Wise and clever posts

[pippi]

I admire the fact that you all admire each others witty and sometimes quite beautiful posts but what exactly is the point?

[pippi]

I saw many people in the status of posting here but no one did.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Pippi,

Sometimes hanging out with people you like and/or have rapport with is an end in itself.

That's not the whole story behind posting on a forum and interacting with other members, but that's part of it.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

I admire the fact that you all admire each others witty and sometimes quite beautiful posts but what exactly is the point?

Psychological visibility, or mutual ego-stroking (Not That There's Anything Wrong With That).

Plus, it kind of helps foster a warm and welcoming atmosphere here, which is absent from many Objectivist forums (especially the orthodox ones, where posting feels like defending oneself before the Grand Inquisitor)..

[Rich Engle]

<br>I admire the fact that you all admire each others witty and sometimes quite beautiful posts but what exactly is the point?<br>

<br><br>I could ask you the same question, since you posit in such fashion.  <br><br>But I think I understand, at least to some extent. <br><br>I would have certain thoughts along this line, Pippi.  Like, "am I dealing with professional narcissists?" Am I seeing people that simply like to hear the sound of their own voice (via written word)?  Definitely, those thoughts would and have crossed my mind over the years.  That is the kind of question you don't just ask about others, but perhaps, upon occasion, even ask yourself, no?<br><br>What exactly is the point, indeed?<br><br>To evolve, to create (which is a rather interesting and bumpy experience).  <br><br>Recently, I did find a slightly more tranquil way to look at this thing (my thing being years on forums, philosophical/spritual<--ugly word warning debate, and so forth.  Whatever one would call it, in the form of Michael Dowd's writing.<br><br>Now, mind you, anyone that knows me well rests assured that I do not jump upon any type of mentality.  And if they do actually think that, as far as I am concerned they can go pound the salt, because a: it is uninformed, b: I have a rather painfully-well-earned reputation as a freethinker, and c: anything else, go blow it out your ass.  Rugged Individualism, let us call it.  <br><br>And Michael Dowd is an integrator, and predominantly, he speaks through the Christian language. RED FLAG RED FLAG.  <br><br>Actually, he works in both worlds, and that is something that a number of us around here are, er, circumscribing . . .   Already, this is a fellowship, a conversation that has gone on for many years.  That is a good thing.  Spirituality is a "hot spot" in O-world.  I mean hot.  I kind of gave up at the point where I was pointing out that Buddhists are Atheists.  The disconnect was kind of rampant.<br><br>Anyway, this is just where I stand with it but I could give you some things Michael Dowd has assembled, which I find to be quite true.  Prior to this, there were (are) people like Ken Wilber (and many others) that work to integrating science, and spirituality.  Michael is a friend to me, I know him fairly well, and I find him to be not only an honest man, but one that puts things together pretty good.  So let me find some 'fer instances . . . (hmmm . . .) I will look at his book "Thank God For Evolution."  OK . . .<br><br>This will definitely get off-track, but hey, eff it.<br><br>"I am the eye with which the Universe beholds itself and knows it is divine."  --PERCY SHELLEY<br><br>Heh.<br><br>OK, I will attempt to go more on-point:<br><br>If you look at things from the idea of "holons," this is useful, I think.  <br><br>Then, of course, you could consider that it took the Universe around 13.7 billion years to become conscious of itself; by way of you, me, and even (name someone, ack).<br><br>If, in the O-world, you invoke a word like "collectively," you are going to get it.  And, that system of thinking is disengaged, from the molecular level.  <br><br>Follow so far?  Sure you do.<br><br>"<i>To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right." --CONFUCIUS</i><br><i><br></i><br>What ~I~ would say is that, if we are all here conversing (as we are), this is healthy--in-line with the emergent growth of the Universe.  And that means conflict is healthy.<br><br>To me, the dialogs I have are a blessing, even the nasty ones.  I consider it a privilege.  Now, my style is humor.  I try to not be mean, but surely I run people up the flagpole.<br><br>That does not mean I do not respect them, on the whole I do.  Occasionally there are those that are clearly out-of-alignment with the, uh, holons, including their own ones.  We all do that upon occasion.  <br><br>To accept the nature of cracks is to accept the various forms of evolution (and I do not mean just bio-evolution).<div><br></div><div>I say what I have said not only conscious of the things I have seen others do to the contrary, but things I have done.  That sort of acceptance.</div><div><br></div><div>Warmest Blessings to you.<br><br>rde<br>Long-winded but trying. <br><i><br></i><br><br><br><br><br>

</div>

Edited April 13, 2011 by Rich Engle

[pippi]

To accept the nature of cracks is to accept the various forms of evolution

that IS poetry and I NEVER meant to discount poetry, it is one of the sugars of life

[pippi]

we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right." --CONFUCIUS

This is a great sentiment Rich , thank you. I interpret it in a good way.

There are many ways to set our hearts right, I hope. I don't think Rand would find setting hearts right very objectivist

I appreciate your post will write on it again, thank you

[Rich Engle]

we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right." --CONFUCIUS

This is a great sentiment Rich , thank you. I interpret it in a good way.

There are many ways to set our hearts right, I hope. I don't think Rand would find setting hearts right very objectivist

I appreciate your post will write on it again, thank you

My pleasure. I'm trying to further modify my approach to things. Believe it or not, I used to be even worse--complete attack mentality, loved the combat and was quite good at it. I went through a change some years ago, and now, I think more of the same. It is more difficult for some of us than others, but I am trying to be informed by reality. My language includes spiritual reality. But for all of us. Thanks for the reply, I enjoy your work.

best,

rde

[Philip Coates]

> I admire the fact that you all admire each others witty and sometimes quite beautiful posts but what exactly is the point? [Pippi, #1]

Writing cleverly can be an end in itself, both for the writer and the reader. And even for things not quite as witty or beautiful, they can be enjoyable as well. Not everything has to be informative or didactic. Having a few laughs - or being goofy or giddy or silly or whimsical. You don't do it 24/7, but it's a worthwhile part of life too.

(I'm glad SDK mentioned the inquisitorial, disapproving tone of some other Oist boards. I didn't know it was widespread since I don't have a large enough sampling.)

[jriggenbach]

> I admire the fact that you all admire each others witty and sometimes quite beautiful posts but what exactly is the point? [Pippi, #1]

Writing cleverly can be an end in itself, both for the writer and the reader. And even for things not quite as witty or beautiful, they can be enjoyable as well. Not everything has to be informative or didactic. Having a few laughs - or being goofy or giddy or silly or whimsical. You don't do it 24/7, but it's a worthwhile part of life too.

(I'm glad SDK mentioned the inquisitorial, disapproving tone of some other Oist boards. I didn't know it was widespread since I don't have a large enough sampling.)

Thank heavens no one here is disapproving or inclined to explain to everyone else exactly how and why they're doing whatever they're doing incorrectly and how it ought to be done a different way. That would be very off-putting.

JR

[Rich Engle]

> I admire the fact that you all admire each others witty and sometimes quite beautiful posts but what exactly is the point? [Pippi, #1]

Writing cleverly can be an end in itself, both for the writer and the reader. And even for things not quite as witty or beautiful, they can be enjoyable as well. Not everything has to be informative or didactic. Having a few laughs - or being goofy or giddy or silly or whimsical. You don't do it 24/7, but it's a worthwhile part of life too.

(I'm glad SDK mentioned the inquisitorial, disapproving tone of some other Oist boards. I didn't know it was widespread since I don't have a large enough sampling.)

Thank heavens no one here is disapproving or inclined to explain to everyone else exactly how and why they're doing whatever they're doing incorrectly and how it ought to be done a different way. That would be very off-putting.

JR

Yes, it would, Jeff. But no one has done so on the thread yet, have they?

Best,

rde

[PDS]

Pippi: there might not be an actual "point". Posting might simply be a reflection of boredom, or an attempt to sharpen the saw, so to speak.

Just out of curiosity, and only that, what is the point of your post?

[Peter]

Pippi wrote:

I admire the fact that you all admire each others witty and sometimes quite beautiful posts but what exactly is the point?

End quote

There was an earlier forum started by Kirez Korgan called “Atlantis.” Here are some snippets about that site that pertain to “Objectivist Living.”

From: "Peter Taylor"

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Atlantis Cafe

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:36:50 GMT

Brant wrote:

"I just had a horrible thought. When I was growing up I had this idea of Frenchmen at sidewalk cafes sitting around talking endlessly and accomplishing nothing. Is this Atlantis?"

end quote

and Peter Reidy replied:

"They aren't as idle as they look. Virtually all the intellectual and artistic life of continental Europe in the last two or three centuries - communism, existentialism, psychoanalysis, serial music, cubism and so on - happened this way."

end quote

However, why is anyone on Atlantis? To be with like-minded people, to not be alone, to gossip, to fuss with people and to settle old grudges, to learn, to contribute to every Objectivist's general knowledge, and to contribute to Consensus Objectivist Positions (If there can be such a thing.)

I would say the main reason we are on Atlantis, is to interact with other people in a non-threatening way. Can you imagine having the arguments we have in person? No way. A letter can always be ignored or deleted. You may Never have to meet the people you talk to, or you can meet them at any time.

When I first arrived on Atlantis, I wrote someone off list, "Is the BB on this list, Really THE Barbara Branden?" This is a good place to meet celebrities and notable people. Of course the notable people are important to US.

Kirez wrote about Atlantis:

"An increasingly popular unmoderated forum for Objectivist whatever... wild traffic levels and anything goes."

and Roger Bissell replied:

"Considering that mandate from Kirez and the all-too-eager willingness of list members to comply, it is a minor miracle that ~any~ coherent discussion takes place. Yet, I'd say that ~despite~ the owner-authorized rowdiness of Atlantis, a rather ~impressive~ amount of good discussion occurs."

end quote

Thank you Roger and Thank you one million times over, Kirez.

I believe it has been mentioned before but, “Atlantis” is Greek and means daughter of Atlas.

Live long and prosper, Kirez

Peter Taylor

From: "zantonavitch" <zantonavitch@yahoo.com>

Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com

To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [starship_Forum] Re: Philosophy Cafes and Bars

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 08:42:49 -0000

Monart Pon and Phil Knight recently wrote of a new phenomenon called "Philosophy Cafes" which are supposedly already well- established in France. This may be a nice new variation on populist "poetry slams." It basically sounds like a terrific idea, and something we really need here in America and New York City.

It reminds me of the French "salons" in the Voltaire/Encyclopediast era, as well as Samuel Johnson's "Literary Club" back during what I consider the liberal height of human civilization (the late 1700s). The classic Greeks considered conversation a high art, and I think this very true, even tho' in today's Dark Age culture this art is quite poorly-practiced and undervalued. It's worth noting that when the Greeks discussed matters of high import, they usually did so reclining on a couch, with "libations" and light snacks, with a flute player playing in the background, and with occasional breaks for erotic diversion. This sounds good to me!! Maybe some private strip club somewhere could supply all of this -- or the modern equivalent -- for a fairly moderate price. Just a thought...

Andre Z

End quote

So Pippi. What’s the point? Being here is the point. You can dig as deep as you want into any subject and there may be someone here with a similar interest. I prefer it when the atmosphere is “charged” but friendly.

And our BB is “THE Barbara Brandon!”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

You might be interested in this TED Talk, which discusses the importance of cafes to good ideas.

I agree that Internet discussion forums have the same quality. Who knows what genius we have among ourselves who will produce something great partly because of the stimulation he or she got from the hotbed of lively discussion among interested intelligent people?

<object width="446" height="326"><param name="movie" value="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param'>http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="bgColor" value="#ffffff"></param> <param name="flashvars" value="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/StevenJohnson_2010G-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/StevenJohnson-2010G.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=961&lang=&introDuration=15330&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=830&adKeys=talk=steven_johnson_where_good_ideas_come_from;year=2010;theme=how_the_mind_works;theme=unconventional_explanations;theme=tales_of_invention;theme=the_rise_of_collaboration;event=The+Rise+of+Collaboration;tag=Science;tag=Technology;tag=collaboration;tag=innovation;tag=novel;&preAdTag=tconf.ted/embed;tile=1;sz=512x288;" /><embed src="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf" pluginspace="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" bgColor="#ffffff" width="446" height="326" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" flashvars="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/StevenJohnson_2010G-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/StevenJohnson-2010G.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=961&lang=&introDuration=15330&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=830&adKeys=talk=steven_johnson_where_good_ideas_come_from;year=2010;theme=how_the_mind_works;theme=unconventional_explanations;theme=tales_of_invention;theme=the_rise_of_collaboration;event=The+Rise+of+Collaboration;tag=Science;tag=Technology;tag=collaboration;tag=innovation;tag=novel;"></embed></object>

Michael

EDIT: After posting this, I just watched this lecture once more and noticed: it ends with a beautiful quote I missed the first time around:

Chance favors the connected mind.

[Rich Engle]

"As language-using organisms, we participate in the evolution of the Universe most fruitfully through interpretation. We understand the world by drawing pictures, telling stories, conversing. These are our special contributions to existence. It is our immense good fortune and grave responsibility to sing the songs of the Cosmos." --EDWIN DOBB

This is kind of a fun thread. I like working without having to pack heat--my britches don't hike down from the weight.

Best!

rde

[PDS]

Peter,

You might be interested in this TED Talk, which discusses the importance of cafes to good ideas.

I agree that Internet discussion forums have the same quality. Who knows what genius we have among ourselves who will produce something great partly because of the stimulation he or she got from the hotbed of lively discussion among interested intelligent people?

<object width="446" height="326"><param name="movie" value="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param'>http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="bgColor" value="#ffffff"></param> <param name="flashvars" value="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/StevenJohnson_2010G-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/StevenJohnson-2010G.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=961&lang=&introDuration=15330&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=830&adKeys=talk=steven_johnson_where_good_ideas_come_from;year=2010;theme=how_the_mind_works;theme=unconventional_explanations;theme=tales_of_invention;theme=the_rise_of_collaboration;event=The+Rise+of+Collaboration;tag=Science;tag=Technology;tag=collaboration;tag=innovation;tag=novel;&preAdTag=tconf.ted/embed;tile=1;sz=512x288;" /><embed src="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf" pluginspace="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" bgColor="#ffffff" width="446" height="326" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" flashvars="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/StevenJohnson_2010G-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/StevenJohnson-2010G.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=961&lang=&introDuration=15330&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=830&adKeys=talk=steven_johnson_where_good_ideas_come_from;year=2010;theme=how_the_mind_works;theme=unconventional_explanations;theme=tales_of_invention;theme=the_rise_of_collaboration;event=The+Rise+of+Collaboration;tag=Science;tag=Technology;tag=collaboration;tag=innovation;tag=novel;"></embed></object>

Michael

EDIT: After posting this, I just watched this lecture once more and noticed: it ends with a beautiful quote I missed the first time around:

Chance favors the connected mind.

Me, I'll go with Virgil and the 3rd Marine Regiment: "Fortune favors the bold."

[Peter]

"Chance favors the prepared mind." Louis Pasteur

Michael, that Ted Talk lecture was wonderful.

Peter

[anthony]

"The more I practise, the luckier I get".

(S.A. golfer, Gary Player.)

[Ellen Stuttle]

Kirez wrote about Atlantis:

"An increasingly popular unmoderated forum for Objectivist whatever... wild traffic levels and anything goes."

and Roger Bissell replied:

"Considering that mandate from Kirez and the all-too-eager willingness of list members to comply, it is a minor miracle that ~any~ coherent discussion takes place. Yet, I'd say that ~despite~ the owner-authorized rowdiness of Atlantis, a rather ~impressive~ amount of good discussion occurs."

end quote

I'd say that it was *because of* "the owner-authorized rowdiness of Atlantis" that the impressive amount of good discussion occurred. Plus the combination of personalities -- an alchemical mix that struck fire, both of the infuriated and the enlightened types.

Ellen

[Philip Coates]

> I'd say that it was *because of* "the owner-authorized rowdiness of Atlantis" that the impressive amount of good discussion occurred. [Ellen]

My recollection is the exact opposite:

Atlantis was a huge downhill slide from OWL in terms of quality. People were clever, snarky, rowdy, repetitious, etc.

And to the extent they focused on that kind of supreficiality, they might have been amusing but the level of intellectual content, original insights dropped off.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Philip Coates

[pippi]

.

There I go deleting posts-at least I can spell, I wouldn't get petty about spelling unless someone threw it in my face first

Phil: And to the extent they focused on that kind of supreficiality,

Edited April 14, 2011 by pippi

[Rich Engle]

> I'd say that it was *because of* "the owner-authorized rowdiness of Atlantis" that the impressive amount of good discussion occurred. [Ellen]

My recollection is the exact opposite:

Atlantis was a huge downhill slide from OWL in terms of quality. People were clever, snarky, rowdy, repetitious, etc.

And to the extent they focused on that kind of supreficiality, they might have been amusing but the level of intellectual content, original insights dropped off.

Hey, Phil.

I was around there back then and I even went so far (God help me) as to read many posts before I attempted to enter (which I did virtually nada).

I do get what you are saying about it, though. You talk about meanness, fucq. I remember the first time I tried to connect to O-folk when I was on CWRUnet; it was a horrid experience.

So I do feel you on that one.

But we should try, try try to not let that trauma enter the present, should we not? I see no goodness in even discussing it, really, outside of (which I think you are trying) what not to do, on one level or another.

I love the clear air of this thread--it is sort of like we won't let the pirates board.

I would love to talk about the nature of conversation.

Best,

rde

Sword Down.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....]

Atlantis was a huge downhill slide from OWL in terms of quality. People were clever, snarky, rowdy, repetitious, etc.

And to the extent they focused on that kind of supreficiality, they might have been amusing but the level of intellectual content, original insights dropped off.

I found OWL mostly a crashing bore and can't off-hand remember anything I got of significance from OWL discussions. (I kept what I might call "dutiful" tabs on OWL discussions in case of something which sparked my interest arising.)

On the other hand, I well remember ATL disputes which were seminal to my own thinking on certain issues, most importantly rights theory and volition. The former I don't expect I'll ever pursue in print. Others are much more qualified than I to discuss rights theory, and life is short. On the latter I think I do have something of worth to say which I would not have "seen" the way I see it except for those discussions on ATL.

You might learn one of these days, Phil, that people really are different. Funny thing is, you're always lecturing people that there might be other factors besides nefarious psychological sources for people's differing opinions -- but then you state your own opinions as facts of reality.

Ellen

[Rich Engle]

but then you state your own opinions as facts of reality.

Oh, most all of us (including you) are in the business of doing that, from time-to-time. And sometimes, we get lucky and are even right about it.

"Even in the social milieu of today there are promising hints of evolutionary emergence by way of conversation. Some governments have fostered collective conversations by choosing citizen members at random to consider the issues, concerns, and dreams of their community. Sometimes the participants simply reflect on how their community is doing and then report their responses. At other times the citizen recruits consider complex issues by interviewing experts from across the political spectrum, deliberating about what should be done, and reporting their findings to government officials, media, and the public at large. Such 'citizen deliberative councils' are described at www.co-intelligence.org . A rich fabric of such conversations would help any society solve problems, resolve conflicts, and adapt to environmental challenges. But a truly evolutionary society would achieve much more. It would regard problems and conflicts not so much as nuisances to be handled, but as opportunities for emergence, for conscious evolution into greater wholeness.

A ~problem~ happens because there is something we're not seeing, that we are not fully taking into account. A ~conflict~ occurs when two or more parts of a whole (a relationship, group, community, and so on) cannot perceive one another as valid members of the larger whole. A consciously evolving society would regard both forms of dissonance as invitations to transform. When that invitation is taken with skill, deep integrity manifests. Everyone takes a step forward, and solutions emerge almost without effort. This magic begins when even a few of the participants, especially those in power, assume good intentions and cooperation. Even more, they trust that evolution is happening, no matter what happens next. Such grounding trust beyond anything that anyone can control or manipulate plays a crucial role in furthering the work."

---MICHAEL DOWD

rde

Trying to pry locking jaws apart from the Phil Dogpile<tm>

Edited April 14, 2011 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If anyone is interested--on a brain level--in why a spirited discussion is generally more fruitful than a dry "civil" one, here is something to think about.

There is an overall categorization of brain parts that is a bit oversimplified, but extremely useful for general observations since it is so accurate on the general level. It is called the "triune brain," i.e., the brain is divided into three parts: (1) the reptilian brain (which controls heartbeat and things like that, and fight-flight responses), (2) the mammalian brain (which controls emotions, sex, basic identification and things like that), and (3) the neocortex (which controls the higher conceptual level).

That's really only a nutshell explanation and far, far from complete, but I believe you get the idea.

All three are interconnected. They do not operate independently. Instead, they operate with emphasis on their respective characteristics, not with exclusivity.

One of the characteristics of the mammalian brain is that it controls long-term memory. This means--physically--a greater number of synaptic connections (dendrites and axons). Where you have more synaptic connections, you also have deeper held conclusions. These are neural pathways. You find these neural pathways in all three brains (actually they all interconnect), but the mammalian brain is especially adept at forming new neural pathways quickly due to the emotion it controls.

When the neocortex interacts freely with the deeper mammalian brain portions of neural pathways, you can get all kinds of connections that were not evident before. But the only way to get the neocortex flashing gangbusters on the mammalian brain is to get the mammalian brain wound up with emotion.

Spirited discussions do the trick.

At one extreme, boredom is the enemy of long-term memory and innovation. Strong emotions are the fertilizer of both. At the other extreme, excessively strong emotions hijack the brain and then all thought goes out the window.

So within a certain range of emotional intensity, great thoughts emerge. Spirited discussions are well-suited to keeping proper mental balance for this to happen over relatively long periods of time.

I think that's cool.

Michael