Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/04/2020 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    And Gates. And WHO. And everyone else involved in the scheme. I'm very angry about the deaths from this "dastardly plot." I'm thinking of those who died as war casualties. Ellen
  2. 3 points
    The pandemics in 1957 and then again in 1968 killed roughly 100k Americans each, they were influenza viruses , I don't know of any societal wide reactions that match this one. Did we flatten a curve ? Or do curves just do what curves do? It doesn't seem like lockdowns did much other than economic damage. I mean pandemics suck , but yeah they suck. Hurricanes suck too . ? It's starting to really feel like we've been played , no ?
  3. 3 points
    Classic Objectivism absolutely opposes anti-trust. What wasn't addressed back then was State charted, created, sponsored corporations. There are 50 States. Where is there the room for public corporations in the ideologic rubric of libertarianism/Objectivism or in Randianism, if you will? Basically corporations are facets of economic fascism written large by today's social media. Hit them with anti-trust as a necessary stopgap. --Brant
  4. 3 points
    The single greatest advance in medicine was the germ theory of disease. It's precursor was smallpox vaccination. There is no handling flu with vaccine, just the pretense, but the pretense is a horse to ride into good doing the world. I'd never get a flu shot. The virus mutates too much too quickly. Money is a road to power. These money men, ironically, are being controlled and used by people who live in all ways high on the hogs. They aren't after a virus, but you and me through nation state destruction and globalization. Above all they must all belong to the same fraternity. If Bill Gates were a true hero he'd go after malaria with DDT advocacy. --Brant
  5. 2 points
    Oh my... don’t fill me with false hopes like that. A living example to explode so many of the false narratives in identity politics and a sane voice to reject socialism and encourage right thinking (up to a point) ?? That really would be awesome!
  6. 2 points
    OK, somebody's got to say it. The Washington Post really likes stores being trashed and looted during riots, right? The Washington Post really likes people being afraid to go to stores right? The Washington Post is owned by Amazon, right? I'll let you put two and two together and see what you come up with. Michael
  7. 2 points
    I have been watching Tim Pool's evolution from left to right due to his daily disillusionment with the fake news media. To be more exact, it's from a ruling class left-leaning establishment view (which looked like grass roots to Tim) to a more Trump-like view, even though he says he's not all in with Trump. Tim's problem is that he fact-checks the media against actual facts and against what they said in the recent past. And he keeps seeing the same dishonesty, blatant lies, wrong reporting and propaganda over and over. He proves it--both to himself and to the public. He has now hit a point where he said his heart is broken. Maybe there is a universal truth here. It's the redemption story, the hero's journey version. You must kill off your old self before the new one can emerge. You must let go of being a child before you can become an adult. When such a change is due to disillusionment and not growth, it's like divorcing your values. And what results from a divorce? A broken heart. I feel for Tim, but I certainly admire his integrity. He's going to be OK. He got rid of an abuser in his life and his co-dependency is ending. It hurts like hell, but it's a healthy step. Just like growth toward adulthood is. Michael
  8. 2 points
    T, There's another possibility. The riots might be Stage 2 with the coronavirus being Stage 1. And in that case, I wonder what the other stages are going to be until November. Michael
  9. 2 points
    From "the particular" (this trade, today's sunrise, this water, etc.etc). to "the general" (all trades, all sunrises, all oceans) IS induction. And it requires cognitive effort to avoid drawing false propositions. You don't conclude that Capitalism is moral, initially: (for the moment let's assume this individual has no idea of "capitalism") - you observed that THIS deal was good and proper and moral - and this one, and the next - and then generalized. You have seen the philosophical definition of induction, do you not accept it? The reason people think that Capitalism "has failed" is from FAULTY induction. They see and hear of a single amoral/immoral aspect in this compromised "mixed economy" and generalize that the whole "Capitalist system" is rotten. Usually evasively. Always a straw man. Socialism only appears good and "sounds better" to those pampered dreamers who have and have implicitly enjoyed the benefits of Capitalism (or a large modicum of it). (The Stolen Concept fallacy, right?) If they were transported to a country to live under the real thing they'd run home in a jiffy.
  10. 2 points
    I find it a little ironic that on the one hand I advocate for a system where there would be little to no public property, state media, public utilities of any kind. Where all is privately owned, traded, rented, sold and used in the free market. Yet I almost am tempted to treat the various media service platforms as coming within the public sphere, I almost conflate their private with public good and their private action with government action...but reason brings me back from the brink. My only consolation is the double negative... that since we live in a mixed economy there no doubt is favouritism and cronyism which needs to be reined in by force of regulation.
  11. 2 points
    George hadn't a clue. Ellen
  12. 2 points
    Ed, Jon is why We can’t have nice things, like..members that talk more than they do. Nice to see you!
  13. 2 points
    We've certainly been played as to the deadliness of it. It's a real virus, and extra-hard on particular categories of people. But it's no where near the killer it was projected as being. We've been played - by a "Disease X" scheme that was already planned out for potential use in early 2018. Ellen
  14. 2 points
    They need mail-in ballots in order to cheat enough to defeat Trump and keep their necks out of nooses. They need very intense fear to push mail-in through. Mentally prepare now for false flags and terror, (please start expecting that now so you don't lose your shit and become infinitely malleable when it hits.) It is coming, it is [THEM] -- so get angry when it hits, not fearful.
  15. 2 points
    Verified is a funny word , nowadays, perhaps always, but definitely nowadays.
  16. 2 points
    Might as well do to them now. If they get back in power they'll do it to us regardless. --Brant
  17. 2 points
    Cross-posted from Unz.com — I’m not a diehard China skeptic but I do hate totalitarianism. Instead of succumbing to martial law or waiting for a dangerous rushed-to-market vaccine (see Paul Craig Roberts on that), concentrate on curing, or ameliorating the effects of, the disease. Faucci and co-conspirators should be tried for murder for willfully ignoring strong evidence that Zinc (e.g. Zinc Sulfate) + Hydroxychloroquine + Vitamin D + Vitamin C cure the disease. About the first two see this. About the first see this and this. About the third and fourth see this. They also recommend anti-inflammatories.
  18. 2 points
    2,000 scumbags shitting their pants as their criminal careers in government catch up to them.
  19. 2 points
    President of Tanzania suspects bullshit, sends samples of a damned fruit for coronavirus testing, fires head of lab testing when returned results are positive. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-tanzania/tanzania-suspends-laboratory-head-after-president-questions-coronavirus-tests-idUSKBN22G295
  20. 2 points
    Have you seen this, yet? THE DEAD ZONE TV show from 2003 mentions a corona virus from China, a school lockdown, and talks about Hydroxychloroquine being the cure...[edit 5/5/20: NOT hydroxychloroquine, but chloroquine. 2 different drugs, but both being tested for use on coronavirus.]
  21. 1 point
    T, I doubt it. I think it's quite plausible she will be the first female President of the USA in a couple of decades or more.. Michael
  22. 1 point
    Rush Limbaugh said something that just cracked me up. He said President Trump holding the Bible up in front of the church had the same effect on the fake news media as old time movies where someone would hold up a cross to Count Dracula. LOL... Michael
  23. 1 point
    I'm thinking that the riot fomenters are miscalculating and handing Trump a plus just when he needs one to distract from (varied) discontents over his handling of COVID-19 response. Ellen
  24. 1 point
    (You have to ask, rhetorically: whose life is it, anyway?) Encouraging that everywhere there are minds which are free and aware like Dr. Vosloo. What stuns me still, is how quickly masses of people submitted to the blanket measures 'advised' by the WHO and enforced by various governments, those many who self-righteously turn on fellow citizens for not submitting as easily. Not to say that one doesn't take personal precautions depending on one's risk factors and/or protect others close to one. Not to say that a few govt's have not been reluctant to impose and ready to lift the authoritarian edicts. They are evidently the free-er ones. To the billions of other people who are healthy, are they and their lives and livelihoods - life, itself, the human necessity for "self-generated, self-directed action" - to be sacrificed for the few? They have already, many will not recover their life as it was.
  25. 1 point
    Trash. Crap. Don't step in it. edit. There are several threads, or topics for teens on Objectivist Living and I have NO doubt kids frequent these pages so for that guy to advertise sex acts with kids? other men? other women? himself? tag teams? criminal acts? public acts? Do you feel safe around these people? Do you want your kids playing around these people?
  26. 1 point
    From the Elan Journo Facebook entry TG posted a few posts above: ===== Start Quote ===== "[Gates'] philanthropic foundation has pledged $250 million to help with the manufacture of promising vaccines for the novel coronavirus." ===== End Quote ===== And then watch what's coming. India, especially, look out. Bad batch of vaccine? Many deaths? And, predicting a pandemic for which the world isn't prepared is such a great deniability cover for writing the blueprint for said pandemic. Ellen
  27. 1 point
    Truth right in front of you. 4344 81% of Minnesota COVID-19 Deaths Are from Nursing Homes Q!!Hs1Jq13jV6 28 May 2020 - 11:39:13 AM https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/21/nursing-homes-residents-account-for-81-of-covid-19-deaths-in-minnesota-but-state-still-allows-facilities-to-admit-covid-19-positive-patients/ The truth is right in front of you. Q
  28. 1 point
    Yes, William. Probable factors which this article points to. "Africa is an outlier". The latest figures I have for the continent of AFRICA are: 124,733 infections/ 3,700 deaths. May 13. Three months since original infection/transmission. So pray tell how the "model" WHO has concocted can possibly predict 250, 000,000 infections in Africa? And expect anyone to swallow their Gospel? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwij5I7Xx9fpAhXLSsAKHW33CpYQFjAQegQIChAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theafricareport.com%2F27470%2Fcoronavirus-unpacking-the-theories-behind-africas-low-infection-rate%2F&usg=AOvVaw0YPV9DFhIwT7HuqYGI7gSv .
  29. 1 point
    Jules, I don't either. I don't think they will be back since they got what they came for. But who knows? For that matter, who cares? However, this little thingie made me wonder if I should put a dress code in the posting guidelines. Michael
  30. 1 point
    Tony, You have hit the fundamental issue squarely in the middle. Induction is the true bottom-up process for creating principles since it relies on observation at root. (Rand calls the process of grouping observed instances into a whole "integration.") I have seen many people here in O-Land do nothing but top-down thinking, meaning that they take a principle as a given (as reality) and try to deduce everything from there. For example, a typical error is to start with individual rights, then deduce social structures, justice, etc., from that. Doing it this way allows them to ignore large chunks of human nature--of observable human nature. And once that happens, off they go into the la-la land of utopia and argue your ears off while going nowhere practical. Communists do this, too, starting with a different principle (equality of outcome) and deducing everything from it. Notice that massive bloodshed always happens. That's because fighting is part of human nature (definition-wise, it's part of the "animal "genus in "rational animal"), and ignoring this allows it run unchecked--at least by those who can get away with it--within the systems that get built from principles only. After all, if we ignore or don't correctly identify a critical issue that is out there in reality, how can make rules that work for organizing and taming it? This is why the checks and balances system was so brilliant and works so well for keeping an ongoing government functioning. The Founding Fathers did not try to ignore quest for power as part of human nature. They accepted it as a given and made a system where power exists at the foundation, but was highly restricted by others always trying to get more than their share, which is how human nature has worked, works and will work for the foreseeable future. I know I'm preaching to the choir when I say the following, but this is for readers, especially those who are not clear on how this stuff works. We can deduce a lot from a principle and this is a great shortcut and extension to observation for many things, but reality is primary, not the principle. When the principle does not result in correspondence with reality, the principle needs to change since reality will not. And the only way we can find out what reality is, unfortunately for those who prefer manmade rules as their primary mental foundation , is to observe it. Michael
  31. 1 point
    Ah, Jules. Consciousness and awareness do not occur in a vacuum. Even if an astronaut is in space he is not in a vacuum when ET phone home!
  32. 1 point
    Jon, As the threads grow, I lean towards that, too. One of the big motivators in the lower brain is sex. It is an attention getter supreme. For example, even here in O-Land, notice how many people showed up for this thread (and the other) in a short amount of time. (For those who get bothered by this, welcome to the human race. ) Also, notice how every reply by the golden couple leads back to nudity. I think the idea is to make people forget what they were talking about and, instead, respond to the insinuated sex. I'm almost tempted to throw this thread in the Persuasion section as a case study. Michael
  33. 1 point
    Let’s just agree to disagree, and yes I have if you dig a little deeper over at RoR.
  34. 1 point
    I don't think we have been "played." There is another outbreak in China and we have yet to fully open up, so I will hunker down and wait to see what happens. I won't be going to bars, arenas, or anywhere where lots of people congregate. I have an urge to go into a big box store like Walmart but I will hold out. Trump, just now in a news conference, with no mask. Gasp! Or would wearing a mask cause you to gasp? President Trump, "We've learned a lot about the disease and now it's time for our county to reopen."
  35. 1 point
    Do you have a link to share? Or maybe you noted the polling house. Definitely. This is what I assayed at the RCP site, the head to head matchup ... click image or link to visit RCP. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
  36. 1 point
    Peter, In the interest of being helpful, this is hydroxychloroquine, the medication President Trump is taking. Here is how we take it. This is a vaccine: Here is how they want all of us to take it: Michael
  37. 1 point
    4247 Link to New Q Drop Q!!Hs1Jq13jV6 15 May 2020 - 10:29:26 AM Why did [D]s push 'everything is fine' narrative early on [ex: Pelosi China town]? Why did science board push [no need close China travel] narrative early on? Why did [select] govs push COVID-19 positive elderly patients into nursing homes [most at risk_proven] when surplus of availability in hospitals [+ USNS_Comfort]? Why are CDC numbers conflating COVID-19 deaths with influenza, pneumonia, other? Why are influenza deaths at [all-time] historical low levels vs years past [outside of standard deviation]? Why are COVID-19 tests returning positive results on pawpaw's and animals? Why are [select] swing states undergoing heavy quarantine extensions? Why are possible [treatments][cures] being prevented and attacked [USA]? "Testing, Testing, Testing, Tracing, and Isolation." - [Pelosi] Q https://qmap.pub/
  38. 1 point
    A President has never been punished after leaving office, but a fake, fraudulent, illegitimate "president" has never attempted a coup over the incoming legally elected administration. Two very major "first times" are present and I am afraid the past is no guide. The precedent is perfectly agreeable to me: defraud America, twice, then attempt to destroy the Republic, and you hang.
  39. 1 point
    Wednesday, May 6 Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread General Election: Trump vs. Biden Monmouth Biden 50, Trump 41 Biden +9 General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 46, Trump 42 Biden +4 General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNBC Biden 47, Trump 44 Biden +3 Connecticut: Trump vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 56, Trump 33 Biden +23 New Jersey: Trump vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 54, Trump 35 Biden +19 New York: Trump vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 55, Trump 32 Biden +23
  40. 1 point
    TF, I have a few comments on what you said. But I want to preface it with a perspective. I am not a scientist, but I also do not believe scientists are superhuman and moral giants. They are human beings just like the rest of us. That means dealing with things like money, sex, power, fame and so on. The day I believe scientists are unwilling to sell out their integrity for these things is the day I am willing to bow down before technocratic dictatorship and call it God--which will be never. So I can't address some of the more technical stuff you talked about, like your comments on ebola, without doing a ton of research. I certainly don't trust the articles that come in the news or even publications like Science to tell the truth. In my view, every word coming from publications these days where the elitist ruling class is involved needs to be triple and quadruple checked, and even then, the opposite views need to be run down and treated the same. (The life of a steer on the human cattle farm that refuses to be part of the herd is difficult. Especially if the steer has even half a brain. ) Now your comments. For whom and in what context? Do you mean she should be denied her first amendment rights? Or do you mean we should only listen to her or her establishment critics to tell us what to think? I'm not being facetious or hostile here. I want to highlight a habit I have developed. I don't accept anything I read on faith. Nor do I expect any source I read to be 100% correct on anything for whatever reason. That means I can look at both establishment scientists and Alex Jones or even David Icke (to go to the extreme) and take something any one of them says seriously if, in my own independent judgment, they are correct. It is my mind, not theirs. And I want access to all voices, even ones that some feel go off the rails for speaking too freely. I believe the people in the science world want to shut down Mikovits for stupid reasons that have nothing to do with science. And they mostly use bait-and-switch to sell their message. They attack Mikovits as if she is polluting science or something. But the real problem is power. She actually is attacking their power and she means it. The way this is normally portrayed is that the evil corporations are the ones who want all the money and power and the scientists (and doctors), even the establishment ones who attack the "apostate," are bullied by this cartel of giant corporations in cahoots with the government it bought. But there are just as many scientists who, personally, are corrupt for those same base human reasons. An example of this framing comes from Robert Kennedy Jr. in his forward to her book, Plague of Corruption. This resonates with me a lot, but it also leaves the establishment individual scientist power-mongers an out so they can continue to present themselves as morally clean and not filthy. In other words, they are victims of a mistake or bullying by others, not intentional perpetrators of evil courses of action chosen for their own money and power. I say a pox on all of them. Here is what Robert Kennedy Jr. said: Then Kennedy goes on to list several examples. Regardless of what one holds re the science in particular cases he mentioned, they all suffered persecution from the elitist establishment because said elitist establishment believed these "apostates" had a "penchant to speak freely that went off the rails." Reason-wise, we can always debunk bad science with good science. Implementation-wise, we cannot debunk a gang of thugs in white coats who have near-exclusive access to the source of funding, the media, military forces, and secret police. So I say, the more voices, the merrier. Even David Icke. I guarantee you, if and when Mikovits is wrong, she has not talked more shit than the climate scientists who settled the science, for a great example. And those corrupt souls still have their reputations. Mikovits is struggling with hers. Do you mean you believe the government is run based on reason? That there are no stupid people in the covert divisions of the government? And if there are, the government is such a well-oiled organization, it would weed out the stupid people before they could do something stupid? I didn't want to address this, but the more I think about it, the more I want to add another excerpt from the Forward by Robert Kennedy Jr. So much for the integrity of the journal Science. On a lighter note: In high school, I went to summer music camp in Reston. Lady Bird Johnson attended our concerts. Michael
  41. 1 point
    Looking forward to seeing said authorities gun you down when you finally snap and go on a rampage. Nutter.
  42. 1 point
    Very evil things
  43. 1 point
    Ellen, By chance, I just now learned what the elitists call core story. They call it “cognitive immunity.” And where did I learn this term? Why Rush Limbaugh, who, according to elitist ruling class apologist supreme, Thomas L. Friedman, is the destroyer of cognitive immunity. From Rush today: Thomas L. Friedman Accuses Me of Destroying “Cognitive Immunity” There you have it. What does this have to do with core story? Well, in core story terms, people like Thomas L. Friedman, meaning the fearless heroes of Science, the Keepers of the Fact and Truth, the Vanquishers of Vile Prevarication of the Vulgus, the Protectors of the Planet by Technocratic Fiat, the Order of the Captains of Climate Change, the Aristocracy of Mainstream Media Morality, the Engineers of Human Husbandry, are no longer the good guys. They have become the villains. Their cognitive immunity has been stolen from them, nay, stolen from the very society that was assigned to feed, clothe and house them in the lap of luxury. Nobody believes them anymore just because they are awesome, poor things. What's worse, the Russians were probably behind it all. Michael
  44. 1 point
    Let me mention an example of holding a firm position on something where there is a lot of exponential knowledge exploding, but not having time to keep up with the knowledge: Manmade climate change. My position is not that it exists or doesn't exist. My position is that the government well-paid experts and scientists and propagandists who have tried to sell massive government controls to people have been caught lying over and over. And their predictions keep crapping out. I'm certainly not going to invest a lot of my own time and energy reading materials--even materials for lay people--based on their work. (In fact, I used to look at this stuff, but then I found out the monkey-shines and stopped.) Besides, there are plenty of scientists of good repute who dispute their claims. So I don't trust liars who have conflicts of interest to boot. I don't claim to be an expert on climate science. What little interest I did have in it evaporated when I discovered what a dirty, morally flawed field it is in gathering and presenting evidence. I prefer to give this issue some time and wait until scientists of reasonable integrity appear. The scare tactics of proven liars don't affect me. As to my own beliefs on manmade climate change, I can't appeal to hard science. But I do have a rule of thumb that gives me a strong bias. I admit this is not science so there is a small margin for error. I don't believe much of what liars say. And proven liars are the most vocal ones who constantly claim manmade climate change is a danger. I don't believe them. That's a way to do it as a lay person when there are too many piles of technical data to look at and everybody is yelling for more and more government money and power. You simply look at the moral character of the scientists who do the experiments and measurements and judge them by their actions. At least you will be able to conclude that what they tell to the public is flawed and misleading. Michael
  45. 1 point
    Wolf, It's probably the marketing since your stuff is good. I suggest you study what Robert Bidinotto does re market. He makes it as a self-published author by doing all the right things. For instance, he networks like crazy. He keeps up several web presences and makes efforts to get traffic to them. He constantly offers value before asking for value. He keeps up on industry news and takes advantage of new promotion opportunities. He has a strong notion of who his target audience is and he formats most of his messages to the values and habits of that persona. And so on. He does all this so well, he even manages to hold and preach some rather obnoxious and not well-reasoned prejudices about sundry things and is still quite successful. (To be fair, I agree with about 80% of his positions, which he presents brilliantly.) On his blog he has a page called Helpful Links for Authors. It's quite a helpful list. Stuff like that makes people want to show up. (In some marketing quarters, this is called a traffic magnet.) When you set one up, you make sure information about your own works are easily within reach and Robert does this correctly. In other words, if you ever decide to reverse engineer the market processes of a successful fiction writer from our neck of the woods, he is a good example to look at. Make a list of the things I mentioned above (and other things you find on the Helpful Links for Authors page) and ask yourself as you go along, how is Robert doing this? What is he doing? Am I looking at a weak example of this item or a strong example? What results is he getting from this item? And so on. It's uncomfortable to do this at first, but like all new skills, it gets easier with time as competence grows. Michael
  46. 1 point
    Tony, Close, but no cigar. (btw - What on earth is a "genuine emotion"? Is that the opposite of a fraudulent emotion? And who or what judges this stuff--an emotion bank or emotion cops? ) But here's a curve ball. Believe it or not, all our conversations about this stuff has a lot more to do with human memory than anything else. The human cortex provides us with the ability to project into the future. But it did not initiate our memory (which records the past). That started at the single cell level in evolution millions of years ago. Notice that one big hole in Objectivism is a theory of memory. Rand (in ITOE) proclaimed that sensory input is not stored in memory and that's about that. She gave no indication of where she got that idea or what evidence she based it on. She decreed it and built out her theory of concepts from there. I inferred that percepts, to her, are the first instances of human memory, but she never said that explicitly. Here is her exact quote (ITOE, Chapter 1, already in the third paragraph): Then she held a newborn infant to an adult standard of awareness and proclaimed: There is so much wrong with this, it's hard to know where to start. "As far as can be ascertained"? Ascertained by whom? Rand never says. But certainly not by the scientists who study newborns that I have read (even from her time). And on and on. The most serious layman level problem with her claim comes when a newborn receives the first smack on it's bottom and cries out. That smack is it's first "born" conscious awareness experience of a sensation and in every example I have ever seen or heard of, that is not an "undifferentiated chaos." It hurts like hell and the baby lets everyone know very clearly that it's pissed about it. How's that for wedding cognitive identification of a sensation to emotion right from the beginning of "born" conscious awareness? Seriously, you need to read more about emotions to understand this stuff correctly. (That sounds condescending, but that's not my intent.) Like I had been during so many years, you are in "deduce reality from principles mode" (in fact, just like Rand did in her quotes) when there is a ton of observable stuff to look at that does not behave the way you say (or the way she says, for that matter). And this observable stuff is understandable by lay people and repeatable. In other words, it is subject to the rigors of reason, not dogma. (Dogma, to me, is a set of principles running hogwild over reason. ) This is one of the things I mean by getting out of the bubble. You have to look and identify, then evaluate, not do it in the reverse direction. btw - In addition to the book on emotions I recommended, here is a wonderful book on memory and it is quite practical: Impossible to Ignore: Creating Memorable Content to Influence Decisions by Carmen Simon. Since you like to start with principles rather than observe instances (this is not a criticism--I used to be like that for years, it's a downside of a principle-heavy philosophy like Objectivism, although this habit is not limited to Objectivism), you will probably like Carmen Simon's approach. Besides, she's pretty. Here is principle number one from her: "People act on what they remember, not on what they forget." In other words, you cannot influence anyone with a message unless you can get them to remember it. People are not influenced by messages they forget. For starting from a principle, that's a pretty good one. We can at least observe that in our own behavior our entire lives. It's kinda "duh" level, but you will not find it taught by Rand or Objectivist intellectuals. They simply don't have much to say about memory, yet memory is the foundation of learning, experience and projecting into the future, i.e., the foundation of ALL chosen values. And chosen values are the core of rational ethics in Objectivism. That's quite a foundational hole to skip over... Back to emotions. They are totally intertwined with memory and, as such, they are the actual building blocks of concepts. (I'm not denigrating Rand's algebra component, though. That, to me, is a genius level insight about higher abstractions.) Here's something for you to chew on. Did you know that your gut stores and operates memory? Yup. That's right where poop is processed and expelled. There are neural pathways from there straight to the brain, too. But wait! There's more! Did you know that your gut generates emotion? Yup. Emotion. And fundamental components of a whole slew of emotions. There is a reason for the term "gut feeling." I could go on and on... Seriously, take a look at the things I am talking about. I'm not trying to persuade you. I'm just trying to get you to look... to look at something you don't even imagine exists right now--not exists in a form that is easily observable by you and everyone, otherwise I believe you would look. The reason I say this is you keep going back to Rand-like principles and ignoring the rest when I bring it up. Once you see the science and this other stuff for real and I don't have to keep hammering the subtext that this stuff exists, then we will probably have some very good substantive discussions. I am not at all interested in overthrowing Rand and I feel you will be a great ally in framing her observations and claims to fit the science as much as possible. I believe there is great value to doing this, especially since Rand's frameworks are easily learned by lay people. If you want to influence people, that's a really good thing. Besides, I'm a glass half-full kind of guy so I want to extract all the value from Rand possible and not let people dismiss her good stuff because of something where she's wrong. Michael
  47. 1 point
    You're trying very hard to believe that if I comment on anything I am therefore "bothered" by it. Heh. Randy, wow, why are you so bothered by my comments that you had to reply? Why does what I say matter so much to you? You're so fragile. So much less than me. Nothing bothers or matters to me. Don't be so upset that I'm overwhelmingly superior to you in every way. You should admire your betters, not feel envy toward them.
  48. 1 point
    Michael, Simple. Curiosity is one early symptom and aspect of "the need to know". That you'll agree, is the most powerful of human drives. Early, because it's a precognitive precondition of one making identifications - What is it? Our senses which are constantly, actively searching our environments, hit upon many potentialities of interest to be curious about, curiosities that ~may~ be followed up and become actualities, new knowledge. But in any given day one will be curious about many random, little to larger things, all of which one can't have time or doesn't need, or loses interest to pursue (to my observation). One's priorities of purpose would determine and choose which to spend effort on. People are often awed by the power their emotions can have, and make the error they are causeless, springing out of nowhere - quite mysteriously. The "need to know" has as much and more power as any emotion, it also may seem causeless, and so it gets conflated with them. I see it now. Frame curiosity as "an emotion" - and by that, all genuine emotions may also be considered "tools of cognition"!
  49. 1 point
    And, to add to this, I think people love the lead-up to love more than love itself. Here's a recent example. I just read Ready Player One by Ernest Cline. Spielberg is releasing the movie on March 30 so there is going to be a lot of buzz about it. I read this thing because Rush Limbaugh said it gave a good overview of what Millennials think and believe. And, sure, there was the climate change garbage, some diversity stuff, the evil cheating corporation as the villain, etc. And video games galore. (And an overdose of 1980's nostalgia for the parents of Millennials--sneaky, sneaky Mr. Cline. ) But this book actually made me more hopeful of Millennials, especially seeing the massive success it has achieved. The story is essentially a good old fashioned Hero's Journey in the classical Joseph Campbell mold. And the book is pure Hollywood. The hero is a badass who suffers unduly (he's even an orphan). After going through all kinds of trials and tribulations that lead to a massive climax (SPOILER ALERT), he kicks the ass of the bad guy, gets the girl in the end, and becomes a hero for the entire world. (Surprise surprise surprise... ) But, man, did he suffer to get the girl. He was hopelessly in love for most of the book. He only got the kiss at the very end, after Cline squeezed all the emotional juice out of the hope/fear page-turning anticipation for the reader. And, as a reader, I can attest that this kiss (of course, accompanied by the pattern-completing declarations of love--whew! finally! ) was a supremely satisfying moment. Man, did the oxytocin flow... If the young folks love romantic heroes like this enough to blast an unknown author straight up into the Spielberg category, they're just fine. We can straighten them out on political policies as we go along. Emotionally, they love life and the good things life can provide, including old-fashioned heroism and love, so I believe reason will penetrate over time with the rest. That thought makes me happy since I was starting to go negative on the entire generation. I don't mind correcting myself here. In fact, it's a pleasure. Michael
  50. 1 point
    I havent seen the movie but I hope to soon. My problem is with an interview that I listened to on NPR with Tim Jenison and Teller (this was also my problem with DAvid Hockney's Secret Knowledge) who made an explicit statement that Vermeer's level of realism could NOT be achieved without technology. I'm fine witht the idea that some artists used different technology but in the interview they literally said (I'm paraphrasing) that the way that a "white" wall in a Vermeer painting contains subtle colors could never be seen by the human eye because that is not the way it works. David Hockney went even further hanging part of his argument on the "proof" that since HE could not do the drawings of Ingres without a lens than Ingres couldn't either. This is utter nonsense. That's like me saying that because I could not come up with calculus than neither could Newton. And as far as the white wall example (this example was given as an counter argument to a listener who called into the show) the first thing I learned in Painting I was to look for the subtle colors in everything. Its all a matter of training. See looking forward to seeing the movie though : ) Edit: AWWW Man I just watched your youtube link and Tim said the wall statement in the video! This is nonsense! Man, maybe I dont want to see the video. BTW there were several artists who were much more realistic than Vermeer including two of my favorites Bouguereau, and Jean Leon Gerome.