into his head and observe what goes on in there. Also, that "threat to human life" thing needs a bit of work. From what I see, the human race is one of the most successful biological species on the planet. Should I believe your prophesy of doom or should I believe my own eyes?

Come to think of it, we live in a wonderful world among many wonderful people. Give me half an ear and I will tell you some of the wonders that constantly enchant me.

About Rich, I have had some experiences similar to what he describes, but I do not categorize them in the language he uses. I know that the internal state he speaks of exists - and, as he mentioned in his article, it can and has been measured with brain scans and so forth. You may not like the idea, but scientific corroboration is being developed.

I also know that the experience is repeatable. I don't know what to do with it. Rich decided he does. He groups with others. I don't. I reflect and wait to see if more understanding comes with time and more science. I think it is extremely important to discuss this in rational terms, though. It certainly will not go away because a person reads Atlas Shrugged or makes a snarky comment.

One thing I do not do (or tolerate) with Rich is characterize him as a liar. He is not. He is a good man and has more integrity in his little finger than I have seen exhibited by many so-called "correct" Objectivists with whom I have interacted. I have seen this in action on both sides.

Self-honesty is among the highest of Objectivist virtues and Rich has that one in spades. I can't say that about many people I know at all - certainly not a good many members of the Objectivist community. Most people have what is called a "hidden agenda" in the jargon - at least on some level. Essentially they fake reality in order to advance something that is in their head. They have no compunction against selling a bill of goods to anybody if it will advance their cause. Those who pride themselves on self-honesty do not do that.

On the Muslim thing, I was once married into a mixed Muslim/Catholic family (tribe) in Brazil for five years. I have had close contact with that culture. The way this culture is being protrayed by anti-Islamists has no correspondence whatsoever with what I experienced. Five years is a lot of looking.

The hysteria and collectivism I see running rampant in those accusing all Islamic practitioners as evil is a mentality I personally abhor. It is just as easy to be an irrational Objectivist fanatic as it is to be an irrational Islamic fanatic. What is missing in both is independence of thought, but they both have a strong willingness to give their lives over to serving a leader.

Calling Kelley dishonest because he honestly thinks along these lines is a misuse of the concept of honesty. I have no idea of what your standard is.

You mentioned that the fanatical sell of Objectivism is the proper one, since the "soft sell" doesn't work according to the so-called expert you cited. Could you please let me know of any Muslims who have been convinced of rational ideas using the "hard sell" system or by that particular expert?

No?

Not even interested in convincing them?

The billion and and a half or more who are out there?

Then as John Galt said: "Get out of my way!"

(If you are interested, I am willing to explain a project I intend to implement later. It has been brewing for some time. I am in the talent-gathering stage right now because I will need a team. Some serious study is in the works, too. You see, I intend to do something that will actually combat the problem on a fundamental level, something that will make a difference, not just bitch about it to a peanut gallery and strike badass poses on an Internet site like the "experts" do.)

Michael

[Mikee]

Mr. Simmons,

We are in agreement with regards to the incompatibility of religious "experience" with objectivism. I have not regarded Mr. Engle's exposition of these views as either benign or convincing.

With regards to David Kelly and his lack of honesty. Is this the David Kelley speech you are referring to?:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1540-T..._Terrorism.aspx

You will have to be more explicit about what in this speech offends you. I'm guessing it's the part where he states "..but I am not a believer, I have not absorbed its traditions and practices, I do not know it from the inside. So it is not for me to say what is and is not part of Islam."

I believe he is telling the truth here, he is not a Muslim, he cannot read their minds, so the truth of whether violent Jihad is an integral part of Islam CANNOT BE KNOWN by him. I admire those who do not claim knowledge of what cannot be known. That does not mean, however, that we are inhibited from ACTING appropriately in response to others actions.

[CNA]

As far as I’m concerned, our time here is precious---literally irreplaceable. So live authentically. The catch there is that you—and you alone—have to figure out what living authentically means to you, but one thing it surely implies is engagement with—not the withdrawal from—life itself.

Life is the search for an intellectual and emotional Atlantis, as Angie said--and in this regard, let me quote Ayn Rand:

“When people look at their childhood or youth, their wistfulness comes not from the memory, not of what their lives had been in those years, but of what life had then promised to be. The expectation of some indefinable splendor, of the unusual, the exciting, the great, is an attribute of youth—and the process of aging is the process of that expectation’s gradual extinction. One does not have to let it happen."

No, one does not have to let it happen.

Humans are, by nature, thinking creatures. And thinking, by nature, is a volitional function carried out autonomously by individual minds. Use your free will to choose renewed appreciation of every moment rather than despair. “Nothing contributes so much to tranquilize the mind as a steady purpose,” writes Mary Wollstonecraft, “a point on which the soul may fix its intellectual eye.”

After all, life is too short, and this is not a dress rehearsal.

Victor

Victor, I really enjoyed your article. Thank you. Life is definitely not a dress rehearsal. That's for sure. I know this one all too well: That life can be cut short all too quickly due to my own experiences with my family, especially with my sister and what happened when I was younger and then my own ultimate battle with a multitude of health problems afterwards. The outcome did not look good and ultimately was given a "death" sentence but they couldn't give a specific time frame as to when but A LOT sooner rather than later, just whichever failed next. For being my age, I've been through so much crap. It's quite amazing. But I always stayed true to myself, to my mind, To Think correctly, and will never ever give up what it is I've found. I will continue to act the way I have been in order to keep what it is I've found. In fact, I will work my ass off for it. I always have and always will.

I will say, for me, and the real possibility of having it literally taken away from me (my life), it has offered renewed appreciation for what I have, what I've accomplished, what it is I've found. For me now and the way I feel and felt when told by the doctors of what would happen very very soon, I feel and felt profoundly complete with my life and now everything else in my life, my accomplishments, my goals, etc., is all EXTRA. When told by the doctors, I didn't think about all the things I hadn't accomplished, etc. I thought of everything I had accomplished, which many were tremendous accomplishments; all the wonderful choices I had made, all the values I had worked my ass off for and ultimately attained. This is why I felt profoundly complete. I had attained everything I had set out for myself. I didn't and don't have a single regret. I didn't and don't regret what had happened to me when I was younger. I didn't and don't regret that very tough road I once walked. I sure in the hell didn't and don't regret the choices I have made because it has made me who I am today, has brought me what it is I've found and I will fight tooth and nail to keep it. I am complete. I think most will have a hard time understanding it if they themselves haven't had that close call so to speak or haven't been told by a doctor that you have a very limited time to live. For me, when told this, the amount of reflection was tremendous. Don't get me wrong. I still have goals that I set and complete. I still think the way I am supposed to and it guides my life and always will. I had already finished everything I set out for myself. Now, everything else is EXTRA and you better believe I am going to enjoy it.

Before my health problems, I already had a strong sense of life, my passion for it because of what happened to me when I was younger. What I learned so very young prepared me much for what was about to happen; ie, major battle with my health. What it did do is made my sense of life and my love of it that much stronger and I am very appreciative of it. I still have residual chronic health problems from that battle but even that still has not put a damper on my sense of life and my love of it. Truly that Atlantis is attainable. If you want to attain it, you can't withdraw from what comes natural to humans; ie, To Think the way you are supposed to. It can't be given to you or handed to you on a silver platter or explained to you by others. You have to go out and live it; find evidence of it through your own experiences either introspectively or extrospectively. You have to work for it. In some cases, may have to work your ass off for it. But you and you alone are the one who has to realize it in order to achieve it; it is possible.

I thoroughly enjoyed your article and it hit home for me in many ways. Thank you very much. It brought a huge smile to my face.

Angie

P.S. I'm sure I'll edit this at some point or another to make sure it is clear of what I am meaning and that it isn't misunderstood by others.

Edited August 28, 2006 by CNA

[CNA]

Victor,

Interestingly enough, it seems we have similar thoughts on many issues and agree on many issues !!!

[Victor Pross]

"Interestingly enough, it seems we have similar thoughts on many issues and agree on many issues !!!"

Interacting with you is like looking into a mirror, I can really see myself. That is, I look in the mirror and I see a beautiful women.

[Kat]

I hear a lot of purring going on and it reminds me of how Michael and I fell in love online back on the old SoloHQ. We even had to put warning labels on our posts (purr alerts).

I think you two would make a great team. purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Kat

[Victor Pross]

Ah, Kat you hopeless romantic. You match-maker, you. Angie and I, it’s true, are doing some serious flirting on-line and off. What we have now is a great connection and we are great friends--but to know, for sure, if there is anything else there...is still little pre-mature. Thanks for a vote of confidence that we would make a great team. I can’t argue with you on that.

Edited August 28, 2006 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

Holy Shit......OY....damn, you guys, if the boat moves any damn faster, I'm going to be left at the docks....LMAO Yes, we have been playing with each other. We get along very well. He is very easy to talk with. We have a lot in common. We very much think along the same lines. We have turned into being great friends. Even though we are being playful and do have a lot in common, it is premature. I also agree with you, Kat, that we probably would make a good team. He's a total sweetheart and I do enjoy his company.

Angie

Edited August 28, 2006 by CNA

[Victor Pross]

Angie, I’m going to have to disagree with you: YOU are a total sweetheart. So there.

[CNA]

Victor,

Dammit, I think I got it this time around. Tomorrow, if those damn things are still there, then they are supposed to be there and they're now haunting my ass....LOL

Thanks for the suggestion. And no, no books or plates or frying pans will come flying through your computer screen.

[Rich Engle]

Well, I hate to mess up the feng shui of the little lovefest going on here... It's nice that Angie and Victor meet!

First, though, thank you, Maestro, for your gracious, kind, and strong words. I blush!

Anyway, when I hear Mikee- he says he doesn't find my arguments convincing, and such. Mikee, hear me, please- I am not attempting to argue, convert, convince. . That is not my purpose; it would be a foolish one. More importantly, I would disrespect people, it is bad manners in general. Worse yet, it goes against individuality; we can, if we wish, share things, and it will be clumsy. I only wish to engage.

So, no, that is not my purpose, it never was, never will be, Mikee. I am here because I can be here, and even though I am different, I have commonalities- even with you! We would find something.

Victor, to answer you in general. Read Ken Wilber's The Marriage of Sense and Spirit - it's a quick read. Interior domain- look at his "AQAL" model, a good one is here:

http://www.formlessmountain.com/KW-WTC/footnotes/aqal.html

Nathaniel Branden disagrees, I believe, with only one thing in Wilber's work. But, he also says this model is quite useful. Wilber is a true integrator. I often get blankout or an attempted whuppin' whenever I introduce his work to O-world. And there's Branden's talks with Wilber, too.

Michael made a good point about higher/lower, that is true, I haven't yet learned to communicate that well in language other than what I now use, which is a combinant, and does indeed have a religious-minded base. I try. But to this- there is an older, hierarchical model that puts one atop the other, this is the old, pre-enlightenment model. It has a lot of right to it but there is truly a flaw. Look at AQAL, it's a good start.

That's enough for now, I have to go change kevlar, I feel a new round coming on...

Blessed Be,

rde

That oughta do it...that Blessed Be thing.

[CNA]

Love Fest ?? OY...you guys are all killin' me and the boat is now 150 miles from shore and my ass is still left at the docks waving goodbye. Victor and I get along very well. He is a sweetheart, easy to talk with, a lot in common, etc. We've turned into being very good friends. But man, so way premature to be calling it love fest, etc.. I've seen worse flirting going on in other places. Much of it is just having fun, smiling, laughing, etc. You guys are my buds. The same goes with you, Rich. It's just Victor and I do have much in common and probably would make a great team. But damn, we just met not but 2 weeks ago. To characterize it as heavy flirting or "love", etc., is so just overboard. I'll be looking here very soon and I've made it known but private stuff definitely stays private.

Angie

[Rich Engle]

You don't have to explain yerself, honey-bunny: the heart wants what the heart wants!

rde

Victor: be gentle with her.