• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About tndbay

  • Rank
  1. CRIMINAL GENES ... well, once a year, I've got a regular routine, I see the doctor for a checkup, get a flu vaccine... When I went to see the doctor I was feeling O.K. But he said "Listen to me closely, I've got something to say" "I hate to have to tell you you've got criminal genes" "Look into the microscope- I'll show you what I mean." So I looked through the lens- and you know what I saw? Forty-eight chromosomes, breaking the law! I said "That can't be right, Dr., Not so fast-" He said "I've studied genealogy and looked into your past!" "You'd better have a seat because you're in for a sho
  2. argh! i fall from grace. now i probably have to wear clothes and stuff... it would seriously detract from the fun of slash and burn if i had to include a philosophical treatise in a work of comedy!! is that ok if i just footnote the work with *(see the works of Ayn Rand for the right stuff- no need to repeat her work here) ? what a trap was set and i'm caught! you know what that means? another limerick! -=atlas mugged me=- with limericks potent as these the mighty are brought to their knees since the purpose i'm after is infectious laughter i'm worse than a fatal disease. omfg, it's self depr
  3. this can only cause anxiety to very very very very poor logician! goedel, despite the perversion of his theorem, did not imply that 'you can't know anything because you can't know everything". instead, use goedel to mean that by enlarging the context you can subsume an intractable. 'everything i say is a lie' is not tractable til you enlarge the context and observe that 'this is a self contradiction. problem resolved. it was just that easy. several variations on the self contradiction exist. they are used by gurus to cripple minds. it's like a DOS on the mind (denial of services attack). i li
  4. the boringest thing has to be the collectivist philosophy they're so uninspired and i get real tired of them waving their we we's at me!
  5. i find no fault with your logic using your definitions. i do find a distinction between thought that can be logically validated and habit that is something any chordate is capable of learning. i talk to myself constantly. that's how i validate my reasoning. so the distinction i draw is between reasoned deliberate behaviour and other behaviour of which the performer may be unaware. this is the way i am able to make sense of the topic on which a vast library of literature has been written: the 'subconscious' this is also how i interpret the literary references which abound that call ppl 'unconsc
  6. international terrorism? wtf? so now there will be a host of new major characters, motives and plot devices? i sure hope they don't mess it up. there's no bigger bolt to fire than atlas shrugged and they only get one shot. pete
  7. i didn't know rand was criticized for not writing comedy. but such a criticism would surely be grounds for another limerick! -=seriously funny=- a critic was once heard to mention while at a rand roasting convention "it's really fantastic being iconoclastic it certainly gets me attention!" "in fact," he continued to say "i make a fine living this way. in comes the money when i cry 'she's not funny' and i ride on her coat-tails all day! pete
  8. hi i really do get the 'sense' that resides in the statement. you should hear me go on about how it is really Natural Rejection, not natural Selection that runs evolution, or how it's the forgettery that weeds out contradictions before they get installed in long term memory. having been breast fed on objectivism, a habit of logical inference is quite second nature and i have room to be silly. there is also a context where the statement is false. that context is the realm of theoretical proofs. that makes it self contradictory and funny. according to the statement they must all be uncertain. i
  9. i found it in the 'tolerance' thread- you said
  10. wow, that's some suggestion. he doesn't seem uncertain about! i, for one, am certain i spy a logical self contradiction in it... of course, there is absolutely no such thing as an absolute... and logically, therefore, there must be no such thing as logic... and that's how we prove that there's no such thing as proof! voila! limerick time! nothing can be absolute. so there's nothing that i can't refute i can leap any hurdle if i tighten my goedel and spit out the biblical fruit.
  11. i put a spoonful of coffee in the sugar bowl the other day cuz i was distracted and the habits were not properly cued. i did not consciously put the coffee in the sugar bowl. most of my driving is done without verbal validation. sometimes i have taken a wrong turn by habit. habit is a good word for these unconscious decisions, perhaps? (i guess i must be sure to specify that i use the term unconscious to mean subverbal- not sleepwalking) all our behaviours prior to acquiring language skills, then, would also qualify as unconscious in the way. any behaviour that is done without deliberation mi
  12. what may not be clear to you, as you are embroiled in the middle of it, is starkly clear and simple to me. i have to say, also, that were i to name it here and now, i expect i'd be tarred and feathered and run out of dodge. until i've had a chance to make friends (or not) i plan to resist doing that. but to an observer from my generation and perspective- it's glaringly obvious. however, i will state unequivocally that 'objectivism is not plagued with animosity'. one must look elsewhere than a rational philosophy to find a plague. rationality is hardly at root of the squabbling. but no worries
  13. thanks. i don't think a fellow could get a better answer than what's given here!
  14. i don't equate contradiction with evil, either. inquiry is all about running headlong into them and resolving them. i think i have a satisfactory understanding of humour, and even laughter. i've met humorless people before. they were unhappy ppl. i don't recall a single instance of a happy person who was humourless. inquiring minds want to know, is all. there is an apparent contradiction here- and, as one expects, it is funny- consulting a curmudgeon on the nature of humour is a funny idea. i think humor is too self evidently an attribute of human beings to disregard or damn it. well, this has
  15. " Rand came up with that idea of programming her subconscious and literally tried to program normal healthy humor right out of her mind. She decided that the human capacity for humor must fit her philosophy, not her philosophy must encompass man's drive for humor as it exists." well, that's what makes a human a human, by my best definition- a creature who defines himself. i know i rehearse what i think i should get good at and extinguish habits that need it on a very regular basis. as you have pointed out (i think i got this one right) humour isn't something you force ppl to pay for- it is an