Michael Stuart Kelly

Root Admin
  • Content Count

    31,334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    89

Michael Stuart Kelly last won the day on April 21

Michael Stuart Kelly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

321 Excellent

1 Follower

About Michael Stuart Kelly

  • Rank
    $$$$$$
  • Birthday 06/09/1952

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

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

66,098 profile views
  1. I made an offline communication that I liked so much, I'm posting it here. A person mentioned that the Dems will size up President Trump's manipulation of social media (presumably with Russian aid ) much better this next time around and will presumably trounce him in 2020. Part of the reason will be no wall, no Obamacare repeal and replace, no Hillary Clinton in jail and he will be crying about how the Dems did it. I wrote the following: But I'm not posting this to be cute (although I am ). I'm posting this because it led me to thinking about... well... I want to say how futile reason is when people hate, but I wasn't really thinking about that. I was thinking about how cute I am. Michael
  2. And take that, anti-Trumpers: President Trump is going to have a city named after him on the Golan Heights. Let the hating begin... Michael
  3. Brant, My point was that I was not discussing Rand right or wrong. In fact, no matter what gets discussed when the name Rand comes up, no matter what the nuance or insight or even folly is on the table, someone always takes the issue back to whether Rand was right or wrong, then people start discussing that instead of the issue. Then they start fighting over whether she was right or wrong. The issue becomes secondary when not forgotten. In AA when I was going to meetings way back when, it was a common occurrence to see a person punctuate his personal tragedies and attempts to figure out how to stop drinking and destroying his life with a call for everyone to obey the program (the 12 steps). Then he would emphasize that, start preaching and that would become his point, no longer his own witnessing about his experiences or his successes and failures to stay sober. In other words, AA is right and those who question it are playing with fire. Those who say it is wrong are damned. And if you don't believe it, he will talk about it until you get it. (Many of the people like that I knew had Homeric relapses. Sporadic relapses with few and far in between, but Homeric when they hit... ) Michael
  4. Brant, Rand is right, Rand is wrong, Rand is right, Rand is wrong, Let go of doubts, Just sing along, Rand is right, Rand is wrong... Michael
  5. One hell of a report: ROBERT MUELLER: UNMASKED by Congressman Louie Gohmert I thought this guy Mueller was supposed to be Mr. Integrity. Michael
  6. Brant, Can of worms time. Right now I can't delve into making a case about the value and nature of mythology and religion in terms of human evolution (see Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society by David Sloan Wilson for one scholar's quite reasonable presentation of that), so I will simply quote a few pertinent thoughts about religious stories and some tangential but related thoughts. Let's just say that most people hold major religious events as coming from (or informed by) a realm different than everyday reality. Rod Sterling called it the "realm of the imagination." Christians call it Heaven and Hell. Either way, this different realm has been a concern of humans ever since recorded history. And even when there are odd happenings in the stories using only everyday reality as a standard, like the Virgin Birth, it's not pure 100% unadulterated everyday reality. It's a mixture with this other realm. There is always a mythic element to it--myth meets and mixes with physical reality so to speak. That, to me, puts these stories in a different class of mental event that deserves more thought than simply sniffing in superiority and calling all of mankind stupid for believing in them. I mean, one can do that if it rings one's ding-a-ling, but pointing at people and saying, "See how stupid religious people are? I'll never understand how they can believe all those crazy stories..." doesn't explain reality and, frankly, doesn't explain people. All it does is scratch a vanity itch. It's like Person A asking Person B what the meaning of life is and Person B responds by complaining about the flavors of chewing gum available. Person B is totally clueless about the issues at stake, but highly interested in something that tastes good. To use another analogy, a fish isn't aware of the water it swims in until there is no water. If the human mind were not constructed to swim in story, it would not have to create other stories (like the big bang) to replace the ancient ones when people begin to find them silly. And, frankly, as a foundational story, the big bang is a piss-poor story. It does not come with the ability to be used as social glue, for instance. No one will get married or buried in its name. And that's just one shortcoming. There are a slew of them. (A foundational story helps integrate the different modules of our highly modular brains so we--as individual members of a species--can behave in a manner where we survive and reproduce with relative success.) If people wish to sever their own beliefs from ancient foundational stories (and I'm not saying they shouldn't), they at least need to replace such stories with something that fills in the human life gaps left over when the old stories are removed. For those who laugh at people's current beliefs in myths and religious stories, I have yet to hear a single merrymaker explain why religious foundational stories have survived ALL of human history. Just saying people are stupid is a piss-poor excuse for thinking about that issue. Now a few quotes. I could--and probably will--write a whole book about this. I just looked and did find it in her Journals. Quoting Ayn Rand: Rand's metaphysics is essentially the axiomatic concepts. No stories of why and how things work. Just that things are and that things work. Done. Notice her phrase: philosophy is primarily epistemology. This means that she has no response to the big questions of philosophy like: What is the meaning of life? Why do we have to die? Why is the universe so infinitely large and infinitely small at the same time while we are so limited in scope? And so on. Rand did not even attempt to answer these questions. She essentially implied that people who ask these things are stupid to ask them. And if that thought bothers you to disagree, then let's just say she blanked out that people ask these questions and why they ask them. How can a philosophy spread when it leaves out such a big chunk of the human soul? It's not like you can't observe people mulling these questions over in records in all societies throughout all history. I can't resist the following entry as a playful gotcha to Barbara. (I wonder what she would have thought about my current conclusions. ) At one time--I don't remember where and when, I think it was in her apartment, I mentioned to her that philosophy was like an instruction manual on how to use your mind. She had a fit on me. She said that philosophy dealt with the fundamental nature of the universe. Period. End of story. But thus spoke Rand... None of this has anything to do with writing techniques, but it's interesting as all get out--to me and I bet to many readers. That's the nature of discussion forums, I guess... OL is OL. Michael
  7. And it's funny... I'm now seeing sporadic articles in the mainstream fake news media say that, "according to sources close to the event" there may be some inaccuracies in the Steele Dossier, but how that happened is still uncertain... Michael
  8. Well gaaawlllieeee... Woodward just discovered that having Robert Redford portray him in a movie decades ago is not a hedge against him trashing his own legacy. Woodward has been on a hunt for the next Watergate ever since Nixon resigned. And it looks like he just woke up to the fact that there has been one right under his nose for over two years, except he was on the side of the bad guys. Irony of ironies... He had joined the equivalent of a cover-up for Nixon and had been running it for over two years. He even wrote a goddam book to back up the cover-up. But now he is going to go after his new Watergate, meaning the Steele Dossier and the intelligence community... Yeah, right... Sorry, pal. Two years is a long time to be as wrong as you were. Now you gotta get in line and wait your turn. There are far better journalists than you already on the gig. Michael
  9. Wolf, I'm baffled by the big bang. Lots of people have faith in it, though. And you do realize that predestination is a predominant theme in many denominations of Christianity... What all that has to do with literary style, though, is baffling... (Something tells me this topic is uncomfortable for you. ) Michael
  10. Ellen, On another point re this thought, which is outside of writing fiction like Rand, but maybe not so much. The Notre Dame cathedral fire brings some fundamentals into relief. It is Easter today. I learned from Rand that Christianity was one of the things wrong with the world, and that its altruism led directly to human horrors like collectivism, communism and subsequent piles and piles of bodies. Now I disagree--not about the despicable nature of collectivism that grants way too much despotic power to rulers, but about altruism being the main cause. I've studied too much modern psychology and neuroscience to oversimplify the human mind like that. In fact, looking at the world from the perspective of a deposed official in some African dictatorship or other I once knew in Brazil (I don't remember which African dictatorship since this was from my drug days), he said wherever Christianity predominated, the society generally progressed. He claimed the unifying and forgiveness messages of Christianity lowered hostilities among people and this allowed then to organize and cooperate more. He said his own country was still backward because it had hundreds of tribal religions constantly at war with each other for centuries. This has stayed with me and informed my general softness toward Christianity over my O-Land writing. In fact, my mind is currently more in line with what Stephen Molyneux tweeted today than it was when I started posting online: This is a biggie if an aspiring author wishes to write like Rand or in Rand's style. And not because one has to agree with Rand. I see it as a booby-trap since this is where many newbies will put their main focus. Yet learning to write, especially write more or less in the style of a master like Rand, involves many techniques that have nothing to do with religion or even philosophy. If bashing Christianity were that important to her style, Victor Hugo would not be someone she learned her own style from. So is it possible to write in Rand's style and make room for Christianity? Resoundingly yes. Is it possible to ape Rand and make room for Christianity? Resoundingly no. A newbie writer has to decide what he or she wants at the time of learning, learn to write or learn to imitate? And that is not a false dichotomy. After one learns the techniques, one can decide on how to position issues like specific religions. Doing it the other way around leads to the disasters of fiction we keep seeing (with a few exceptions). But even outside of learning how to write, I no longer believe burning down Christianity like the Notre Dame cathedral is such a good idea. And with that thought, Happy Easter -- and Happy Easter to all. Candace Owens stated something today I really like. I hold it symbolically pertains to the human spirit (including the human spirit in a most Randian manner) and not just the Christ story. I can't find the exact quote so I paraphrase. You can kill truth and put it into the grave, but you can't keep it there. It will resurrect. Michael
  11. Jonathan, Bomb bomb bomb... Bomb bomb Iran... Bomb bomb bomb... Bomb bomb Iran... Bomb bomb bomb... Bomb bomb Iran... Groovin' baby... Boy, did we dodge a bullet with that sucker. I voted for him, but knowing what I now know, I'm glad he lost. I'm not glad Obama won, but at least Obama's term of office brought the ruling class's socialism, deep state organizations, and elitist nature into the mainstream. McCain would have kept a veneer of respectability over it all like with Bush. In other words, he would have fooled most people by mouthing what the people wanted to hear and acting "presidential." But behind the scenes he would have hardened the elitist crony ruling class system of endless war for profit. Maybe even started WWIII. At least Obama made the rot that needs fixing visible to the man and woman in the street. Michael
  12. As long as I am doing the Trump tweet thing, here's one for Mitt-mouth. Michael
  13. This... This was retweeted by President Trump. As Mark Levis says, the second part of the Mueller Report is crap. It's an OpEd and nothing more. Michael
  14. This is President Trump's form of keeping the pressure on by explaining things in language a 7 year old can understand. This is a mass audience communication technique at its most persuasive. Michael