Rich Engle

Members
  • Content Count

    2,861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rich Engle

  1. Prime mover versus boat anchor is the overriding vibe in FH and Atlas. That's what I remember as the main vibe when I first read them. I really believe that on one level or another that is the main thing that most people retain from the books. As true as so many things are she says in that regard, I can see how it might be the kind of thing that embitters people, makes them kind of mean.
  2. Now, I'm playing 3 people at once on internet postcard chess. In between actually working, that is... The only bad thing is sometimes you confuse games if the positions are similar. I try to study at least one new opening a month. Sometimes I practice solving chess problems online. What I found interesting was when I started up playing a little bit in real life. I haven't done much of that in awhile. It is so totally different, I forgot. The game I play face-to-face does not remotely resemble the online stuff. Sort've like the difference between knowing someone on a forum and knowing them i
  3. Yeah, it's like the female version of "wing man" Now, JW's, they do it overt. A primary modus operandi is to case the neighborhoods out with the grunt troops first. Then, wherever there are young guys, they come back for a second pass, but it's the old lady and the totally hot babe team, the older lady's purpose being to make sure things don't get jiggy. Basic show business- hey, I have great players in my band, but it doesn't hurt that two of them are major hotties. It definitely helps my bookings- I'm booked out through Sept... But it's good with the JW's because if you ask you get one of t
  4. Fundies are fundies, it's always the same out of them. I had some Mormons call at my door Sunday, and they got very confused when I told them I already belonged to the Unitarian church. Of course first out of the gates was the well-worn "You are the folks who believe in anything." Answer, of course, "I don't believe in Nazi Skinheads, so no." I used the word "theology" once and I got the dazed look of non-understanding. On and on, circle after circle. They gave me a little Jesus tarot card and left. Ever notice how they always pair up a real hot babe with a not-hot one? What's that all abou
  5. Even though the concept of self-esteem is brought up in Ayn Rand's work, it is not nearly as illuminating or thorough as NB's work on the subject. And I think that there are some pretty knowledgable Objectists who evolved into who they are without the benefits that his work offers. Looking at those in the movement who have low or pseudo self-esteem does a lot to explain why they behave the way they do. rde
  6. I don't know, even great people clearly are capable of silly throwaway remarks. Chess is one of the oldest, most intricate, coolest games in the world. I've been playing since I was nine. When I was in high school I even played on a team and was USCF rated, albeit not a real high rating. I play postcard internet chess every day with two partners, one in Chicago, the other in London- two very old friends. It feeds and develops the mind in a way that very few things can. Whether it's on the web or in person, it is an elegant, enlightened thing to do. There is no waste in playing chess. Strateg
  7. I just want to point out that the movie is IMHO extremely well made, and intense. I think it's been showing up on Sundance. rde Two thumbs up. Way up.
  8. The best part of these types of soirees is the fallout phase. It's the equivalent of what I was talking about in a post elsewhere involving the dynamic that goes down when two Baptists run into each other while they're shopping at the liquor store. rde I thought the answer was Nathaniel. He always knows what the real deal is. :D/
  9. Well, I don't know about all this other stuff, but I do know that generally, the biggest source of anxiety for many Baptists and other Fundamentalist types is how to handle themselves if they run into other Baptists when they are at the liquor store.
  10. John- In reference to instinct did I say "rely"? As in priority to it, or solely? If I did, let me be clear. I mean "use". You don't sacrifice one for the other. Objectivists repress emotions because they think eventually, they will basically generate/control all of them, and I know that is b.s. It may be with good intention, but that causes repression. Emotions are one of the primary centers. The key is to have the centers all harmonious with one another. That is what a full person has. If you stick any of the centers over the others (intellectual over emotional, say), you ~will~ repress,
  11. Tough. I'll fly off the cuff, no order. Blade Runner (preferably director's cut) Chaplin (Robert Downey Jr. is amazing in it) Fellini (pretty much any, but "City of Women" is fun) Apocalypse Now A Clockwerke Orange Kurosawa (any) Hitchcock (any, but "Rear Window" is great) All That Jazz There's a few for the pile.
  12. Man, you guys have really been getting into some, er, "hijinks" over here. Wait, did I see "pomo" in that list? There's nothing like a prancing, drunken pomo, you know... so harsh on the outside, but precious and delicate on the inside. As if they had just finished a whole case of twinkies. Delicate sensibilities, and tender mercies! rde Don't Get Me Started.
  13. Why would you want to throw cosmology out of philosophy? Isn't it better to look at things like this and see how they interrelate with one another? What they share? It's interesting to look at the idea of philosophy pulling the strings of science. Interesting because I think it evolved from the times when religion controlled science. When scientific development finally got formidable, things changed. We broke into discrete units of operation, free of being interfered with. The Good (religion, philosophy) The True (science) and the Beautiful (art). They could grow undisturbed. But with the pu
  14. It seems to me that a lot of this is a lack-of-integration problem. Using the example, and what NB brought up (by what moral principle)... Sure, there can be a moral principle put into place that instructs you. And obviously, there are some that will instruct one way (help) and others that won't (serve your own survival first/foremost). But, in this case, we also know that something that sophisticated is not required, it is coming a great deal out of nature. What MSK (and I am the same way) are triggering off is a much deeper, more visceral, primal kind of thing. Instinct can function right
  15. MSK- Heck, why not? I was resident heretic at SOLO for awhile, I can take it! There was a lot of funny stuff there, as you know. But I thought one of the funnier was when I explained that the UU church is pluralistic, including atheists. Of course the next question was whether I was "one of the atheist members or not." It just got all twisty after that, man... I just couldn't get individual religious consciousness through to some of them. rde
  16. I haven't run into that many "recovering Objectivists" over the years. I never expected to become one (sort of). When I joined the Unitarian community, it was lot like how I always imagined Objectivism was or could be, in the flesh. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged were very liberating to me, especially at first. I think that's the typical reaction. I never saw anything in any of the books that suggested that you need to be an arrogant, superior prick. Yet, that's what happened to me and I didn't pay attention to that for a long time; to me it was simply sticking to principles. Had to wo
  17. Right on, Jenna! Integrate is right!
  18. Consciousness, yes. This is where things start to take off in terms of debate, at least if you're me. It depends on how many levels you acknowledge to exist. My last one, for instance, Objectivism does not acknowledge because they think it can't be demonstrated as a proof, although they are wrong in that.
  19. Narrowing of any kind would be good. In my opinion, altruism is right behing mysticism in Objectivism as being one of those terms that is so broadly applied that it practically loses its significance. Lockstep O'ists have extremely narrow parameters even for benevolence- it's like going to bed with a woman who has a book full of rules, to the point that its not all that fun anymore.
  20. What a thing is determines what it does. And so should it. True in spirit, but not the whole story to me. A holon always came from, and continues to associate with, another holon. If the holon exhibits enough pathology (separates it self fully from what it integrated out of- over distinguishes/over differentiates) it simply ceases to exist.
  21. Dragonfly: "Exactly, I coudn't have said it better! The Objectivist view of human consciousness is hopelessly simplistic: people either think (Objectivists) or don't think (the others), either focus (the Objectivists) or don't focus (the others) etc. Of course one can't avoid simplification in describing such complex systems as human consciousness, but the binary system promoted by the Objectivists is a ridiculous caricature." Gosh, that almost made me cry, it felt so good! Not all-inclusive of people who study Ayn Rand, but I know a lot of the ones you are talking about. It is perplexing, re
  22. As simple as this, I think it's important enough to mention. The thing with looking at history, is that there is, conceptually, our sense of it. That we knew there was history. Then, we have various accountings. It is always a process of looking at the various accounts, empirical evidence, etc., and trying to recreate it. Remember, science tells us what "is," but it does not tell us anything about what "is" ~means~. Science can't work any other way. And of course, that is where it gets interesting for everyone... rde Always about those fine distinctions.
  23. In general, I find that on the whole rank/file O'ists do not like compatibilism any more than they like anything else that involves pluralism. Why they don't like pluralism is another question. best, rde
  24. Hello, All! It was brought to my attention that it was possible for readers to interpret my previous postings as attacks on our associate Dragonfly. I believe this came due to the sequence, as MSK pointed out earlier in the thread. So, to be clear: I had no debate nor issue with Dragonfly. I was simply brought into the frame of mind to say a few things about determinists, because lately they have been annoying me like fruit flys. rde No harm/No foul
  25. Ellen, Yes, indeed, along the same lines as MSK's words about you, you're always good for the civilized, sensible approach. "Outside of consciousness" is spot-on. I'm just grinding up trouble, as is the way of my people. I don't debate with pure determinists anymore, because I think they fall into two categories: wankers, and Nancy-boys. I'm not being mean, they're just sissies. Determinism is the ultimate free-pass to the park. No different than a Taggart or a Toohey, just a little better articulated, and a little more intellectually masturbatory. Things just happen. Oh, there's a shared ca