Michael Stuart Kelly

Root Admin
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Michael Stuart Kelly last won the day on September 16

Michael Stuart Kelly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

150 Excellent

1 Follower

About Michael Stuart Kelly

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/09/1952

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Michael Stuart Kelly
  • Articles
    Initial Understanding of Islam on Fundamental Intellectual Issues Thoughts on the 12 Steps and Self-Forgiveness Why the Tolerance and Support? Atlantis in the Wilderness A Hunting Story Moral Perfection Like a Lamb to the Slaughter Letter to Madalena ... An Homage to the Value of Valuing Going Home... A Few Thoughts on Family Values Where Principles and Rights Break Down The Stigma of Addiction Book Review on an Addiction Fraud - A Million Little Pieces Charmed on a Raw Night The Nature of Private Written Correspondence – The Sciabarra Smear Online Objectivist Mediocrity The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 2 - Moral Ambivalence The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 3 - Brotherhood of Hate The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 4 - Rand's True Value The Virtue of Silliness (w/Kat)
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

64,996 profile views
  1. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    I can't resist this one: Michael
  2. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    LOL... CNN’s Jake Tapper Dedicates Segment to Trump’s Penis President Trump has the fake news media so confounded they are doing news stories about his dick. Michael
  3. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    Brant, I think she offered more than that. She stated that the goal of her writing was to present the perfect man. And she stated that her thing was man-worship. She created gods. Gods with their own stories. Michael
  4. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    Jonathan, I want to give this an inspirational side, too. I'll speak for myself. Accepting my own limitations at any given moment is merely accepting reality and judging it accordingly. (That's my cognitive before normative thing.) After I have done that, then I have earned the right to strive for greatness. I let my spirit dream while I make my body work. I often see others make the error of striving for greatness without wanting to do the donkey work, without being willing to fall on their ass and get back up as they try, over and over and over until they get it right. I might never become the greatest writer in the world, but I can become the greatest writer I can become. That part I can control. It involves my own dreams and my own discipline. The other I can't. I used to think about that other when I was younger. I don't anymore. Not after I started developing skills from putting in the long hours to make it work. The good news is, this is doable. And anybody can do it. On the really negative side, if a person only dreams about it and doesn't do the donkey work, doesn't even try to goose himself up emotionally to do the donkey work, he can control that outcome, too. He can guarantee with 100% certainty that he becomes a failure. A pompous one at that. Michael
  5. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Placeholder for GW/CC 'How I got here' thread

    Brant, Bob has discovered time travel. Michael
  6. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    Here's the full quote by Booker if anyone is interested: Believe it or not, President Trump has countless five act stories along his career. (And, no, dear anti-Trumpers, he's not the monster. ) Michael
  7. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    Jonathan, Incidentally, here is an insight right back at you. (Not competing... just sharing...) First a small literary detour. Here is a five-act structure that is just as old and probably more universal than Campbell's Hero's Journey. I got the from a book called Into the Woods: A Five-Act Journey Into Story by John Yorke added to a rather difficult but profound book by David Mamet called Three Uses of the Knife. Once you know how to look for this pattern, you see it everywhere. And that is the reason it's one of the ancient patterns that are still with us. Here is a gross outline of the way it is given in The Seven Basic Plots by Christopher Booker (which I mention because Yorke used his version as a kind of starting point): Booker elaborates on this often through his book (as does Yorke and Mamet, although Mamet, talks about a three act structure with the second act being the equivalent of Acts 2, 3 and 4 in the others). For instance, when he talks about the plot of a normal James Bond story, he writes the states as: I only mention this because it's an extremely flexible pattern. (It works in Shakespeare and it works in Rand. And it goes waaaaaay back into ancient mythology.) When applied to real life (from whence it came), I even see it in the way I went through Objectivism and the way I see most people do when they get deep into the philosophy. 1. The "Call." This is first contact with Rand's works. This tends to release a lot of dopamine and feels wonderful. 2. Initial wins. This is when a person starts winning arguments he never used to win, discovers other Objectivists, reevaluates everything he has learned through this different lens, etc. There's a lot serotonin released and even more dopamine. Life can't get any better. 3. The Reality Stage. I'm indebted to Mamet for calling the frustration stage "reality." This happens when the high of the first epiphanies and wins (Acts 1 and 2) slam up against the mundane aspects of reality that just won't go away (Act 3). If you want to be a great musician, you have to practice scales during long hours each day and that is boring. If you want to be a great engineer, you have to study math and other stuff for hours a day that is boring. If you want to become a great philosopher, you have to read tons of philosophy from obscure books each day and that is boring. It never seems to end and it's so damn slow and hard. You can't get away with gushing about stuff and instantly become an expert. You have to a lot of boring-ass donkey work during this third act. 3-a. There's a midpoint during the third act Yorke talks about where a person has to come to grips with something he has to change inside himself, otherwise, he doesn't make it through the third act convincingly. (That's when stories seem to dip and meander.) In real life and according to my application here in O-Land, I believe this realization is an intellectual humbling. A person has to come to the conclusion that he is not Francisco D'Anconia, who never seemed to hit snags during the donkey work of developing a skill, and decide he wants to become proficient at the skill more than he hates the boredom and frustration and sheer amount of it. Only then can he can plow through the dull stuff and finish. This realization can take many different forms, but it has to be on the intensity level of a religious experience to work. Just saying you want to doesn't work. 4. The biggest nightmare I have seen in this O-Land situation is an inner crisis of doubt--wondering whether this path will actually work out in triumph or whether there is something wrong with the person because he can't seem to get out from underneath the enormous pressure he feels to live up to the standards he imposed on himself and his constant fuck-ups. Even after he's made it through the third act, he still fucks up at times and wonders if his chance to become one of mankind's greats just slipped his grasp. The irony here is that Objectivism comes with an anti-guilt proposition, but this Act creates massive guilt in many people. Based on Randian archetypes, he doesn't believe that a hell of a lot of fucking up is the only way to eventually get it right consistently, so he feels guilty for essentially being human (and taking the only path that will get him to anywhere near to becoming a Randian hero). 5. For the final act, the person comes out of the nightmare by becoming a true-believer, or he walks away from the philosophy, or he chooses his own independent path, but takes a lot of good from Objectivism with him. (Guess which one I am? ) After years of online O-Land discussions, I find that most pro-Rand people are still stuck in Act 3. (Not all, of course, but many, many, many.) They're chasing the high of the first two acts and can't figure out where the joy went when they try to apply the philosophy to their day-to-day grind. So they repeat passages from Rand when they get confused, but can't go very deep into what those words mean other than the traditional boilerplate arguments. They worry a lot, though, and keep trying to square the circle of how to keep the high going. I think the irritation in this phase is one of the reasons Objectivists have a reputation as unduly snarky. They've read Rand do constant putdowns and that's about all they've got for response when challenged that makes them feel a bit better until they figure out how to push through this boring painful phase and actually become competent at something. Anyway, food for thought. btw - Mamet was funny in characterizing the grandiosity of feeling of the first two acts (using the 5 act division) against the reality slam of the third act where everything seems to go wrong all of a sudden. He said it's an old joke, but it's hard to remember to drain the swamp when you are out in the middle of it and up to your ass in alligators. Michael
  8. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    Jonathan, I think you're right. Style over substance added to delusions of grandeur and an aesthetic trance based on Rand's storytelling skills. It's not often I read an insight like this these days. I love the term "aesthetic trance." Thanks. Michael
  9. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    William, Why... we never started speaking past each other on narcissism before. So why now? Hmmmm... We never did until I started laughing about it mocking it right now. Imagine that... In all other times candidate--then President--Trump has been called a narcissist (and mocked for it by anti-Trumpers) right here on OL, I don't recall you asking about what that term means. Not once. Not even when I posted videos from a site about narcissism by a man helping people get out of relationships with narcissists. (I guess that guy looked like alt media, not anything respectable like CNN, huh? ) It's funny now that the idea is laughable and tanking the good tank how you suddenly became interested in defining it... (You know that name's not going to stick to President Trump with the general public. It did not stick and it will not stick. You're intelligent enough to know that. Not after a bunch of mental health clowns wrote a full friggin' book about it with millions of dollars in free publicity claiming they were big shit mental health experts so they should know--and all the book did was entertain anti-Trumpers in a Jerry Springer sort of way. See here.) Michael
  10. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    Tony, I am totally unconvinced. I find the idea that President Trump is a narcissist laughable. Mental health professionals who claim this show, to me, just how much quackery there still is in this field. For example, President Trump is not a control freak who avoids putting himself in vulnerable situations at all costs. Avoiding embarrassment through excessive control is a universal among narcissists. On the contrary, Trump openly invites high-risk situations. A good example is at his rallies. He will often bring a total stranger on stage and hand over his microphone. Does he know what the person will say? No. He may have a good idea, but ultimately, he hands over control. A true narcissist would never do that. Ever. The risk of being embarrassed would be too great to even contemplate for him. Narcissists love to be scripted in their control freak situations. When they go off script, they tend to stomp on their dongs and get entangled in unending bickering over nothing. So they just don't do it. Narcissists don't tell people to rise and achieve excellence. On the contrary, they pick at the faults of everybody so they can pump themselves up. President Trump said many times he wants everybody in America to become as rich as he is. A narcissist says get used to no longer being self-reliant, get used to the government handouts he controls, because those jobs are never coming back. (Remind you of someone? ) Here in O-Land, it's surprising to see people criticize a man with a healthy dose of egoism, self-esteem and high-productive focus as pathological precisely because of those traits, but there it is. I don't know what they see when they read Rand. It's obviously not the same thing I see. Winners are not narcissists by definition. The idea that they are is a cultural sickness promoted by our current victimization media where everyone is either an oppressed slave, a heartless master, or the hero rescuer and savior--the government. Underneath, to these people it's all about tearing down greatness. That's easier than becoming great themselves. When they look on the greatness President Trump has achieved and look at their own lives, it's like a loud hard slap in the face. It's so much easier to try to tear him down than try to live up to the promise of what he represents in America--where all men and women can become great, individually great, if they work at it. And when they can't get sanction of the victim to work on President Trump to make him feel guilty, but instead get a haymaker of a counterpunch as response--without apology, they hate him all the more as they pick themselves up off the floor. Narcissist don't like earning things. The feel entitled to them by default. They even feel entitled to tear down greatness in the human spirit. President Trump stands for earned winning. Working hard and winning. Becoming great from focused effort at excellence. But earning victory is not for everybody. Many prefer to have it handed to them by their peers whether they deserve it or not. Michael
  11. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    Korben, This is a cognitive error I see often and, God knows, I've done it enough myself. In O-Land, this is called dropping the context. There are times when one is discussing all-or-nothing cases, and other times when one is generalizing. There is no way to discuss the topic we were discussing without generalizing. We weren't talking about, say, a scientific experiment and falsification controls. We were talking about broad categories of people. And when you do that, you can't even say all people have two arms and two legs. So dropping that context to apply a different standard, then point out your own error as if it were the error of the other is... well, an error. btw - The fake news media does this (especially progressives), albeit in a more dishonest manner. They know they are dropping context when they do it. In fact, they seek opportunities to drop context to make it look like someone said something stupid or outrageous. (Now stop and ask yourself if I am talking about every single case that the fake news media has presented--every one that has ever existed and ever will exist--or a generality. See what I mean about context?) Since I like precision of communication, I have been guilty of this a lot. Nowadays, I try to figure out who I am talking to and what is it they are talking about, including if it is general or specific, i.e., if it is induction or deduction, before digging into their errors and feeling all superior and stuff. Michael
  12. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Placeholder for GW/CC 'How I got here' thread

    Bob, So metastatements are absolute? (No need to reply seriously. I'm just busting your balls. ) Michael
  13. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Veritas Deep State Project

    Veritas Deep State Project Covert videos are not a persuasion method in the sense of rhetoric. But this is still a persuasion technique. Exposure of bad guys engaged in naked wrongdoing and bragging about it is one of the all time greats. It often works when the videos are doctored, but it really works when it is the truth and the exposure gets widespread. In the realm of show and tell, it's show and let the bad guys tell on themselves. The covert part comes in infiltrating the bad guys, not manipulating an unaware target of a persuasion message. So far, all we have is this video. As time goes along, this thread will grow and one-by-one deep state actors will become exposed. I'm opening the thread citing Project Veritas because exposure of the deep state can get clouded over by talking about fringe conspiracy extremists, often citing the more kooky statements as if they were representative of normal deep state criticism. Not that I disagree with the extremists (some are on to something and some are not), but this thread is devoted to persuasion of people who disagree, some who even think there is not a deep state. That will never happen by fanning the flames of those who agree. There is nothing more persuasive to those who disagree than a video and audio recording--in context--of a person talking and doing something bad. No argument to the contrary can rebut that. The person who disagrees may still disagree, but he must either do a massive blank-out, appeal to context (which is legitimate, but can cognitively messy once the name-calling kicks in), or let a crack appear in his convictions. And therein lies the effectiveness of the persuasion technique. So let's see what James comes up with. I have a feeling this one is going to get nasty. But, by exposing actual deep state personnel going about their normal lives and doing and bragging about their misbehavior, I predict this will help influence moderates in the midterms to vote for Trump-friendly candidates. Michael
  14. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    It looks like President Trump is going to declassify the "muh Russians!" monkeyshines--including FISA warrant applications and lots of other stuff before the midterms. He just tweeted this: Devin Nunes states and he will make all House interrogations (or witness-interviews) on "muh Russians!" public before the midterms and categorically stated that President Trump has no choice but to declassify the "muh Russians!" monkeyshines. (I paraphrase. ) I read President Trump's retweet as agreement and a signal that it is coming soon. Michael
  15. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    As Robert Heinlein said in Time Enough for Love: When I say elitist, I am referring to "those who want people to be controlled" and, generally, want to do the controlling and have massive exceptions for themselves. This is because they believe, deep in their souls, they can't exist without inferiors to look down on. That is the root of their metaphysics. They define themselves by those they deem inferior. President Trump's very existence is a slap in the face to them. That he become President and is succeeding in actually doing good things is a repudiation of everything they believe in, i.e., their own superiority. They hate him on a metaphysical level, not just a personal or political or psychological one. They believe if he exists, they cannot. If that isn't one of the roots of narcissism, I don't know what is. Michael