Galt's Oath

[Wolf DeVoon]

7 minutes ago, Don E. said:

you're dishonest, and dishonesty offends me ... prove to me that you are not dishonest ... which I think is dishonest ... an honest, thinking person ... any honest person ... honestly coming to a conclusion ... intentionally being dishonest ...demonstrating to me that you are not dishonest

This guy needs a punch in the nose, honestly.

[Don E.]

4 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

This guy needs a punch in the nose, honestly.

If violence is the best argument you can come up with, you're not a very reasonable person. Sorry if I used the word "honest" too much for you, but it's one of the most important virtues - not just to Objectivists, but to any decent human being.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Just now, Don E. said:

any decent human being

IIRC, you're the clod who wanted to change people's minds and failed at it. Now I see why.

[anthony]

12 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Hmph. People like me are unable to find a market, aside from putting on a happy mask and swimming with the current, pretending to be normal.

First and foremost is the need to be "productive", irrespective of the market. A (potential) market is a secondary concern.

"A person cannot flourish in the absence of minimal material goods. Yet the heart of happiness resides in how a person leads his life rather than in what he possesses". [Tara Smith, Money is Time]

Abnormal is good, when normal is mind-dead, conformist.

[Brant Gaede]

6 hours ago, Don E. said:

If violence is the best argument you can come up with, you're not a very reasonable person. Sorry if I used the word "honest" too much for you, but it's one of the most important virtues - not just to Objectivists, but to any decent human being.

It's a metaphor, and not an argument. Wolf is trying to give you a jolt not a jolt.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

6 hours ago, Don E. said:

merjet, I joined this forum to meet like-minded people, not to offend people. So I'm sorry that it's come to that.  

I admit I have been offensive to you, but it's only because, so far, based on your interpretation of the beneficiary-breach statement, my impression has been that you're dishonest, and dishonesty offends me. This impression could be mistaken, and I hope it is. So far I've been unable to read between the lines of your terse responses to determine the mindset and motivation behind them. So I asked you those direct questions in order to give you the opportunity to describe your motivation and elaborate on your actual position, and prove to me that you are not dishonest.

I will attempt to elaborate some more. (I'm trying to be as open, honest, and clear with my responses as I can, and I wish you would do the same.) Your interpretation of the beneficiary-breach passage leads to the conclusion that it's always immoral for a father to buy anything for his child, which is a clearly unreasonable conclusion. There is a reasonable interpretation, which is that she was conveying a general principle, not a commandment. You are deliberately choosing the unreasonable interpretation. And to get to that unreasonable conclusion, you first have to take that statement out of context, which I think is dishonest. An honest attempt to understand her ideas would include reading her statements in context, and trying to come up with a reasonable interpretation; that is, trying to determine what she actually meant, what IDEAS she was trying to convey.

I've never met an honest, thinking person who takes statements out of context and over-analyzes them like you seem to be doing. And I don't see how any honest person can think that he can construct a valid interpretation by taking things out of context. So again, the reason I asked you those questions is that I'm trying to determine if you are honestly coming to a conclusion that, to me, seems patently unreasonable and absurd, or if you are intentionally being dishonest and irrational for some purpose known only to you.

As evidence for my argument, let's look at Ayn Rand's beneficiary-breach statement in context. I've highlighted in bold some of the important context that you are ignoring:

So that's the immediate context, which you have ignored. She clearly states that the beneficiary is not her primary concern in the field of morality. And at the same time, although it's not the primary factor in determining morality, the general principle is that it's proper for the actor to be the beneficiary of his own action; as contrasted with altruism (discussed earlier in the chapter) which says the actor must NOT be the beneficiary of his own action. And, she elaborates on what she means by an "injustice" - a sacrifice of one person to another, of the moral to the immoral. The example of a father purchasing things for his daughter clearly doesn't fall into that category of sacrifice, and therefore it is not the kind of thing she's describing as an injustice. 

The next level of context you have ignored, is that this is the Introduction to VOS, where she is giving the briefest overview of Objectivist ethics, and speaking of broad principles, to be discussed further in later chapters. The main goal of the Introduction is to contrast the basic principles of Objectivist ethics with the basic principles altruist ethics. A more complete description of her ethics is given in chapter 1: The Objectivist Ethics, and the rest of the book. And, like I said, she elaborates on her ideas throughout all her writing. If you really wanted to understand her ideas, you wouldn't be taking one sentence out of context and drawing clearly unreasonable conclusions from it. I mean, you would have to think that Ayn Rand is either a moron or a monster to think that she would tell you it's immoral to buy things for your children. So, when you come to a conclusion like that, the only reasonable thing to do is check your premises, and try to figure out where you have gone wrong in your interpretation. 

I've already answered this question in my previous posts, and I've elaborated on it again above. The answer is that it is a general principle, not a commandment. Context matters - both in reading someone's writing, and in evaluating the morality of a specific action. And motivation matters. The beneficiary of an action is not the primary factor in determining its morality. Here's some of what I said before:

The rest of your questions are irrelevant to the discussion I'm attempting to have with you at this time, but I'll answer them if you answer mine first. Once again, if you are interested in demonstrating to me that you are not dishonest, you can do so by answering my questions directly. If you're not interested in that, then I think we can just drop it here, because I'm not going to be satisfied with less than that.

You can't prove a negative.

You're working on the premise motivation has something to do with factual statements qua an argument. Rand herself did that in spades and it came a cropper. It amounts to argumentum ad hominem. All you need to do is refine out the factual statements--alleged and real--and ignore the rest--or, save the rest for last if it makes you feel good to give the bad guy his just desserts. (I think Rand felt that was the sequence--taken overall--she was using considering the context she had laid down with Atlas Shrugged and the teaching of her philosophy by NBI, but it left no room for newbies like when she castigated that woman during her first Donahue interview which needed to be handled much better for the sake of the TV if not the studio audience.)

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

23 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

You can't prove a negative.

There DO NOT exist two non zero integers  m, n  with no common factor   greater than 1 such that (m/n)^2 = 2

PROOF:

Suppose such integers m, n exist.  Then m^2 = 2*n^2

This implies m^2 is even hence  m is even.  Therefore m = 2*k  for some integer k

Hence 4*k^2 = 2*n^2.  Divide by 2 and get 2*k^2 = n^2 

Therefore n is even and divisible by 2.  So 2 is a common factor of m and n  which is a contradiction

QED.

I have just proved a negative.  Here's to you Brant.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 hours ago, Don E. said:

I admit I have been offensive to you, but it's only because, so far, based on your interpretation of the beneficiary-breach statement, my impression has been that you're dishonest, and dishonesty offends me. This impression could be mistaken, and I hope it is. So far I've been unable to read between the lines of your terse responses to determine the mindset and motivation behind them. So I asked you those direct questions in order to give you the opportunity to describe your motivation and elaborate on your actual position, and prove to me that you are not dishonest.

Don,

This brings all kinds of memories back because I used to act and react like this before. Since then, I developed an epistemological method to cut down on the friction I was constantly engaged in, especially when I discussed Ayn Rand with people who disagree with me, and I would like to present it to you. It's about framing.

 

Framing

As a preface, Merlin is not dishonest. He's one of the good guys. He and I often go at it, but I've never felt this was due to dishonesty. (After running a forum for about 10 years, I can give a masterclass on what dishonest posting looks like. I've seen it all. )

So, if he is honest, why on earth does he see an interpretation of Rand's words that, to you, is so obviously wrong? The answer is, it's due to a frame. Sometimes in our subcommunity, we call this context, but it cuts deeper. It's one of the ways we gather, filter and judge information.

I do not always know what Merlin's frames are, but I do know many of them are different than mine. So until I discover what they are, I withhold my judgment on the value of his ideas. And, as a person, I know him. He's good people, albeit a little too acerbic and acidic at times. I will banter and engage and thrust and parry with him, but I've known him for enough years online to know he is not motivated by attacking Rand, trying to play mind games, poisoning the well, etc. He just often sees things from a severely different angle than I do.

I have a semi-autistic stepson and it's a similar experience. I'm not saying or even implying Merlin has that problem, but it's a good illustration of a similarity where you have to learn to see through the lens of the other in order to understand them. (I'm tempted to probe this analogy further, but I have a feeling the more I mess in it, the worse it will smell. )

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about cognitively. Here is a passage from a book called Story Proof by Kendall Haven. (The example he cites comes from The Ideal Problem Solver by Bransford and Stein, but I haven't read that book yet, so I quote from the one I did read.)

From a typical Objectivist view, how would you interpret the following passage? If you want to get the full benefit of what I am saying, you must read this and try to make sense of it.

Quote

Sally let loose a team of gophers. The plan backfired when a dog chased them away. She then threw a party but the guests failed to bring their motorcycles. Furthermore, her stereo system was not loud enough. Sally spent the next day looking for a ‘‘Peeping Tom’’ but was unable to find one in the Yellow Pages. Obscene phone calls gave her some hope until the number was changed. It was the installation of a blinking neon light across the street that finally did the trick. Sally framed the ad from the classified section and now has it hanging on her wall.

If you are like me and have just come across this, you will think it sounds like Gertrude Stein (or Rand's parody of her, Lois Cook from The Fountainhead), or maybe James Joyce stream-of-consciousness or something like that.

Why would you think that? Because your frame is an assumption that written stories must make sense on first reading and only anti-conceptual creeps write like that. They are trying to destroy the mind. Maybe they are even dishonest.

Now let's try a different frame, which is further information, but frame information. Read the following statement, then reread the passage.

Sally hates the woman who moved in next door and wants to drive her out.

Does it make sense now?

A frame is how the human mind gives meaning to details. So if our frames are vastly different, we could both be looking at a concrete (like a quote) and totally talk past each other. Which is what you and Merlin are doing.

One note of caution on cognitive frames. They are often very hard to detect in a discussion and, more often than not, a person is not even aware of the frames he uses. (This is a long discussion outside of the scope right now. But it's true. It stems from the automated way frames work in joining different areas of the brain together to form a neural pathway and circuit.)

One last point on framing. I happen to disagree with Merlin's interpretation of Galt's oath, but he sure as hell made me think about it and rethink about it. That is the value of engaging someone who thinks radically different than you do. And I'm still not sure I have seen Merlin's entire frame. (btw - I love quirky by default. I was just built that way. )

It doesn't make any difference, though, because there is a cut-off point where I lose interest, especially if I think I'm starting to look so much at the leaves on a tree I can't see the path in the forest, much less the forest itself. So I take the approach that he and I disagree and that's OK. One day we might get back to this. Or not. In the meantime, he has every right to his own mind as do I to mine. Neither of us suffers with this disagreement.

 

Cognitive normative sequence

One day I was in a discussion about something or other, then reread "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art" in The Romantic Manifesto. Rand talked about "normative abstractions" as opposed to "cognitive abstractions" and a light-bulb went off in my head. Here's a Rand quote from that essay:

Quote

While cognitive abstractions identify the facts of reality, normative abstractions evaluate the facts... Cognitive abstractions deal with that which is; normative abstractions deal with that which ought to be...

It hit me. If I want to understand something (or someone) with my conscious awareness, my reason, I must identify it correctly before I evaluate it. Duh...

But humans have a hell of a lot of pre-formed evaluations sitting in our subconscious waiting to frame everything our conscious awareness thinks about. This is the default situation of our minds. (Another long discussion outside the scope here.)

So I thought why not slow my thinking down at times and do it on purpose to get the sequence right? And I came up with an epistemological method of what I call a "cognitive before normative approach." I don't claim any great discovery with this. But I did put words to it that are useful. 

This approach requires three things: (1) you have to choose to do it with your conscious volition, (2) you have to turn off your emotions (except curiosity) during the cognitive stage, and (3) it takes a lot of effort.

After you start doing this, you start automating the approach and don't need to purposely make a choice to do it with each new thing you encounter. And with automation, it starts taking less effort. But before then, you have to do it the way I said for it to work. It's a skill, not just knowledge.

But think about it. Doesn't it make sense that you need to know what something is correctly before you can evaluate it correctly? I see so many people do the contrary. They come across something new with preconceived evaluations, an image of something similar in a form of "what ought to be," then they try to fit what they see to that image while ignoring and/or condemning everything else that doesn't fit.

Take a look at your statement above and you will see that you committed this error. You started by saying, "I admit I have been offensive to you," but then gave your reasons as "my impression has been," "this impression could be mistaken," "I've been unable to read between the lines," and so on. In other words, you didn't know what something was correctly, you even admitted it, but you not only judged it as dishonest, you used your judgment based on what you didn't yet know to justify being offensive to a person.

How could that ever be called using your reason correctly?

(Please believe me, I'm not pointing fingers or being aggressive. I'm trying to present a process to you that, I believe, will help you avoid making errors of reason. But like all things of this nature, you have to show the problem and solution, not just the solution.)

Let me give you a hint at where this habit comes from in O-Land. Unfortunately, it comes from Rand herself. As primates, we initially learn behavior (and other things) by imitation. That's mostly subconscious, too. Rand is so convincing in blasting people, it's very easy to adopt her emotional attitudes by imitation. You just don't see it as you adopt it.

I speak as one who used to do this all the time until I realized I was tired of constantly creating pointless friction, especially when I was not making an effort to correctly identify things before sounding off. I don't have to live like that and neither do you (if you don't want to). The solution is both simple and rational: identify correctly, then judge, then let the emotions loose and act--in that sequence.

 

Control

This is the last point I want to discuss here. When people in our subcommunity get aggressive, they generally adopt a control rhetoric. I think I know where this comes from. A lot of people get attracted to Rand because they don't understand people and have been hurt by a lot of irrational things that others did to them over the years. They almost feel helpless before so much random hostility and restrictions they have endured and they don't know how to make it stop.

Then they come across Rand's punch-back framing of important ideas and it is very attractive to them. Suddenly things are a lot clearer and they can not only fit the actions and reactions of other people to a cognitive frame that makes sense to them, they get to do a little payback. That feels damn good after all they've been through. (Once again, I speak from experience, both personal and observed, not just supposition.)

The booby-trap here is to limit one's awareness horizon. Since one discovers (with a lot of relief and resentment, I might add) that he was not the thing that was wrong, that the people who hurt him were fucked up, so to speak, he begins to distrust everything that is not his own perspective. And that leads such a person to project his own perspective on another, then argue from that perspective. Here's an example of what I mean.

You wrote: "I asked you those direct questions in order to give you the opportunity... and prove to me that you are not dishonest..."

Your presumption is that Merlin wants such an opportunity and he feels some kind of inner need to prove to you something (anything) about his own morality. (I want to quip, why do all that when a simple "fuck you" would do? But this is serious. But I still can't resist looking from Merlin's perspective. I don't see him resonating with any of your offers when a simple "fuck you" would do, too. )

Your frame is what I call the "control" tone. You are writing in terms of controlling the other person in things you don't really control--and can't control even if you truly wanted to. (I don't believe people who write like this truly want to control other people like brainless puppets. They just fall off into another bad epistemological habit that is, frankly, not their fault. They step on a mental booby-trap, so to speak, and this is how they learn to deal with it so that it makes sense to them.)

If you use the cognitive before normative approach, you would frame what you wrote in terms of controlling yourself, making sure your cognitive knowledge was in order, before you would evaluate the other, much less control him. You would write: "I asked you those direct questions to understand better... and be absolutely clear before I make a judgment."

In fact, I am sure you feel the need for this. You already showed signs of wanting to do it by asking what he meant, even as you blasted him preemptively.

After identifying correctly, if you find someone is dishonest or whatever, my advice is to get away from that person. But that's after doing the cognitive work first.

If you find your information is incomplete, my advice is to try to understand, even when it's thorny. At least work on this up to a point of diminishing returns. Then you can let your normative beast out. More often than not, you will find yourself enriched this way, not hurt.

 

Anyway, this is just a bunch of stuff for you to think about. Agree... disagree... it's your mind and you are in the driver's seat of it...

Michael

[anthony]

I can't ever fault honesty and that's what I've seen DonE spelling out and requesting. That he doesn't know that Merjet is not being purposefully dishonest, is likely because he hasn't had a track record with him like we all have. So-- two honest guys and thinkers. I'll add, it might have all been circumvented by Merjet conceding he made an innocent error of interpretation .

[Don E.]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

... I developed an epistemological method to cut down on the friction I was constantly engaged in, especially when I discussed Ayn Rand with people who disagree with me, and I would like to present it to you. It's about framing....

Michael, thank you very much for that thoughtful reply. Very interesting and enlightening, and wise. I'm glad you appreciate that I'm not trying to be offensive, because that's not my goal. I will try to be more tactful, and think about framing. And I think you nailed my perspective exactly, so I'm glad you see where I'm coming from. 

But, I'm still not sure I understand what merjet's frame is. I tried to be clear that I don't want to believe that merjet is dishonest, but I did want to make it clear that that's the impression I was getting, and that I couldn't come up with any other explanation for his arguments. Because, if I ever gave someone the impression that I was dishonest, I would definitely want them to tell me, and give me a chance to explain myself. But maybe I didn't make any of that clear. I thought I was being patient and courteous by giving him that chance before I came to a final conclusion about him. And I also thought I gave him several chances. But maybe it didn't come across that way. So I admit I probably could have chosen my words better and taken a less offensive tone. And I do recognize that he might have no interest in proving his honesty to me or elaborating on his reasoning. That's why in my last post I said I was willing to drop it here, to avoid further conflict.

2 hours ago, anthony said:

I can't ever fault honesty and that's what I've seen DonE spelling out and requesting. That he doesn't know that Merjet is not being purposefully dishonest, is likely because he hasn't had a track record with him like we all have. So-- two honest guys and thinkers. I'll add, it might have all been circumvented by Merjet conceding he made an innocent error of interpretation .

Thanks, anthony. I'm glad you recognize that I'm trying to be honest. 

And to merjet, I've been trying to give plenty of reasoning and evidence for my arguments, both for my interpretation of the Rand passage, and also for my impression of you. But it seems to me as if you are not attempting to refute any of my arguments or evidence. It appears to me that you are just evading all of my reasoning and evidence, and continuing down an unreasonable path. So I'm not sure where to go from there. Based on Michael's advice about framing, I won't assume that you are actually evading evidence or reason. I'll just say, I still have no idea what you're attempting to do - it makes no sense to me. And I would ask you to please elaborate on your position, so I can understand your frame and motivation better.

 

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote: I have just proved a negative.  end quote

A negative is less than nothing. And if it is less than nothing, then that particular nothing doesn’t exist. You can’t look at nothing. You can’t touch nothing. So, Ba’al is proposing a double negative requiring that they be multiplied together to spring into existence. I have always been dubious of that claim. I have less than a chicken. Let’s multiply that times your less than a chicken and we will have a whole chicken in the pot. Mathematical magicians like Ba’al don’t need the skeptical but Amazing, Randy to debunk them.

My proof? Mathematician Danya Rose wrote: For example, "There won't be no cat," to me implies amplification. Similarly, "There won't be no cat," implies same, and also, "There won't be no cat." Conversely, "There won't be no cat," would likely imply negation of negative. In all of these the tone of expression also gives some of it away, and other nonverbal indicators as well. end quote

From Wikipedia: Schrödinger's cat is thought a experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat that may be simultaneously both alive and dead, a state known as a quantum superposition, as a result of being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement) in the course of developing the thought experiment. end quote

Hmmph! Next Ba’al will have us believe that birds are the remnants of dinosaurs and he can contact your great urgromutter (German for grandmother OR oumagrootjie which is Africaans for grandmother, Tony) in the spirit world. For a modest fee. Don’t fall for his ruse and become entangled in his scheme.

Tony admonished everyone: Abnormal is good, when normal is mind-dead, conformist. end quote

Heed his words.

Peter  

[BaalChatzaf]

2 minutes ago, Peter said:

Ba’al wrote: I have just proved a negative.  end quote

A negative is less than nothing. And if it is less than nothing, then that particular nothing doesn’t exist. You can’t look at nothing. You can’t touch nothing. So, Ba’al is proposing a double negative requiring that they be multiplied together to spring into existence. I have always been dubious of that claim. I have less than a chicken. Let’s multiply that times your less than a chicken and we will have a whole chicken in the pot. Mathematical magicians like Ba’al don’t need the skeptical but Amazing, Randy to debunk them.

My proof? Mathematician Danya Rose wrote: For example, "There won't be no cat," to me implies amplification. Similarly, "There won't be no cat," implies same, and also, "There won't be no cat." Conversely, "There won't be no cat," would likely imply negation of negative. In all of these the tone of expression also gives some of it away, and other nonverbal indicators as well. end quote

From Wikipedia: Schrödinger's cat is thought a experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat that may be simultaneously both alive and dead, a state known as a quantum superposition, as a result of being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement) in the course of developing the thought experiment. end quote

Hmmph! Next Ba’al will have us believe that birds are the remnants of dinosaurs and he can contact your great urgromutter (German for grandmother OR oumagrootjie which is Africaans for grandmother, Tony) in the spirit world. For a modest fee. Don’t fall for his ruse and become entangled in his scheme.

Tony admonished everyone: Abnormal is good, when normal is mind-dead, conformist. end quote

Heed his words.

Peter  

In logic  a negative is a denial.  If P is a proposition then -P  is the proposition not-P  or P is not the case.

[BaalChatzaf]

3 minutes ago, Peter said:

Ba’al wrote: I have just proved a negative.  end quote

A negative is less than nothing. And if it is less than nothing, then that particular nothing doesn’t exist. You can’t look at nothing. You can’t touch nothing. So, Ba’al is proposing a double negative requiring that they be multiplied together to spring into existence. I have always been dubious of that claim. I have less than a chicken. Let’s multiply that times your less than a chicken and we will have a whole chicken in the pot. Mathematical magicians like Ba’al don’t need the skeptical but Amazing, Randy to debunk them.

My proof? Mathematician Danya Rose wrote: For example, "There won't be no cat," to me implies amplification. Similarly, "There won't be no cat," implies same, and also, "There won't be no cat." Conversely, "There won't be no cat," would likely imply negation of negative. In all of these the tone of expression also gives some of it away, and other nonverbal indicators as well. end quote

From Wikipedia: Schrödinger's cat is thought a experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat that may be simultaneously both alive and dead, a state known as a quantum superposition, as a result of being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement) in the course of developing the thought experiment. end quote

Hmmph! Next Ba’al will have us believe that birds are the remnants of dinosaurs and he can contact your great urgromutter (German for grandmother OR oumagrootjie which is Africaans for grandmother, Tony) in the spirit world. For a modest fee. Don’t fall for his ruse and become entangled in his scheme.

Tony admonished everyone: Abnormal is good, when normal is mind-dead, conformist. end quote

Heed his words.

Peter  

We have a flock of wild turkeys in our back  yard.  My wife and I refer to them as our pet dinosaurs.....

Schoedinger's Cat was a parable about  quantum super position wherein a system can be in several states at the same time.

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote: In logic a negative is a denial.  If P is a proposition then -P is the proposition not-P or P is not the case . . . . Schoedinger's Cat was a parable about quantum super position wherein a system can be in several states at the same time. end quote

So you admit it? Your two negative, quantum cats (or chickens) is a parable and don’t equal a “REAL” animal? Tell that to the woman in Florida who was attacked by an alligator.

I am reading, “Dictator” by Robert Harris and it is extremely good . Cicero’s scribe Tiro had his own short hand, and abbreviations of his, like etc., e.g., etcetera still exist. The author mixes in Tiro’s actual writing with the fictional story. I think at the time of the story Cicero was 49 and Tiro was 46. As they cross the Mediterranean in a boat manned by a crew of 20, with a chest of gold, Tiro is reminiscing about his long life. How much time do I have left? Me a slave living to be 46. The universe is so vast and dark. Sigh. Tiro lived to be exactly 100 so he hadn’t yet lived half his life!

Peter   

[BaalChatzaf]

14 minutes ago, Peter said:

Ba’al wrote: In logic a negative is a denial.  If P is a proposition then -P is the proposition not-P or P is not the case . . . . Schoedinger's Cat was a parable about quantum super position wherein a system can be in several states at the same time. end quote

So you admit it? Your two negative, quantum cats (or chickens) is a parable and don’t equal a “REAL” animal? Tell that to the woman in Florida who was attacked by an alligator.

I am reading, “Dictator” by Robert Harris and it is extremely good . Cicero’s scribe Tiro had his own short hand, and abbreviations of his, like etc., e.g., etcetera still exist. The author mixes in Tiro’s actual writing with the fictional story. I think at the time of the story Cicero was 49 and Tiro was 46. As they cross the Mediterranean in a boat manned by a crew of 20, with a chest of gold, Tiro is reminiscing about his long life. How much time do I have left? Me a slave living to be 46. The universe is so vast and dark. Sigh. Tiro lived to be exactly 100 so he hadn’t yet lived half his life!

Peter   

Schroedinger was trying to make super position more understandable for people who did not have the math for quantum theory.  Quantum theory is so counter-intuitive that without the math it cannot be properly understood.

[Brant Gaede]

11 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

There do not exist two non zero integers  m, n  with no common factor   greater than 1 such that (m/n)^2 = 2

PROOF:

Suppose such integers m, n exist.  Then m^2 = 2*n^2

This implies m^2 is even hence  m is even.  Therefore m = 2*k  for some integer k

Hence 4*k^2 = 2*n^2.  Divide by 2 and get 2*k^2 = n^2 

Therefore n is even and divisible by 2.  So 2 is a common factor of m and n  which is a contradiction

QED.

I have just proved a negative.  Here's to you Brant.

 

With a tautology?

--Brant

(I don't know if it is a tautology)

[Wolf DeVoon]

5 hours ago, Don E. said:

I'm glad you recognize that I'm trying to be honest.

Double guffaw. First that you're trying to be, and second because it matters to you what other people think. What kind of Objectivism is that?

[Brant Gaede]

5 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Double guffaw. First that you're trying to be, and second because it matters to you what other people think. What kind of Objectivism is that?

No fair. Honesty requires trying and Rand cared what (some) other people thought (of her), and if she wasn't an Objectivist . . .

--Brant

trying to be rational

[Wolf DeVoon]

11 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

trying to be rational

Very commendable, Brant. I've gone over to the Silly Side.

 

[Peter]

Brant wrote: No fair. Honesty requires trying . . . end quote

One of the best scenes in all of literature is of Dagny Taggart in “Atlas Shrugged,” fighting a philosophical and Romantic battle for Hank Reardon at a cocktail party and winning. But is she honest? She is stealing another woman’s man.
 
“This?” Lillian was saying, extending her arm with the metal bracelet for the inspection of two smartly groomed women. “Why no, it is not from a hardware store, it’s a very special gift from my husband. Oh yes, of course it is hideous. But don’t you see? It’s supposed to be priceless. Of course, I would exchange it for a common diamond bracelet any time, but somehow nobody will offer me one for it, even though it is so very, very valuable. Why? My dear, it’s the first thing ever made of Rearden Metal.”
 
Dagny did not see the room. She did not hear the music. She felt the pressure of dead stillness against her eardrums. She did not know the moment that preceded, or the moments that were to follow. She did not know those involved, neither herself, nor Lillian, nor Rearden, nor the meaning of her own action. It was a single instant, blasted out of context. She had heard. She was looking at the bracelet of green-blue metal.
 
She felt the movement of something being torn off her wrist, and she heard her own voice saying in the great stillness, very calmly, a voice cold as a skeleton, naked of emotion, “If you are not the coward that I think you are, you will exchange it.”
 
On the palm of her hand, she was extending her diamond bracelet to Lillian.
 
“You’re not serious, Mrs. Taggart?” said a woman’s voice.
 
It was not Lillian’s voice. Lillian’s eyes were looking straight at her. She saw them. Lillian knew that she was serious.
 
“Give me that bracelet,” said Dagny, lifting her palm higher, the diamond band glittering across it.
 
“This is horrible!” cried some woman. It was strange that the cry stood out so sharply. Then Dagny realized that there were people standing around them and that they all stood in silence. She was hearing sounds now, even the music; it was Halley’s mangled Concerto, somewhere far away.
 
She saw Rearden’s face. It looked as if something within him were mangled, like the music; she did not know by what. He was watching them.
 
Lillian’s mouth moved into an upturned crescent. It resembled a smile. She snapped the metal bracelet open, dropped it on Dagny’s palm, and took the diamond band.
 
“Thank you, Mrs. Taggart,” she said.
 
Dagny’s fingers closed about the metal. She felt that; she felt nothing else.
 
Lillian turned, because Rearden had approached her. He took the diamond bracelet from her hand. He clasped it on her wrist, raised her hand to his lips and kissed it.
 
He did not look at Dagny.
 
Lillian laughed, gaily, easily, attractively, bringing the room back to its normal mood.
 
“You may have it back Mrs. Taggart, when you change your mind,” she said.
 
Dagny had turned away. She felt calm and free. The pressure was gone. The need to get out had vanished.
 
She clasped the metal bracelet on her wrist. She liked the feel of the weight against her skin. Inexplicably, she felt a touch of feminine vanity, the kind she had never experienced before: the desire to be seen wearing this particular ornament.
From pages 149-150 of “Atlas Shrugged.”

[Wolf DeVoon]

3 minutes ago, Peter said:

“Thank you, Mrs. Taggart,” she said.

Who is Mrs. Taggart? -- Dagny's mom?

[Peter]

Imagine Wolf all dressed in black and riding a horse across the old west to the theme song:

 

“Have Gun, Will Travel,” reads the card of a man.
A knight without armor in a savage land.
His fast gun for hire, reads the calling wind.
A soldier of fortune is the man called Paladin.”
 

He said a guy deserves a punch in the nose. Aaooh, I joke that Wolf is a werewolf in London, but sometimes Wolf seems like Paladin in that old television western, “Have Gun, Will Travel” starring Richard Boone as the honorable gunfighter, Paladin. Does Wolf compare favorably to Rostand’s “Cyrano de Bergerac,” Daniel Craig’s 007, or Jessica Fletcher on “Murder She Wrote?” Well maybe not a grandma. That was for laughs. Does he see himself like the man who put an ad in “Soldier of Fortune” magazine stating he will fight for “Any cause but Red.”? But Paladin would also stipulate, “I will only fight for a cause that is just.”

 

Navy Seals. Pilots who land a plane in The East River. First responders. Cops. Back to fiction we have Lee Child’s Jack Reacher, or Spencer in the “Spencer For Hire,” series by Robert B. Parker or the same author’s Jesse Stone are other examples of an honorable person who will go to great lengths to accomplish a mission, while never doing a dishonorable deed. Spencer would instantly hand back a retaining fee to the person hiring him and switch allegiances to the other warring camp, if he discovers he has been lied to. If the other faction has Right on its side then that is where our hero will be. His morality is absolute.
 
High School girls and ladies of all ages know of instances where they were being hassled in the hallways, the classroom, in a bar, or on the job by some sinister Lothario. You ask them to stop repeatedly but they sneer in your face, or pat you on the butt, like Fox’s News bigshot Roger Ailles. Yet just one word in a certain person’s ear and the Lothario is next seen limping in the hallways and turning his bruised face away from you, or he is being escorted out of the building by your Human Resources Representative. The bastard got what he deserved. Thanks Wolf!
 
An intellectual Paladin might be a thinker and writer who debates in public forums or fights printed battles in freedom loving publications. Or they might write letters to the editor, or occupy a place of honor at Objectivist Living. The fact that they are paid for services rendered, is not an issue if the Paladins are fighting for the right causes and never compromise their principles. They may work for nothing or you might pay them with gold coins. You might even pay them with your soul. Does Paladin live in Laissez Faire City?

 

This was a paid advertisement for Wolf Devoon.

 Peter

[Wolf DeVoon]

15 minutes ago, Peter said:

Does Paladin live in Laissez Faire City?

I have to hand it to you, Peter, well written. Back on topic, I wrote this just before I put on the black gun belt.
 

Quote

In a grown-up world, where thoughtful people understand the difference between the truth of a proposition and an ad hominem attack on the person who said it, it matters that "Evil requires the sanction of the victim." Rand never gave her enemies, competitors, associates, or admirers that sanction, not even when she was wrong and they were right.

It is undoubtedly true that Rand made mistakes. She suffered. She was influenced by Nietzsche and Spillane. But none of that mattered. Her achievement was personal autonomy. It is so rare a human achievement that many of her contemporaries mistook it for madness.

I was in Al Ruddy's office when he tried to resurrect the deal with Rand for the film rights to Atlas Shrugged. She was indeed paranoid, refusing to leave her apartment because "the KGB are trying to kill me!" Maybe they were. I asked Hospers to intervene. He laughed and said she was hooked on amphetamines, completely irrational.

Yesterday, I got out of a beat-up truck, dead tired from a week of brutally hot physical labor, exactly twenty years after John Hospers laughed at an isolated, troubled old woman. When I slammed the door of the truck, my feet were in terrible pain and I had to waddle slowly to a cheap, two-room apartment. "I'm sick of being rational!... I hate being rational!" I shouted to the rest of the neighborhood, with their new cars and spacious homes.

I have to be rational because my life is at stake on a rooftop, surrounded by power cables and puddles of stagnant water. My neighbors are making a six-figure income, doing something they enjoy. They have assets. My wife and I have nothing, except the imperative to stay rational or lose our lives.

It is unbearably horrid, constantly watching my step on a ladder, balancing a 50-lb crate of tools. I hate this work. It barely puts food on the table. Yet, I often recite Galt's creed: I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. It doesn't matter whether Ayn Rand said it as an original thought, or stole it from Stirner, or found it in a box of Cracker Jacks. It doesn't matter whether Neil Schulmann publishes my novel or goes out of business next month. I don't even care if he screws me out of the film rights, and Queenie and I end up toothless old beggars in some nightmare of poverty. I'm in debt beyond any hope of repayment, much of it to personal friends. Anything I earn in the future belongs to the IRS for back taxes.

But for now and forever, there is something that cannot be taken from me. I own one life -- mine -- in prison or out, in sickness, destitution or whatever else happens next. I understand Ayn Rand's personal hell, because she owned her life in just this same way. The only difference between us is that Rand became a wealthy celebrity. If it happens to me, I will be just as shy and stern in public, just as awkward on television and angry about surprise birthday parties.

What have I invented as an author? -- not much. Two make a fire. It means nothing out of context. The hero says "I like being wrong." At a crucial moment in the third act, I wrote three words: Time ribbon stop. Not even a complete sentence... What sort of intellectual achievement is that?

Plenty. It's mine. I understand Hank Rearden perfectly. It's mine.

(reprinted in Eggshell, pp. 77-79)

 

 

[Peter]

Wolf used the phrases: What have I invented as an author? -- not much. Two make a fire. It means nothing out of context. The hero says "I like being wrong." At a crucial moment in the third act, I wrote three words: Time ribbon stop. Not even a complete sentence... What sort of intellectual achievement is that? Plenty. It's mine. I understand Hank Rearden perfectly. It's mine. end quote

“Two make a fire, I like being wrong, Time ribbon stop, Plenty, and It's mine.”

Okay? I guess. Sounds like Tom Hanks in the movie, “Big” when they describe a toy that no kid his mental age would want for Christmas. “I don’t get it,” he says. Say Wolf, Me and some of the guys are going to North Korea to give a petition to Little Kim. Want to come?

Peter

[Don E.]

4 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Double guffaw. First that you're trying to be, and second because it matters to you what other people think. What kind of Objectivism is that?

I disagree that these were "guffaws". The first was just modesty, and I don't know of any Objectivist principle that prohibits modesty. I do believe I am 100% honest. But saying it that way makes me sound like an asshole. And believe it or not, I do make an effort to not be an asshole. (You seem to be doing the opposite.) So that's why I phrased it as "I try" to be honest; I allow others to decide for themselves whether I am or not, even though I know I am, and I don't really care whether they know it or not. My honest actions and honest debates and honest reasoning will speak louder than any mere claim of honesty.

The second is partially but not entirely true - I didn't mean that it matters to me what other people think, as an end in itself. What I meant was, I'm glad I was able to convey my honesty in a way that is recognized as honesty by other reasonable people. It is frustrating to try to communicate ideas and tone and motivation clearly, only to be misunderstood; the goal of communication is to understand, and be understood, but it is not always easy. So I take pride in my accomplishment when I can communicate successfully. That's what "I'm glad" about.