Hi all

[Stryder]

Nice to meet you. Big fan of Rand. This site is a bit overwelming so I didn't find the intro thread till just now. I did post an intro in "Chewing on Ideas" if your interested..

Stryder

[Chris Grieb]

Welcome to OL. I just found your profile page so I have taken off the questions I had. You sound interesting. Other people have been blown off about Objectivism by Peikoff.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Chris Grieb

[Selene]

Stryder:

So I guess I should not talk about the advantages of defensive driving. At any rate, welcome aboard. You'll do fine.

Watch inspirational sci fi as in...?

All women and all men are kinki, it is just a matter of discovery.

"Seems like a fools game to make money in this worlds state anyhoo.. to make progress would be another story." Well said young man.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stryder,

Welcome to OL.

I just read your chewing. I can't speak for anyone but me, but there is a core idea in what you discussed that I would like to mention. I offer this comment as a suggestion of approach, not as any intimidation or anything like that. It is the approach I use.

When I was younger, I was an enormous Randroid. A jerk. Then life happened and I learned many things about myself. Probably the most important was the inestimable value of observing as much first-hand as possible and doing my own thinking regardless of what anyone said, including Rand and including Rand critics. Then after I got involved with an online Objectivist community a few years ago, I went through a small phase of trying to fix Objectivism. Thank goodness that part did not last long.

Nowadays, I prefer the approach of high-end achievers. I take from Rand her many positive and powerful ideas and apply them to the evolving life of me. Although I acknowledge the shortcomings and limitations in some of her thinking and behavior, I don't dwell on them. They don't advance my goals one whit. When I focus on them, I am more concerned with avoiding traps for Michael's life, not bashing or defending Rand.

Some people make an intellectual career out of focusing on what she did wrong or refusing to admit that her shortcomings exist at all. I find both sides a huge waste of time. Garbage, really. A crusade for me has to have an important specific productive goal. Taking sides in that issue is about as far from productive as I can imagine. What is the goal? Basically it is to shove an image of Rand (positive or negative) down the throats of everyone else, lying when needed to advance the image. This always happens, too. I speak from several years of dealing with these folks.

This used to irritate me a lot, especially since the poor souls caught up in that game are quite passionate about it. They constantly try to shove you into their neurosis. Since I used to be an addict and I grew up in the South among racial bigotry, I know first-hand quite a lot about destructive values. Frankly, I find the Rand love-hate game to be a cousin of addiction and bigotry.

There's a big world out here. It is a beautiful place. We can all do wonderful things in it if we wish. I invite you to share your corner with us—your achievements and dreams and ponderings about life and stuff—as we share ours with you. From the tone of your post (especially a serious "thinking for yourself" note I detected), I am pretty sure you have a really good mind. So I can think of no approach more win-win for all.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Some people make an intellectual career out of focusing on what she did wrong or refusing to admit that her shortcomings exist at all.

Now that's a great sentence, Michael! It characterizes two of the behaviors which I encounter so often and find so irritating/frustrating. The first is (usually, in my estimation) a matter of majoring in the minors. Are those errors really the most important things? Correct them --- of course! It's called progress. But if 90% of one's time in thinking about Objectivism is devoted to arguing about Rand's mistakes, then one is surely failing to take advantage of the many significant contributions which Rand has made. And if a lot of one's time is spent trying to argue some sort of secular "infallibility" for Rand - - well, seriously, get a grip!!

Regards,

Bill P

[Stryder]

Chris Grieb,

-I hope you don't judge books by their covers.

-TYVM

-I agree there is quite the Piekoff Affect.

Hi.

Selene,

-I wouldn't mind a discussion about defencive driving. I personally hold that the best defence is a good offence unless you have nowhere to go. I'm also a fan of Rally Sport Racing and dream of racing in it one day.

-Inspirational Sci-Fi like ones that opens doors to new ideas rather than reopening the same door or locking doors before they can be opened.(depending on your point of view)

-Not exactly.

-TYVM

Hello.

Michael,

-I have no intention to choose to fail, thank you for the offer.

I think I could only choose death as an option.

Nice to meet you.

Bill P,

-I hope you send your toe lickings to him directly.

-Thanks for the hello and yes, the Black Adder is a great roll model.

Why are you here?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

-I have no intention to choose to fail, thank you for the offer.

Stryder,

Of all the intellectually foggy pretentious crap I have read on this forum, that comes in the top 10.

I did not offer for you to fail. And many times in life, the human being does not choose it.

Michael

[Stryder]

Michael,

-I have no intention to choose to fail, thank you for the offer.

Stryder,

Of all the intellectually foggy pretentious crap I have read on this forum, that comes in the top 10.

I did not offer for you to fail. And many times in life, the human being does not choose it.

Michael

Then I ask what did you offer, based on what premise?

"I just read your chewing."

What I wrote was after the process of "chewing". A foggy start? Even, dare I say, a bit pretentious?

"I can't speak for anyone but me,..."

Not pretentious here? Is there something in my post that lead you to believe I would assume you would speek for anyone other than yourself less you stated so? Been on a high-seat so long you forgot you place?

"...but there is a core idea in what you discussed that I would like to mention."

Thus the offer..

"I offer this comment as a suggestion of approach, not as any intimidation or anything like that. It is the approach I use."

...and well defigned.

"When I was younger, I was an enormous Randroid. A jerk."

Spoken as you would to a child. Still not pretentious?

"Then life happened and I learned many things about myself."

No definition on what constitutes your 'the happening of life'? Bit foggy no?

"Probably the most important was the inestimable value of observing as much first-hand as possible and doing my own thinking regardless of what anyone said, including Rand and including Rand critics."

When, where, and why did you decide on that technique and how, what quality, and why is it of inestimably valuable? Or did you want this part of your offer to stay foggy?

"Then after I got involved with an online Objectivist community a few years ago, I went through a small phase of trying to fix Objectivism. Thank goodness that part did not last long."

This is the closest thing I could find in your words of wisdom to an offer that you had defigned would be, your invitation at the end of the post is not of your defigned offer. You tried to fix it, the trying didn't last long and it was a good thing, "Thank goodness ...". Do you really think its a good thing to write like this? Misinformation is one thing, bate-n-switch is a con-man's game.

"Nowadays, I prefer the approach of high-end achievers. I take from Rand her many positive and powerful ideas and apply them to the evolving life of me. Although I acknowledge the shortcomings and limitations in some of her thinking and behavior, I don't dwell on them. They don't advance my goals one whit. When I focus on them, I am more concerned with avoiding traps for Michael's life, not bashing or defending Rand."

I'd love to learn, help, and teach you here, there and anywhere. You have yet to show me anything of real value outside of your oppinions of your life of which I have no reference. Do you think you have really made the best choises to get where you are? If so, show me and will show you where I see I stand. From there we can build on the knowledge of eachother, mutually. No more free lunch BBS crap. I know you want it like I do, earn it like I want to. "I invite you to share your corner with us—your achievements and dreams and ponderings about life and stuff—as we share ours with you." your like a hopeless guru, that bit just ticked me off. Truth is relative to the individual and like every human on this earth you have to earn the proper integral connections for critical thinking. Fight me, lets win-win this.

"Some people make an intellectual career out of focusing on what she did wrong or refusing to admit that her shortcomings exist at all."

Thats just silly, why do you see it that way?

"I find both sides a huge waste of time. Garbage, really."

Sounds like its a bit one sided. Didn't know there where sides inside, do tell..

"A crusade for me has to have an important specific productive goal."

Curious, are you assuming I have a "crusade" and that it is lacking a "important specific goal"? What is it and what is it's goal? Whould you like me to tell you first so you can be accuate?

"Taking sides in that issue is about as far from productive as I can imagine."

Again, what sides are those? Your talking to a guy who hopped off the Rand-Wagon almost as soon as I got on. What happened?

"What is the goal? Basically it is to shove an image of Rand (positive or negative) down the throats of everyone else, lying when needed to advance the image. This always happens, too. I speak from several years of dealing with these folks."

Tell me the details and maybe I can shed some light. I'd rather that than allow this windy post blow me away without some nice keepsakes.

"This used to irritate me a lot, especially since the poor souls caught up in that game are quite passionate about it. They constantly try to shove you into their neurosis. Since I used to be an addict and I grew up in the South among racial bigotry, I know first-hand quite a lot about destructive values. Frankly, I find the Rand love-hate game to be a cousin of addiction and bigotry."

Poor souls? U never had a chance.. did you? Sounds like you gave up before you started.

"There's a big world out here. It is a beautiful place. We can all do wonderful things in it if we wish. I invite you to share your corner with us—your achievements and dreams and ponderings about life and stuff—as we share ours with you. From the tone of your post (especially a serious "thinking for yourself" note I detected), I am pretty sure you have a really good mind. So I can think of no approach more win-win for all."

This last bit did-me-in the most... Was I pretentious in my responce, guess so. Was I foggy in my responce, definately. Am I full of it, try me or boot me.

Only one thing will kill my drive for success, proof of my inevitable failure. This weak shit you throw in my face, in everyone's face, what is your goal?

"Basically it is to shove an image of Rand (positive or negative) down the throats of everyone else, lying when needed to advance the image." -(Michael Stuart Kelly)

Truth is proven by the preceiver, one can only ever offer evidence.

End Of Line.

[Selene]

Not road rage...

Ok, I want the OL pharmacy inventoried because there are steroids missing in large quantities.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

I smell a Troll.

Best not to feed them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This thread is better here in the Garbage Pile.

This new dude is piling it on pretty thick.

I don't detect good faith.

Michael

[Stryder]

This thread is better here in the Garbage Pile.

This new dude is piling it on pretty thick.

I don't detect good faith.

Michael

It was the Purple Test. U turned red, blue then yellow. Turn purple aready and lets do something worth our time.

Ninth,

To what end does a troll troll? How about to find true friends? Like minded or not.

[Xray]

To what end does a troll troll?

*** Attention satire - do not take the following seriously!***

What is and to what does a troll troll? What IS Trollism?

This is a serious philosophy board, so before you get started, you will of course need sound epistemological and metaphysical foundations to base your reasoning on.

How much do you know about Trollism? If you are not familiar with it yet, it is best to start with

A. Trolland "Introduction to Trollist Epistemology (ITTE)

Other important works are for example:

"The Virtue of Trollishness"

"Trollosophy - "Who Needs It?"

"Trollism - The Unknown Ideal".

Fiction: The Trollhead and The Troll Shrugged.

As for critics of Trollism, they have - as expected - emptied their bucket of garbage onto this debate to dirty the waters.

"To Troll Or Not To Troll" - that is the question."

"One Man's Troll Is Another Man's Treasure", two biting articles by Trolla Teaser, the sharp-tongued satirical columnist.

I'd also like to direct you to the famous "troll qua troll" debate which led to the split between L. Trolloff and D. Trolley, who each attacked the other's premises as false, when it came to the issue of "life proper to troll".

The debate whether a troll is "an objective absolute which can be qualified" has not yet been settled.

The dispute got so fierce toward the end that H. Trollwanger had to step in to calm things down.

Sharp protests followed from the German writer Thaddäus Troll, who after watching the debate on TV, said he had nothing to do with this fervent troll dispute and felt like throwing his glass of Trollinger, a Geman wine, at the screen each time he heard the name 'troll' there.

*** end of satire****

Just a little comic relief, folks.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

Just a little comic relief, folks.

Funny, good one.

To define our terms, from Wikipedia:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community…with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

...

Application of the term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by attacking its proponent.

Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".

My thoughts: Jonathan’s no Troll (sorry Phil, you just hate each other). Stryder certainly was. Xray, well, the jury’s still out. One thing I don’t get is how you could have read AS 12 times and have such a low opinion of it. The prospect of reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance another 11 ½ times strikes me as completely insane. And then seeking out a Robert Pirsig forum to debate how bad it is. Did Xray like AS at least the first time or two?

[Xray]

My thoughts: Jonathan’s no Troll (sorry Phil, you just hate each other). Stryder certainly was. Xray, well, the jury’s still out.

Neither Jonathan nor I are trolls.

One thing I don’t get is how you could have read AS 12 times and have such a low opinion of it.

I can see this happen during a phase in a person's life at which they still believed in Objectivism.

Often posters mention that they first got acquainted with Rand's fiction at a young age.

The Brandens too were young students when first meeting Rand. Peikoff as well. I have often asked myself if I would have seen through it all so clearly if I had read Rand's novels at a young age, and not decades later.

Although in my youth, I probably would not have chosen such novels at all, but still, suppose my classmates had told me "You've got to read that - it's great!" I might have become curious enough to give it a try.

Young people are often in sort of a limbo - dissatisfied with their current circumstances and philosophy.

And then Rand comes along, seemingly with promise of a preferable alternative.

Some eventually discover the flaws.

Others never scratched the surface, hence, remain dazzled.

See also Dragonfly's post on the following thread: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7712&st=180&p=82241entry82241, (# 187)

The prospect of reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance another 11 ½ times strikes me as completely insane. And then seeking out a Robert Pirsig forum to debate how bad it is. Did Xray like AS at least the first time or two?

No; I didn't. Reading it only once was enough of a drag. I always thought. "Still so many pages pages to go! Is it never going to end?"

Edited November 3, 2009 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

No; I didn't. Reading it only once was enough of a drag. I always thought. "Still so many pages pages to go! Is it never going to end?"

You haven’t read AS 12 times? I thought you wrote that you had, maybe I mixed up a post by you with one by Dragonfly.

[Selene]

Young people are often in sort of a limbo - dissatisfied with their current circumstances and philosophy.

And then Rand comes along, seemingly with promise of a preferable alternative.

Some eventually discover the flaws.

Others never scratched the surface, hence, remain dazzled.

Ms. Xray:

Where is there any data to support that generalization about young people and limbo*.

At least 90% of my friends were not in limbo of any sort at all. We were hard working. Most of us had real jobs at the age of 12 or 13. Almost all of us were doing exceptionally well in school. Therefore, your alleged model was not true when I read Atlas Shrugged.

Adam

*see red rule in post #286 of the Rand Hero thread

[Xray]

You haven’t read AS 12 times?

No, only once.

I thought you wrote that you had, maybe I mixed up a post by you with one by Dragonfly.

I suppose it was this one:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7712&st=140 (#144)

Edited November 4, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Where is there any data to support that generalization about young people and limbo*

C'mon Selene, do you pretend not to know that young people often feel insecure, uncertain about many things, etc.?

At least 90% of my friends were not in limbo of any sort at all. We were hard working. Most of us had real jobs at the age of 12 or 13. Almost all of us were doing exceptionally well in school. Therefore, your alleged model was not true when I read Atlas Shrugged.

A person can appear to be perfectly functioning on the outside and still be in inner limbo about many things.

*see red rule in post #286 of the Rand Hero thread

You are the native speaker, so you can't be ignorant about the meaning of limbo.

limbo

noun

in limbo in a state of uncertainty, neglected, up in the air, in abeyance, betwixt and between, not knowing whether one is coming or going (informal) I felt as though I was in limbo. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/limbo

Just curious: what motivated you to read AS more than 5O (!) times?

Edited November 4, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

You are the native speaker, so you can't be ignorant about the meaning of limbo.

limbo

noun

in limbo in a state of uncertainty, neglected, up in the air, in abeyance, betwixt and between, not knowing whether one is coming or going (informal) I felt as though I was in limbo. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/limbo

Ms. Xray:

The native speaker racket that you employ does not cut it for me. If you are that uninformed about certain terms look them up. I, immediately thought of the following aspect of that word:

(Late Latin limbus) a word of Teutonic derivation, meaning literally "hem" or "border," as of a garment, or anything joined on (cf. Italian lembo or English limb).

In theological usage the name is applied to (a) the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ's triumphant ascension into Heaven (the "limbus patrum"); or (B) to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the "limbus infantium" or "puerorum").

In literary usage the name is sometimes applied in a wider and more general sense to any place or state of restraint, confinement, or exclusion, and is practically equivalent to "prison" (see, e.g., Milton, "Paradise Lost," III, 495; Butler, "Hudibras," part II, canto i, and other English classics). The not unnatural transition from the theological to the literary usage is exemplified in Shakespeare, "Henry VIII," act v, sc. 3. In this article we shall deal only with the theological meaning and connotation of the word.

<h2 id="section1">Limbus patrum</h2> Though it can hardly be claimed, on the evidence of extant literature, that a definite and consistent belief in the limbus patrum of Christian tradition was universal among the Jews, it cannot on the other hand be denied that, more especially in the extra-canonical writings of the second or first centuries B.C., some such belief finds repeated expression; and New Testament references to the subject remove all doubt as to the current Jewish belief in the time of Christ. Whatever name may be used in apocryphal Jewish literature to designate the abode of the departed just, the implication generally is

• that their condition is one of happiness,
• that it is temporary, and
• that it is to be replaced by a condition of final and permanent bliss when the Messianic Kingdom is established.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Since the word is Teutonic in origin, which I think has something to do with Germany, I wanted to clarify and make sure that we were both using the same term with its appropriate meaning syntactically.

Apparently, you took that as an opportunity to have an emotional outburst. OK.

So you meant it in the confused, oh woe is me, I am lost bullshit that you perceive exists in MOST teenagers. I deny that statement.

Prove it.

I will get to the other parts of your post when I have time later.

Get to work and prove your assertion about the "youth" because you are going to have a difficult time proving it and an even more difficult time to make a causal connection to Ayn vs. Marx, Mao, Adolph etc.

Adam

[Xray]

(Selene)"Ms. Xray:

Where is there any data to support that generalization about young people and limbo*."

Good grief! "Data to support?" This is as if one would try to put numbers to the word, several. A generalization is not subject to proof of disproof.

You are the native speaker, so you can't be ignorant about the meaning of limbo.

limbo

noun

in limbo in a state of uncertainty, neglected, up in the air, in abeyance, betwixt and between, not knowing whether one is coming or going (informal) I felt as though I was in limbo. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/limbo

Ms. Xray:

The native speaker racket that you employ does not cut it for me. If you are that uninformed about certain terms look them up. I, immediately thought of the following aspect of that word:

....

Get to work and prove your assertion about the "youth" because you are going to have a difficult time proving it and an even more difficult time to make a causal connection to Ayn vs. Marx, Mao, Adolph etc.

Read my above comment re generalization.

You are obviously trying to embroil me in a redundant 'definition circus' about terms/expressions you perfectly understand, like "to be in limbo".

Edited November 5, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

What is obvious to you is completely unclear to me.

Skip the limbo.

Show me some data on your unsupported statement about the "youth of today".

You have the proof, don't you?

You also have the proof that in comparison to past generations of "youth" the highest percentage of "youth" is influenced by Ayn rather than Marx.

You have that proof, don't you?

Adam

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

What is obvious to you is completely unclear to me.

Skip the limbo.

Show me some data on your unsupported statement about the "youth of today".

You have the proof, don't you?

You also have the proof that in comparison to past generations of "youth" the highest percentage of "youth" is influenced by Ayn rather than Marx.

You have that proof, don't you?

This would just show that one guru can be replaced by another. What's new? It does not erase the phenomenon of guru worship as such.

Show me some data on your unsupported statement about the "youth of today".

First of all, I didn't speak about the youth of today but made a general statement "Young people are often in sort of a limbo - dissatisfied with their current circumstances and philosophy".

Asking me to prove what refers to common knowledge (like e. g. the general statement "two-year-olds often have a pacifier")

is an invitation to do redundant mental gymnastics.

W. V. Quine wrote:

"To disavow the very core of common sense, to require evidence for that which both the physicist and the man in the street accept as platitudinous, is no laudable perfectionism; it is a pompous confusion, a failure to observe the nice distinction between the baby and the bathwater." (end quote)

Quoted in A. George, what would socrates say? New York, 2007.

Words of a wise man. Think about it, Selene.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

No problem. A lot of your assertions are essentially common chatter. Understood.

So your point is "Guruism", but you chose this forum to express your distaste for Guruism. Understood.

You make reference to a school of thought (?), wherein you use identity something or other. Is this an original concept that you developed?

Adam

[Xray]

You make reference to a school of thought (?), wherein you use identity something or other. Is this an original concept that you developed?

You mean the entity identity principle?

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of

non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific

attributes." (Rand)

"A thing is—what it is; its characteristics constitute its identity" (ibid)

I'm applying this as a thinking discipline, which among other things implies ummasking floating abstractions as untied to entities and therefore as meaningless.

I'll demonstrate with an example. On another thread, you asked me if "value to whom and for what" is a valid question.

It is and goes right to the core of what entity identity is about.

Let's take "pride". In Rand's objective values/virtues catalog, it is listed as an objective virtue.

But unless pride is connnected to an individual entity, it hangs in the air as a floating abstraction.

A serial killer can be "proud" of the number of his victims, a four year-old is "proud" of his mudcakes, even my dog shows something like pride when carrying home a large bough in its mouth, as one can see in the animal's body language.

"Reason", "purpose", "self-esteem" (so-called "objective" values)

"Rationality", "productivity", "pride" (so-called "objective" virtues)

Floating abstractions, all of them.

As for the ultimate value "one's life". There exists no entity "one's", or "man". It refers to category and what Rand does is to list values for a category, thus denying individual entity identity. For not everyone's ultimate value is his/her life.

Imo the entity identity principle is also the root of all knowledge. More about this at Epistemology.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Xray