Rich Engle

Members
  • Content Count

    2,861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rich Engle

  1. Roger, now really! That's not altruism. It's a simple handshake business transaction involving standard value-for-value exchange of goods (well, let's not get gross) but in this case more of services. All it is is that the buyer has negotiated, shall we say "net 30 minutes" terms, repayment to follow in the form of whatever (since no cash is involved, hopefully, we're talking about organized barter, which is perfectly acceptable). Think of it as a delayed billing sequence, to accomodate the respective business models of both entities, not to mention being a customized solution speaking to, e
  2. Jody's question brought some to my mind that I never asked you, Barbara: How exactly was the casting process done? I thought Eric Stoltz did a great job (but, I'm partial to him, I think he's a very skilled and multifaceted actor). Also, what kind (if any) background study did he do for that role? I didn't think he went for a carbon copy of Nathaniel (that would have been difficult), but still, he seemed to really pour himself into that.
  3. Perhaps I was not inclusive enough, I was only mentioning a couple of things from the long experience there, you know? For the longest time, that was the only place I ever posted. The NB board has always been sporadic. The truth is, it's very easy to start things moving there, pretty much at will. I suppose some of us always felt like we were self-imposed exiles over there, because a lot of us wouldn't post on Objectivist forums, not being interested in the bloodsports (unless we created our own). Mike Psych at one point actually came out and said that the whole reason there was any real
  4. Glenn said I find this to be an incredibly good question. I can give you the other side of the coin, to a point. I wasn't so much turned off by other Objectivists, because I rarely ran into any of them. If anything, I'd meet people that had read AR novels, and those were always (well, almost always) exciting moments for me. There just weren't that many ways for me to network, because I really didn't get decent internet access until about 1990. As far as that went, I didn't find all that much in the green-screen and early web world, but of course there were some things there. I remember getti
  5. I was on NB's list almost from the beginning, before it went to Yahoo. I was one of the heaviest posters. There were some amazing days on that list, and yes, it was all over the map. We were pushing the line incredibly hard. There was a lot of creativity, and there were a few nasty firefights. I did a lot of stupid stuff on there, and I wasn't the only one. It went through a lot of iterations. We got to one point where we started looking at exactly what was pointed out in this thread- that there was a large amount of lurkers. We thought that some people were afraid to go on there, given the
  6. Actually, Rick's site is more of a clearing house. For the longest time, there wasn't anything at all about Ayn Rand there. But it is a good resource. He is also an expert witness, and cult deprogrammer. Look up one of the mainstream cults, and you'll see it's very strong. I don't think many people outside of the movement even know enough to say what about O'ism, really... best, r
  7. Whoa! Big Dog in the house! Welcome, Nathaniel. So, Scientology seems to me like one of those dog and pony show things, where it is being "sold". Baffle the natives with B.S. And now, it is the luxurious and costly discipline of the stars. Now, it kind of freaked me on one level, because at the time ('70's) I was reading almost nothing other than science fiction (or, as Harlan Ellison renamed it, "speculative fiction"). I'd read collections where you'd have, say, Asimov, Koontz, others, and maybe Hubbard. He was a good writer. I had no idea what he was about when "Dianetics" came out; I never
  8. OK. I haven't even read through the posts about Mike Lee. That even includes reading Barbara, who I am so happy to see here that I generally read anything that comes off her pen. I'm just very busy today with being a capitalist, and making preparations for playing music. I will read Mike Lee's post post facto. I can speak in front of Mike Lee; he is one of the funniest people I have ever read in my experience with O'ist forums. No, erase that, he IS the funniest. He is simply a great writer. I've never corresponded with him, because I thought that would spoil it. You know, there is a lot of g
  9. Go tear it up, Roger!! Make sure you have lots of rotary valve oil- it's hard to get in the backwoods... #-o I'm about to go active again, as well. We took a year off to write, but we just got signed with an agent, and he put us out there WAY before we thought. We're going to be pounding the NE OH market, 2-3 times a month starting this Saturday, which is a lot, because we are all full-time professionals; The drummer runs the food service end of Baldwin-Wallace College, the singer is a speech pathologist, the violinist is a teacher, the bassist is a policeman, and I'm in the "Number One" (as
  10. One place where Objectivism has and could continue to make useful inroads is in business, particularly with management people. There is definitely some resonance here- take a look at this article that came out a couple of years ago in USA Today, titled "Scandals Lead Execs to Atlas Shrugged." http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/ma...-ayn-rand_x.htm Nathaniel Branden made some excellent inroads in his business consulting practice (a practice not that often discussed in Objectivist circles). If you look at his essay "The High Self-Esteem Leader" (available in a book called "Partnering: The N
  11. I'm with Roger on this. Dactyl and Trochee are pretty simple descriptions. Dactyl is three (only), the first of which has an accent (whether it is held or not doesn't matter). OOM pah pah Trochee is two (only), the first being accented. Da-da Michael, you're a conductor, I'm just a composer (and worse yet, one who plays guitar). What do you say?
  12. Oh, I don't know what for combatible. I stopped asking that question so long ago. What if something isn't, yet one accepts it? Then what? First thing: take it underground and don't tell the locals. Probably not, because as well as it does what it does, Objectivism pretty much stops perceptually at the waking rational state, and this deals with the transrational. To my knowledge, Objectivism does not acknowledge the evolutionary differences between pre- and trans-; for that matter I don't think it even acknowledges the existence of the various transrational states- you're either rational or
  13. Dragonfly: I don't know why I wasn't typing that right yesterday. Some kind of glitch... rde
  14. I don't see why everyone is so suprised about this, it is de rigueur procedure in such situations. Behaviorially, it is a normal response. Look: when cornered, there are only two responses. Flight, or fight. What you are talking about, Michael, is flight. The pain was so much that it produced hardcore denial, to the point of revisionism. Or, you could call it soft aggression, I suppose. The nature of Objectivism (namely, being a closed system) is such that dissociation is surely going to occur. And it is going to bring what dissociation brings, which is pathology. Or, you could look at it
  15. W.C. says: Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do. Maybe we don’t understand yet, but we’re working on it! Each mystery solved opens up vistas of unsolved problems, and the scientist eagerly moves in. This is true of some people. Two flavors come to mind. The first is the time-honored con artist. That trait is in even some of the great and true mystics (Gurdjieff was notorious for sheep-shearing). There has always been a lot of this in martial arts, too. In the end, the only real secret i
  16. I caught part of that show too, Barbara! I think the thing that got to me the most was, as you mentioned, the relatively "normal" type of person seen, rather than the insane fantatic. The "we" aspect of life is a good one-quarter of everything that is for most people. Studying group psychology is fascinating (and, often, disturbing, like in the experiment you mention). In business, it is very interesting- I got exposed to a good bit of that while my wife was finishing her M.A. in organizational management. Cults, in general, seem to be on the rise. It's really something to go to a place like
  17. Ethan, Well, there is no short answer! The shortest one might be to tempt you to visit the other side of the tracks, and read "The Marriage of Sense and Spirit" by Ken Wilber. That is a pretty quick way to get to the essentials of discussions like this. There is a lot of extreme thought out there, ranging from hardcore scientific materialism to some very narcissistic and generally silly New Age stuff. On one end, modernism has, in my opinion, pretty much collapsed the interior dimension. That was a backlash, that was baby with the bathwater. It is the mirror opposite of extreme postmodern tho
  18. Hey, Roger- I heard a piece on NPR a few months ago about a guy who developed a program that accesses some kind of giant song database, and it works like this: If you put in the title of a song you like, it will spit out other songs that you would like because they are similar on some plane- he's using a pretty complex algorithm, it appears, and it accounts for overall tonal/timbral "feel", from what it seems. I'm trying to find out where his site is, but no luck so far. Interesting stuff. Have you heard about this?
  19. Hello, All- As you know, OH was the major "swing state" in the last presidential election. This swing in favor of GWB was heavily dependent upon the work of a very disturbing and well-developed evangelical movement called The Ohio Reformation Project www.reformationohio.org They were also instrumental in putting through a gay marriage ban in OH. These folks are now positioning OH sec-of-state Ken Blackwell for the governor's spot, and riding in on a blaze of fire and brimstone. They are highly mobilized and effective. The head misguided Christian brother behind all this is named Rod Parsley,
  20. I was reading MSK's last post and got thinking after he mentioned "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." An excellent book that gets down to the primal stuff, and how it worked in "B" movie culture is Stephen King's Danse Macabre http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/042510433...glance&n=283155 It's worth mentioning just from the standpoint of how such a successful novelist as King views and incorporates those kinds of elements into his writing. Another interesting thing about it is that it is one of his very few non-fiction pieces. rde
  21. ...simply how you do it! Thanks! rde
  22. Sometimes I think that Hunter started dying after Nixon did. Nixon was arguably his life's work. I like most anything he ever submitted to Rolling Stone, that's where this essay appeared. The man had a way with words. Major influence on my writing. I have always shared Thompson's obsessive interest in Nixon, I'm not sure why. I remember finding him, er, peculiar, even when I was a child, watching him on B/W TV. Nixon the misogynist. Nixon the Quaker (heavens- a plague on the Quaker roots in my Unitarian tradition).
  23. That article strikes me as entirely possible. And, I'm not sure he's the first president that has said something like this. The difference is, he seems to get a lot more mileage out of it. I think this requires an interlude. Since a fair amount of OL is dedicated to creative writing, I suggest dual-purpose. Here is a link where one can revisit Hunter Thompson's Nixon eulogy, aptly titled "He Was A Crook." Aside from being a great look at another, er, "odd" President, it's some of Hunter's best latter-period writing. I loved watching him work. Even if you don't agree with the politics, this on
  24. First off, I am not a technical philosopher, but it is not entirely unfamiliar to me. My thoughts lie both in the technical, and social, or "we" aspect of things. Mainly, though, my concern lies with how Objectivism views empiricism, and modes of knowing. There appears to be mixed use of narrow and (occasionally, if you look at it one way, and constantly, if you look at it the way I do)broad empiricism, but mostly narrow. Narrow empiricism, from what I can see, is not only narrow, but self-invalidating. The narrowness means confining experience to the sensorimotor level, only. There is no a
  25. HAH! If I had written that, I'd be toying with the idea of where to post it... Yes, it's got a fair amount of spin on it, that's for sure. I'm interested in the genetic aspect, it would be interesting to see that developed more. There are a number of things you can look at on the biological level, but I never saw much about geneology. I'd be interested in, for instance, comparing stats on people possessing that gene with numbers on epileptic-type conditions.