Serious Students vs. Degenerate Objectivists

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

By the way shithead...

Just like clockwork.

This thing is a formula.

Hey, I have an idea!

Let's talk about Phil some more!

Michael

[sjw]

> The fact that they may disagree with parts of O'ism frequently shows independent thinking. [GHS]

And what would be the strongest example of the errors in O'ism that their independent thinking has managed to uncover?

As part of his therapy, Phil should exercise some independent thinking and answer this question for himself.

Shayne

[Mikee]

Edited because: Long week + couple glasses of wine = long incoherent post. My apologies to any unfortunate soul who tried to make sense of it...

[Brant Gaede]

> The fact that they may disagree with parts of O'ism frequently shows independent thinking. [GHS]

And what would be the strongest example of the errors in O'ism that their independent thinking has managed to uncover?

.

.

So much for independent thinking(?).

--Brant

no errors for "O'ism" is not a philosophy--it's just a category for all O'ists no matter what they actually believe philosophically--I mean, they could be Nazis proclaiming themselves Objectivists, that'd let 'em in and you couldn't stop 'em!

--Brant

even George can't climb out of this pit!

[Brant Gaede]

I think the most relevant question for Phil is: Just what have you done with your deep knowledge of Objectivism? What have you created?

And I used to wonder why there was so much "Phil hate" around here. But I don't hate Phil, he's too pathetic.

Shayne

Even Jonathan doesn't hate Phil. He's just futilely, like the rest of us, trying to get through to him. He's impregnable, however, to true intellectual ratiocination. I wouldn't call anybody with the hide of an elephant "pathetic," though.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Oh Jeezus. Another neuro-typical cluster f*ck in the making. Thank you, God, for making me as Aspie.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[9thdoctor]

But he's not alone - he's joined by the usual group of clowns...and Degenerate Objectivists.

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:368px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:153104" width="360" height="293" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s05e12-here-comes-the-neighborhood">Here Comes the Neighborhood</a></b><br/>Get More: <a style="display: block; position: relative; top: -1.33em; float: right; font-weight: bold; color: #ffcc00; text-decoration: none" href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/">SOUTH<br/>PARK</a><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s05e12-here-comes-the-neighborhood">more...</a></p></div></div>

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:368px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:103474" width="360" height="293" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s05e12-here-comes-the-neighborhood">Here Comes the Neighborhood</a></b><br/>Get More: <a style="display: block; position: relative; top: -1.33em; float: right; font-weight: bold; color: #ffcc00; text-decoration: none" href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/">SOUTH<br/>PARK</a><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s05e12-here-comes-the-neighborhood">more...</a></p></div></div>

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

To riff off of a previous discussion, this thread didn't get started for lizard brain stuff.

This one is pure neomammalian brain (let's call it the critter brain) needing to get a rise out of the herd in order to try to dominate.

This thread is not a product of a neocortex drive. Instead, the critter brain is in the driver's seat, telling the lizard brain that there is nothing to worry about, and telling the neocortex to come up with hooks, baits and rationalizations to satisfy its urges.

I can't think of anything in philosophy or ethics that can help here, except maybe a first commitment to self-awareness (as in Socrates's commandment, "Know thyself").

The only way to get critter to settle down here is to get lizard engaged. Appealing to the rational mind (neocortex) won't work, either. In this particular case, people have tried for years and it hasn't worked.

Michael

[Xray]

My problem is with the Neo-Objectivists and people who tend to populate Objectivist Living are good examples is they largely never fully master it.

Whom would you label as 'Neo-Objectivists'? People like e. g. David Kelley?

Or try to apply it fully to their lives.

The real issue is: Can it be applied at all? It is the Objectivist premise of claimed applicability that has to be tested first.

And should it turn out that a premise can be exposed as false, one can spare oneself any further effort to apply it, for it won't work.

Here's another advantage of checking premises first: it is very economical.

Your policy of focusing on essentials, rather than taking notes, is excellent advice for everyone, especially in the field of philosophy. Once you understand the essentials of a given philosophy, you can often reconstruct the corrolaries and other details from the premises.

Also, philosophers often repeat themselves in their writings, which makes it unnecesary to religiously absorb every morsel of thought they have put on paper.

Take Galt's speech in AS for example: it is so repetitve that it could have been substantially reduced, and the readers would still have fully grasped its message.

[Jonathan]

Even Jonathan doesn't hate Phil.

That's right. I don't hate Phil. I don't hate anyone.

He's just futilely, like the rest of us, trying to get through to him.

That depends on what you mean by "get through." If you mean that I'm trying to change Phil, then, no, that's not what I'm doing. I'm more about observing and learning. Phil is an interesting study in human behavior. Weakness posing as strength is fascinating, especially when done so transparently and ineffectively.

He's impregnable, however, to true intellectual ratiocination. I wouldn't call anybody with the hide of an elephant "pathetic," though.

He's not an elephant but a helpless little toad who pees himself and tries to puff himself up to look larger when he feels threatened.

J

[George H. Smith]

> The fact that they may disagree with parts of O'ism frequently shows independent thinking. [GHS]

And what would be the strongest example of the errors in O'ism that their independent thinking has managed to uncover?

.

.

> you manage to exclude even a modicum of common sense from so many of your posts...Do you actually think about this stuff before you write it [GHS]

By the way shithead, are you ever going to repay the $100 you owe me?

I owe you $100? If so, that must have been from twelve years ago or more,while I was living in SF, and I forgot about it. It's odd that you let all those years go by without so much as sending me a single email about it. But if I have forgotten the incident, write to me offllist at smikro@comcast.net and tell me the details. Of course, this is something that someone with any class would have done in the first place. If, however, you want to mix the personal with the public, so be it. I know some juicy personal stories about you. Should I start a new thread?

Ghs

[Roger Bissell]

I don't hate Phil. I don't hate anyone. [....] He's not an elephant but a helpless little toad who pees himself and tries to puff himself up to look larger when he feels threatened.

This is so clarifying. What animal would Phil be (in Jonathan's non-hateful mind), if Phil ~weren't~ helpless and feeling threatened? And what animal (or whatever) would Phil be, if Jonathan ~actually~ hated him? (I know that's counterfactual, since Jonathan doesn't hate anyone, but I ~am~ curious.)

I will admit that hearing Jonathan talk about "pee" somewhat refreshing, after his recently regaling us here in the Living Room with name-calling people things like "shitstain" or "shitbag" or "little bitch." Good stuff. And Jonathan wisely avoids throwing nuclear grenades like "cun..." Oops, almost said it myself! :-)

REB

[George H. Smith]

> The fact that they may disagree with parts of O'ism frequently shows independent thinking. [GHS]

And what would be the strongest example of the errors in O'ism that their independent thinking has managed to uncover?.

.

I discussed some problems with Rand's contextualism, mainly as channeled through Peikoff, in Why Atheism? I also proffered some criticisms in my earlier book, Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies.

In addition, problems have been discussed many times on OL; in fact, I recall that we had a debate around the Rand/Peikoff view of history, not long after I became active again on OL.

I suggest that you not contaminate your mind with these problems until you master Objectivism. When and if you should ever accomplish this, then you might be sufficiently immunized against heretical thoughts. Even so, I suggest that you take copious notes while reading (or rereading) the critiques, for only in this way will you be able to master them. And unless you master the critiques, you will not be qualified to comment on them. And this, in turn, will transform you into a degenerate champion of Objectivism.

Ghs

[sjw]

Even Jonathan doesn't hate Phil. He's just futilely, like the rest of us, trying to get through to him. He's impregnable, however, to true intellectual ratiocination. I wouldn't call anybody with the hide of an elephant "pathetic," though.

--Brant

I didn't literally mean "hate" of course, I just mean that he gets piled on a lot. Not that he didn't start it.

Shayne

[9thdoctor]

> The fact that they may disagree with parts of O'ism frequently shows independent thinking. [GHS]

And what would be the strongest example of the errors in O'ism that their independent thinking has managed to uncover?

.

.

> you manage to exclude even a modicum of common sense from so many of your posts...Do you actually think about this stuff before you write it [GHS]

By the way shithead, are you ever going to repay the $100 you owe me?

I owe you $100?

Everyone, OL member Peregrine777 owes me like ten bucks. And his former roommate from when we were at FSU together owes me about a hundred, and that’s without counting interest.

If, however, you want to mix the personal with the public, so be it. I know some juicy personal stories about you. Should I start a new thread?

There is interest in seeing such a thread. JR’s revelation about Phil’s disinterest in and ignorance of the difference between Shakespearean and Petrarchan sonnets, expressed while teaching a course on Browning, was quite revealing. Whatcha got?

And what would be the strongest example of the errors in O'ism that their independent thinking has managed to uncover?.

I discussed some problems with Rand's contextualism, mainly as channeled through Peikoff, in Why Atheism? I also proffered some criticisms in my earlier book, Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies.

In addition, problems have been discussed many times on OL; in fact, I recall that we had a debate around the Rand/Peikoff view of history, not long after I became active again on OL.

I did this thing on taxation recently, though that’s just about the last subject I like talking about during my free time. At some point this weekend I was planning to head over to OO and answer critiques, but it feels like duty and most of the counter arguments are just annoying. I wonder if some of these people are reading a palimpsest, with how they ignore so much of what I wrote.

[Jonathan]

This is so clarifying. What animal would Phil be (in Jonathan's non-hateful mind), if Phil ~weren't~ helpless and feeling threatened? And what animal (or whatever) would Phil be, if Jonathan ~actually~ hated him? (I know that's counterfactual, since Jonathan doesn't hate anyone, but I ~am~ curious.)

That's a tough one. Which type of animal appears to be helpless and threatened when it's not? Are there any animals which pee themselves and puff themselves up when they're confidently in a position of superiority? If so, I think you'd have your answer -- that's the type of animal that Phil would be.

I will admit that hearing Jonathan talk about "pee" somewhat refreshing, after his recently regaling us here in the Living Room with name-calling people things like "shitstain" or "shitbag" or "little bitch." Good stuff. And Jonathan wisely avoids throwing nuclear grenades like "cun..." Oops, almost said it myself! :-)

Jesus, Roger, are you still upset that I don't take you as an authority on visual art, and that I've asked you questions that you can't answer? Rather than constantly showing up on threads to bitch about me, or to use the excuse that you're protecting poor little victim Phil from me, I think you'd do better to try to address the substance of my questions in this post, and elsewhere on the same thread, which you've evaded.

For your convenience, as well as for anyone else following this thread, here are some of the questions that I asked you (as well as Phil) on that thread, and which you've evaded answering:

How might Objectivists establish objective criteria for judging the fitness of a person to judge whether or not something qualifies as art?

How would you propose that we objectively determine that a work of art (or an entire genre) fails to communicate versus that those who claim that it doesn't communicate are aesthetically inept?

When each viewer of a work of visual art has a different opinion of what it means, why is it that you believe that your interpretation represents the artwork's "real" or "actual" meaning and anyone who disagrees with you must be "rationalizing"

Why is it that when you can see no meaning where others do, you need to believe that they must be "rationalizing"?

By what objective means have you tested and determined that your visual aesthetic capacities and sensitivities are not insufficient compared to those who you claim are "rationalizing"? Is it even a possibility in your mind that I and others might have visual/spatial abilities that you lack, and which allow us to see and experience things in ways which you'll never comprehend? Is it really so upsetting to consider the possibility that you might be lacking in some areas compared to others, that you might have a visual "tin ear"?

Why is that you believe that an artist who collects round stones, arranges them, and then paints of picture of them is creating art, but another artist who collects stone tiles, arranges them, and then paints a picture of them is not creating art?

J

[George H. Smith]

If, however, you want to mix the personal with the public, so be it. I know some juicy personal stories about you. Should I start a new thread?

There is interest in seeing such a thread. JR’s revelation about Phil’s disinterest in and ignorance of the difference between Shakespearean and Petrarchan sonnets, expressed while teaching a course on Browning, was quite revealing. Whatcha got?

It was an insincere threat. I try not to mix my personal relationships or what I may know about someone with exchanges on a public forum, however heated they many get. As I have said before, I like Phil personally.

Ghs

[merjet]

Post #63. The schoolmarm gets called to the principal's office.

[Xray]

Nowadays, when I go on Oist websites or boards, I find person after person who expresses disagreement on point Y when Oism never advocated Y

Would you please provide direct quotes from posts here on OL to support your claim. We'll examine those posts together in detail then. TIA.

<...> or who says (Ronlike) "Nah, I didn't need to do that much work. I don't need all those courses. It was all obvious after I read Atlas and (one of) the non-fiction collections of essays."

Reading Atlas and (one of) the non-fiction collections of essays perfectly suffices to grasp the essentials of Objectivism.

As for understanding why the founder of Objectivism became the person she was, reading Barbara Branden's biography of Ayn Rand offers excellent insight.

The natural human tendency is to slack off after doing the first 6 or 7 problems at the end of the math chapter.

There exists a sane reason for that: The brain needs some respite to recharge its batteries. That's why our attention span is limited.

Have you ever tried 'power napping', Phil? Highly recommendable!

In course after course, I was furiously scribbling away (more recently typing) and I looked around the room vainly trying to find anyone else doing the same. Not much luck.

Furiously scribbling notes is in itself no superior approach indicating quality.

For example, furious note-scribbling can be driven by fear, leading to compulsive thoughts that one might 'miss' something by not taking extensive notes.

[Roger Bissell]

Jesus, Roger, are you still upset that I don't take you as an authority on visual art, and that I've asked you questions that you can't answer?

Are you still screwing your cocker spaniel? Ooops, I meant to say, "loaded question" fallacy.

I don't know about Jesus, but I know I'm not upset about not being an authority on visual art. As for being upset on this issue, it seems like you're the one who keeps bringing it up and obsessively harping on it, in one irrelevant setting after another.

What I'm upset about, as any decent person would be, is about how awfully you people treat Phil. He is my friend, and you bet your ass I'm going to defend him. Not unreservedly, because I think he went overboard in how he expressed his concerns about people trying to argue Objectivism without adequately understanding it. But nobody here deserves what you people have been doing to him.

You should all be ashamed. You, too, Michael.

And won't does not equal can't. Questions I have ~refused~ to answer (for stated reasons, which you conveniently omitted, in selectively fixating on the past) does not equate to questions I ~can't~ answer.

Rather than constantly showing up on threads to bitch about me, or to use the excuse that you're protecting poor little victim Phil from me, I think you'd do better to try to address the substance of my questions in this post, and elsewhere on the same thread, which you've evaded.

Well, sure, you'd rather have "fresh meat" from me that you can twist any which way and use to bash me for a while. Anything to belatedly try to cover up the fact of how brutal you all have been to Phil. And I'm sure that anybody who would then step in to defend me would "do better" to try to do something else that would distract people's attention from your abusing ~me~. Clever. You're almost as smart at the misdirection game as some of my kids.

For your convenience, as well as for anyone else following this thread, here are some of the questions that I asked you (as well as Phil) on that thread, and which you've evaded answering:

Screw you, and the dog you rode in on. I am not evading anything. I am refusing to sanction your bad behavior. You may choose whether to continue or abandon it. But I am not going to cooperate with it.

At least four of the six aesthetics questions you posed are just as bad as the loaded questions you began your post with. If you would care to state them in a way that doesn't poison the well with all the false and inflammatory assumptions, perhaps including some ~real~ statements by me instead of your twisted misinterpretations, I ~might~ reconsider.

But don't strain yourself. You seem to think it's much easier and much more fun just to be a nasty little shyster.

REB

[sjw]

While I appreciated REB's allusions to humane behavior, I can't but wonder whether calling someone a "degenerate Objectivist" on the grounds of their own independent thinking counts as humane behavior.

If Phil is to be pitied for the response he got here, it is only on the grounds that he happens to be the one, whereas those who disagree with him are the many. How would Phil behave if he were in the majority, and a poor "degenerate Objectivist" went into his forum?

He knew what he was getting into when he started all this. And what's more, in spite of there being a good point or other somewhere in what he said, overall, he's wrong, or at least his approach his wrong, because he's not emphasizing the right things in the right way. He could have approached this subject in a much more productive way. But if you try to tell him this he simply won't listen, and if anything is "degenerate", that is.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

While I appreciated REB's allusions to humane behavior, I can't but wonder whether calling someone a "degenerate Objectivist" on the grounds of their own independent thinking counts as humane behavior.

If Phil is to be pitied for the response he got here, it is only on the grounds that he happens to be the one, whereas those who disagree with him are the many. How would Phil behave if he were in the majority, and a poor "degenerate Objectivist" went into his forum?

He knew what he was getting into when he started all this. And what's more, in spite of there being a good point or other somewhere in what he said, overall, he's wrong, or at least his approach his wrong, because he's not emphasizing the right things in the right way. He could have approached this subject in a much more productive way. But if you try to tell him this he simply won't listen, and if anything is "degenerate", that is.

Shayne

For once I agree with Shayne. This is scarcely the first time that Phil has started a thread with a condescending, self-serving post. On the contrary, he has made something of a career of this practice on OL. It is impossible for me to believe that Phil did not expect the kind of response he has gotten, which makes me wonder if his main purpose is merely to push some buttons.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You should all be ashamed. You, too, Michael.

Roger,

A lot of people think I should be ashamed for a lot of things.

As it turns out, that's their problem, not mine.

Sorry, I'm just not going to play this game.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Are you still screwing your cocker spaniel? Ooops, I meant to say, "loaded question" fallacy.

I don't have a Cocker Spaniel. I have a Shiba Inu Pomeranian. She looks exactly like a fox. She's very pretty. But no, I'm not screwing her, nor have I ever screwed her. See how easy it is to answer questions that you think are loaded? At least when you have answers?

I don't know about Jesus, but I know I'm not upset about not being an authority on visual art. As for being upset on this issue, it seems like you're the one who keeps bringing it up and obsessively harping on it, in one irrelevant setting after another.

What I'm upset about, as any decent person would be, is about how awfully you people treat Phil. He is my friend, and you bet your ass I'm going to defend him.

No, I don't think that that's why you're obsessed with me. As you admit in the sentence above, many of us have responded to Phil's asshole behavior, and have treated him in a manner that you claim is "awful." Yet I'm the only one whom you're gunning for. So I think you're motivated by something else. People usually don't get all riled up, like you are, over the treatment that others are receiving. With the emotional intensity that you're displaying toward me, I figure that either Phil is your lover, or something that I've said in previous discussions with you is making you want to lash out at me. Since I assume that you and Phil are not lovers, the only reasonable explanation as to why you're so angry and obsessed with me is that I've previously revealed you to have some really foolish beliefs in an area where you want to be perceived as an authority.

Not unreservedly, because I think he went overboard in how he expressed his concerns about people trying to argue Objectivism without adequately understanding it. But nobody here deserves what you people have been doing to him.

You should all be ashamed. You, too, Michael.

I think that you should ashamed, Roger, for standing up for an abusive shitstain like Phil as a way of striking back at me for challenging your silly judgments of others' aesthetic views and responses. And you should be ashamed of abusing the philosophy of aesthetics and using it as a weapon to psychologize about others.

I think that you and Phil should think about how you talk to people. Would you talk to Sciabarra, the Brandens or Kelley in the same way that you talk to me? Show some respect. Grow up.

And won't does not equal can't.

In this case, "won't" does equal "can't." You have no answers to my questions, because your judgments of me and of others (that we're "rationalizing" and "in denial," etc.,) are based on nothing but your own aesthetic limitations and lack of responses (and your wife's).

Questions I have ~refused~ to answer (for stated reasons, which you conveniently omitted, in selectively fixating on the past) does not equate to questions I ~can't~ answer.

Where did you state reasons for not answering? In post #91 on that previous thread you said:

"I'm not going to answer your questions, and I'm not going to post samples of my visual art, and I'm not going to comment on your music samples, and I'm not going to explain why I won't."

So, what were the "stated reasons"?

Well, sure, you'd rather have "fresh meat" from me that you can twist any which way and use to bash me for a while.

I don't need to twist anything. You've accused other people of "rationalizing" and of being "in denial" if they experience and/or interpret art differently than you do. You've claimed to know the real meaning of artworks, and asserted that those who disagree with your interpretations are wrong, including the artists who created them and millions of their fans. If you weren't trying to imply that you have a monopoly on aesthetic truth and objectivity, why would claim that others must be "rationalizing" or "in denial" when disagreeing with your judgments of art?

Anything to belatedly try to cover up the fact of how brutal you all have been to Phil.

Phil is getting no more in return than he dishes out.

And I'm sure that anybody who would then step in to defend me would "do better" to try to do something else that would distract people's attention from your abusing ~me~. Clever. You're almost as smart at the misdirection game as some of my kids.

How are you being "abused"? You think that my questioning you about your appointing yourself (and your personal aesthetic interpretations and limitations) as the standard of normalcy and objectivity is "abuse"? You think that my recognizing that you have no expertise in the area of visual art and that your opinions and judgments are based on your ignorance and personal, subjective biases is "abuse"?

Screw you, and the dog you rode in on.

Here's an idea, Roger. Before you post your angry comments, perhaps you should ask yourself if you would say the same thing to Sciabarra, the Brandens or Kelley. Maybe you should consider learning from people who know more than you do about a given subject, rather than being so resentful that you're not being accepted as an authority.

I am not evading anything. I am refusing to sanction your bad behavior. You may choose whether to continue or abandon it. But I am not going to cooperate with it.

Ah, I see. You're being a heroic Objectivist and not "sanctioning" me? Heh. Nope, you're evading. You have no answers to the questions that I asked, and I think you're pissed off that my questions have revealed how little you've thought about a subject on which you've pontificated and pretended to speak with authority. I think you're showing up on these threads with the excuse of defending Phil in order to lash out at me.

At least four of the six aesthetics questions you posed are just as bad as the loaded questions you began your post with. If you would care to state them in a way that doesn't poison the well with all the false and inflammatory assumptions, perhaps including some ~real~ statements by me instead of your twisted misinterpretations, I ~might~ reconsider.

But don't strain yourself. You seem to think it's much easier and much more fun just to be a nasty little shyster.

I haven't twisted your statements or loaded the questions. Your views, as expressed on the Art Instinct thread, and elsewhere (such as the Objective Criterion of Aesthetic Judgment thread, if I'm remembering correctly), are that others offer "rationalizations" when they disagree with what you've decided is "conveyed" in a work of art. You claim to know what an artwork's "actual" meaning is regardless of what anyone -- or everyone -- else thinks, including the artist who created it.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is a spirit I would like to become predominant on OL one day.

How can I become wiser?

The real problem with threads like this current piece of crap is that the spirit started in the opening post with: How can I convince you people you are wrong?

This accusatory spirit is good at getting people riled up, but it sucks at making anyone wiser.

Something to think about.

There's a Part 2 to this, too. Resentment is one of the primary human drives (it stems from the critter brain level), but it is not one of the productive drives. It's destructive and almost entirely confined to social concerns.

The best way to prompt resentment in others is to start accusing them out of the blue. It doesn't really matter what you accuse them of. Just showing up, pointing a finger and mouthing off is enough to get many people to feel resentment.

If the accusation is false or poorly reasoned (as is the case with the opening post), the resentment caused by it becomes more intense.

Usually, people who do that, who prompt resentment in others by springing accusations on them out of nowhere, are seeking an audience.

I believe they should seek wisdom before seeking an audience. They wouldn't screw up so much if they did.

I, myself, try to prompt people to examine things from different perspectives and think through them for themselves. I also seek to entertain at times.

Others around here do the same. We all seek to share observations about issues we find important. Sometimes, I see people trying to prompt others to feel admiration for the stuff they find cool. Now, that's some good stuff.

I rarely see behavior--i.e., how to behave in our little community--discussed unless people like Phil show up and start slinging accusations at everyone at large.

Why do that? What is to be gained?

Here are a couple of questions for you.

The next time you see someone sharing something cool, or delving into the pros and cons of an important idea, and telling you that you should make up your own mind about it, ask yourself, what is this person after?

And the next time you see someone pointing an accusatory finger and trying to cause others to feel resentment over nothing, ask yourself, what is this person after?

I know the first inspires me to become wiser. The second makes me want to respond harshly. It turns off my search for wisdom and happiness, so it really wastes my time.

Michael