The Crayon Box Problem

[geekgirl]

Again with the blame-shifting... You are ignorant, pretentious, and presumptuous, and at least two of those are pet peeves of mine.

My God, SJW, you really are in your own little world, aren't you? It's just a topic on a web forum, get a grip. I am using it as a tool to get to know YOU. Why would I even care enough to shift blame in any way? What, exactly, is at stake that I would need to resort to such "tactics"? Like I said in the original post, it's not like there's any wrong answers... I'm just trying to understand yours, that's all.

You should be happy I made the effort; you're really not that interesting. In fact, really... who cares?

[sjw]

Again with the blame-shifting... You are ignorant, pretentious, and presumptuous, and at least two of those are pet peeves of mine.

My God, SJW, you really are in your own little world, aren't you? It's just a topic on a web forum, get a grip. I am using it as a tool to get to know YOU. Why would I even care enough to shift blame in any way? What, exactly, is at stake that I would need to resort to such "tactics"? Like I said in the original post, it's not like there's any wrong answers... I'm just trying to understand yours, that's all.

So, the way for you to understand me, is for me to conform to your view of how I should interact with you. I'd hate to be your boyfriend.

You should be happy I made the effort; you're really not that interesting. In fact, really... who cares?

Well, roll out the red carpet, GeekGirl is here.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A people can only handle as much freedom as they can be responsible for. A truly enlightened people could make anarchy work.

GeekGirl,

This is my understanding. I have long stated that I would be an anarchist if we could get bullying out of human nature.

But human beings are hardwired as social animals and to look to authority as one of the inputs for what they know. btw - These are human nature realities often denied by some Objectivists and libertarians.

Rather than debate that, though, I prefer to observe things that anyone can observe. Notice throughout all of human history, all it takes is one bully (and his cronies) to become cunning enough to gain power in a social structure and he can modify the social structure to suit his needs--including the adoption of "legal" ham-handed use of force against innocents.

This is why I am an enormous admirer of the concept of a republic founded on individual rights, but operated by checks and balances on power.

Michael

[Selene]

Again with the blame-shifting... You are ignorant, pretentious, and presumptuous, and at least two of those are pet peeves of mine.

My God, SJW, you really are in your own little world, aren't you? It's just a topic on a web forum, get a grip. I am using it as a tool to get to know YOU. Why would I even care enough to shift blame in any way? What, exactly, is at stake that I would need to resort to such "tactics"? Like I said in the original post, it's not like there's any wrong answers... I'm just trying to understand yours, that's all.

You should be happy I made the effort; you're really not that interesting. In fact, really... who cares?

Shayne, even as a child had perceptual issues...

SHAYNE ...THIS IS A JOKE...A SATIRICAL OBSERVATION ...oh hell...as the GeekGirl said, "In fact, really... who cares?"

[sjw]

LOL. Good one Selene. I like Carlin better:

[Selene]

LOL. Good one Selene. I like Carlin better:

Shayne:

Now you are talking about one of my top five (5) comedians, a true genius. Also, part of a Supreme Court case which we were sure would go our way. Unfortunately, we sort of lost five (5) to four (4). Short decision for a landmark case..Full Text of Case

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that defined the power of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over indecent material as applied to broadcasting. In July 2010, a Second Circuit decision effectively argued that the Pacifica Decision was outdated.

Facts In 1973, a father complained to the FCC that his son had heard the George Carlin routine "Filthy Words" broadcast one afternoon over WBAI, a Pacifica Foundation FM radio station in New York City. Pacifica received a sanction from the FCC, in the form of a letter of reprimand, for allegedly violating FCC regulations which prohibited broadcasting indecent material.

Holding

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC action in 1978, by a vote of 5 to 4, ruling that the routine was "indecent but not obscene". The Court accepted as compelling the government's interests in 1) shielding children from patently offensive material, and 2) ensuring that unwanted speech does not enter one's home. The Court stated that the FCC had the authority to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when children were likely to be among the audience, and gave the FCC broad leeway to determine what constituted indecency in different contexts.

Adam

Post script:

https://www.eff.org/cases/ <<<< Shayne you might want to check out this site as it has a plethora of Intellectual Property cases ...The Electronic Frontier Foundation

Edited January 4, 2011 by Selene

[pippi]

I love Carlin! Think I have seen all the youtube videos out there of him. I think this forum may be a little too 'highbrow' for me sometimes-I could do it certainly - have the capacity - just not the energy or the ambition to participate fully...maybe some time.

Edited January 5, 2011 by pippi

[anthony]

All that being said, how is your crayon box set up? Are there any colors I've missed in mine? It might be helpful to start in broad strokes - because like most quantum things, it can devolve into a mess at the finer level.

GeekGirl,

Seeing as you asked, mine is set up as a divide broadly between authority lovers, and self-authority lovers.

I find it hard going to differentiate and assess others via the political spectrum - hard going but necessary, and rewarding, ultimately. That's the price one has to pay.

You want to be an individualist, you have to treat others the same, right?

Nothing muddies the waters like trying to group oneself and others in political terms; definitions (classical and modern) and human deceit and honest ignorance, all play their part in this I feel. For example, I once argued and debated at length with a self-professed communist who didn't realise he was intrinsically actually an advanced individualist, also, conversely, known 'capitalists' who I would not choose to "do lunch" with.

Politically, I'd probably opt for anarchism if I trusted other people enough - and I don't. I'm not sure I even trust myself that much. ;) The essence of individualism is a way of thinking and living, with the political system to that end only secondary, I believe; and I suspect that Rand, like me, wanted only to be left alone, so chose the closest moral system feasible - American Republicanism.

So all in all, I agree with you that we cannot jump to conclusions, and have to look behind explicit political affiliations, at each person's personal crayon box.

(If that's what you're sayng.)

Tony

[sjw]

Seeing as you asked, mine is set up as a divide broadly between authority lovers, and self-authority lovers.

I see these as the alternatives:

1) Authority of others

2) Authority of your own whims

3) Authority of reason

Shayne

[anthony]

Seeing as you asked, mine is set up as a divide broadly between authority lovers, and self-authority lovers.

I see these as the alternatives:

1) Authority of others

2) Authority of your own whims

3) Authority of reason

Shayne

Shayne,

You won't find me disagreeing with this.

Except that yours' is a more normative-cognitive distinction to my own. The one pre-supposes the other.

I mean, just how long could a sovereign individualist last if he lacked strong adherence to reason? It is the authority-seeker who is most prone to whimsy and semi-rationality - without this all tyrants and priests would not survive.

To come at Rand's much-criticized "man on a desert island" statement from a slightly different angle, the supremely independent person would be vastly more moral (ie, rational, of course) than the Pope. Which only confirms the truth of her statment.

(I'm being silly with this Pope metaphor, but you know what I mean.)

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

delete post. sorry.

Edited January 5, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[sjw]

Shayne,

You won't find me disagreeing with this.

Except that yours' is a more normative-cognitive distinction to my own. The one pre-supposes the other.

I agree with yours, mine just adds an important qualification.

I mean, just how long could a sovereign individualist last if he lacked strong adherence to reason? It is the authority-seeker who is most prone to whimsy and semi-rationality - without this all tyrants and priests would not survive.

I think the majority of people who think they think actually vacillate between my 1 & 2 a good deal of the time. I think it's very common. Reason is easily corruptible by subtle psychological-emotional processes.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Seeing as you asked, mine is set up as a divide broadly between authority lovers, and self-authority lovers.

I see these as the alternatives:

1) Authority of others

2) Authority of your own whims

3) Authority of reason

Shayne

One might now ask just what is "reason" and what is the "authority of reason"? If we come to an interesting solution or realization or creation by a flight of fancy then "reason" would only then begin through validation. The "authority of reason" almost sounds like solving the "problem" of induction. Such a problem in turn seems like a fallacy of trying to artificially bifurcate reasoning from deduction, if you'll pardon my digression. Anyway, "reason" has no authority. The authority comes from the reasoning reasoner. In Rand's case her reasoning tended to be "linear" which seems to be a commonality with the psycho-epistemology of engineers.

--Brant

[sjw]

One might now ask just what is "reason" and what is the "authority of reason"? If we come to an interesting solution or realization or creation by a flight of fancy then "reason" would only then begin through validation. The "authority of reason" almost sounds like solving the "problem" of induction. Such a problem in turn seems like a fallacy of trying to artificially bifurcate reasoning from deduction, if you'll pardon my digression. Anyway, "reason" has no authority. The authority comes from the reasoning reasoner. In Rand's case her reasoning tended to be "linear" which seems to be a commonality with the psycho-epistemology of engineers.

--Brant

The authority comes from having a valid argument.

Shayne

-thinks Brant isn't a very good sophist.

[sjw]

In Rand's case her reasoning tended to be "linear" which seems to be a commonality with the psycho-epistemology of engineers.

--Brant

I find the superiority complex some people get from NOT being engineers fascinating, given that engineers are one category of profession actually crucial to mankind's survival, and actually doing their job. I think if we could kick out the lawyers and politicians from the upper echelons of society and put "linear reasoning" engineers in their place, we'd be a lot better off.

There's no such thing as "linear reasoning" in actual engineering Brant, it's a highly creative, highly non-linear career, unless what you are doing is not actual engineering, but technician work.

Shayne

[Selene]

One might now ask just what is "reason" and what is the "authority of reason"? If we come to an interesting solution or realization or creation by a flight of fancy then "reason" would only then begin through validation. The "authority of reason" almost sounds like solving the "problem" of induction. Such a problem in turn seems like a fallacy of trying to artificially bifurcate reasoning from deduction, if you'll pardon my digression. Anyway, "reason" has no authority. The authority comes from the reasoning reasoner. In Rand's case her reasoning tended to be "linear" which seems to be a commonality with the psycho-epistemology of engineers.

--Brant

The authority comes from having a valid argument.

Shayne

-thinks Brant isn't a very good sophist.

BaalChatzaf, on 05 January 2011 - 02:27 PM, said:

The severe handicap of metaphor (a snake swallowing its tail) led Kelkule to the discovery of the benzine ring. I suspect he knew what he was talking about.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Argument from authority.

Shayne:

This was your response to Robert on the "Another Simple Question" thread. How is this related to your "authority of reason" statement? Or, is it not different, can you explain the distinction please?

Adam

from the semi-sophist school

Edited January 5, 2011 by Selene

[sjw]

One might now ask just what is "reason" and what is the "authority of reason"? If we come to an interesting solution or realization or creation by a flight of fancy then "reason" would only then begin through validation. The "authority of reason" almost sounds like solving the "problem" of induction. Such a problem in turn seems like a fallacy of trying to artificially bifurcate reasoning from deduction, if you'll pardon my digression. Anyway, "reason" has no authority. The authority comes from the reasoning reasoner. In Rand's case her reasoning tended to be "linear" which seems to be a commonality with the psycho-epistemology of engineers.

--Brant

The authority comes from having a valid argument.

Shayne

-thinks Brant isn't a very good sophist.

BaalChatzaf, on 05 January 2011 - 02:27 PM, said:

The severe handicap of metaphor (a snake swallowing its tail) led Kelkule to the discovery of the benzine ring. I suspect he knew what he was talking about.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Argument from authority.

Shayne:

This was your response to Robert on the "Another Simple Question" thread. How is this related to your "authority of reason" statement? Or, is it not different, can you explain the distinction please?

Adam

from the semi-sophist school

Come on, are you really that feeble? If so I should cut you a lot more slack, except for the fact that you combine feeble with impertinent.

"I suspect he knew what he was talking about" is blatant appeal to authority.

Shayne

[anthony]

One might now ask just what is "reason" and what is the "authority of reason"? If we come to an interesting solution or realization or creation by a flight of fancy then "reason" would only then begin through validation. The "authority of reason" almost sounds like solving the "problem" of induction. Such a problem in turn seems like a fallacy of trying to artificially bifurcate reasoning from deduction, if you'll pardon my digression. Anyway, "reason" has no authority. The authority comes from the reasoning reasoner. In Rand's case her reasoning tended to be "linear" which seems to be a commonality with the psycho-epistemology of engineers.

--Brant

The authority comes from having a valid argument.

Shayne

-thinks Brant isn't a very good sophist.

No, I think Brant's got something there. It was bothering me, too.

I lack the background to identify the fallacy of separating reason from the reasoner - then giving it a sort of detached authority - but someone else here will know it.

Anyway, isn't it Platonic idealism?

[sjw]

One might now ask just what is "reason" and what is the "authority of reason"? If we come to an interesting solution or realization or creation by a flight of fancy then "reason" would only then begin through validation. The "authority of reason" almost sounds like solving the "problem" of induction. Such a problem in turn seems like a fallacy of trying to artificially bifurcate reasoning from deduction, if you'll pardon my digression. Anyway, "reason" has no authority. The authority comes from the reasoning reasoner. In Rand's case her reasoning tended to be "linear" which seems to be a commonality with the psycho-epistemology of engineers.

--Brant

The authority comes from having a valid argument.

Shayne

-thinks Brant isn't a very good sophist.

No, I think Brant's got something there. It was bothering me, too.

I lack the background to identify the fallacy of separating reason from the reasoner - then giving it a sort of detached authority - but someone else here will know it.

Anyway, isn't it Platonic idealism?

The Platonism is in your and Brant's context-dropping assertion of bogus meaning into what I said. Brant's motive is clear, I'm not sure about yours but I suspect it is the same, for the meaning of "the alternative is to follow your own whim, the whims of others, or reason" is perfectly clear to any honest reader of Ayn Rand's works.

The fact that human beings can be so dishonest and stupid really pisses me off. You three are a perfect example of why the values of individual rights do not prevail. Look at out at what you most hate about society, and then look in the mirror, it's exactly the same: irrationality.

Shayne

[Selene]

One might now ask just what is "reason" and what is the "authority of reason"? If we come to an interesting solution or realization or creation by a flight of fancy then "reason" would only then begin through validation. The "authority of reason" almost sounds like solving the "problem" of induction. Such a problem in turn seems like a fallacy of trying to artificially bifurcate reasoning from deduction, if you'll pardon my digression. Anyway, "reason" has no authority. The authority comes from the reasoning reasoner. In Rand's case her reasoning tended to be "linear" which seems to be a commonality with the psycho-epistemology of engineers.

--Brant

The authority comes from having a valid argument.

Shayne

-thinks Brant isn't a very good sophist.

BaalChatzaf, on 05 January 2011 - 02:27 PM, said:

The severe handicap of metaphor (a snake swallowing its tail) led Kelkule to the discovery of the benzine ring. I suspect he knew what he was talking about.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Argument from authority.

Shayne:

This was your response to Robert on the "Another Simple Question" thread. How is this related to your "authority of reason" statement? Or, is it not different, can you explain the distinction please?

Adam

from the semi-sophist school

Come on, are you really that feeble? If so I should cut you a lot more slack, except for the fact that you combine feeble with impertinent.

"I suspect he knew what he was talking about" is blatant appeal to authority.

Shayne

Shayne:

So, we are back to the ad hominem answers.

OK

Be well.

Adam

[sjw]

I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.

This—the supremacy of reason—was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism. (For a definition of reason, see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.) Reason in epistemology leads to egoism in ethics, which leads to capitalism in politics.

--Ayn Rand

The supremacy of reason is the most important value of Rand's philosophy, in both my assessment and hers. If you didn't get this out of it, you got nothing.

Shayne

[anthony]

The fact that human beings can be so dishonest and stupid really pisses me off. You three are a perfect example of why the values of individual rights do not prevail. Look at out at what you most hate about society, and then look in the mirror, it's exactly the same: irrationality.

Shayne

Easy does it, Shayne. You are talking about an honest and thoughtful OL'er there. One who has never displayed sinister motivations.

And I have not yet got round to the other two - Adam, and myself.

This could shape up to a fruitful debate, and I'm learning something, so why raise the temperature so needlessly?

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

In Rand's case her reasoning tended to be "linear" which seems to be a commonality with the psycho-epistemology of engineers.

--Brant

I find the superiority complex some people get from NOT being engineers fascinating, given that engineers are one category of profession actually crucial to mankind's survival, and actually doing their job. I think if we could kick out the lawyers and politicians from the upper echelons of society and put "linear reasoning" engineers in their place, we'd be a lot better off.

There's no such thing as "linear reasoning" in actual engineering Brant, it's a highly creative, highly non-linear career, unless what you are doing is not actual engineering, but technician work.

Shayne

I'm always willing to be educated. I'm not an engineer and take your word for this. I have no superiority complex about a profession I could not do well in--or at all--never mind why.

--Brant

superior to inferior

[Brant Gaede]

I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.

This—the supremacy of reason—was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism. (For a definition of reason, see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.) Reason in epistemology leads to egoism in ethics, which leads to capitalism in politics.

--Ayn Rand

The supremacy of reason is the most important value of Rand's philosophy, in both my assessment and hers. If you didn't get this out of it, you got nothing.

Shayne

I have no argument with the "supremacy of reason."

Why do you have so many insult gears in your transmissions? You end up going in reverse.

--Brant

[sjw]

In Rand's case her reasoning tended to be "linear" which seems to be a commonality with the psycho-epistemology of engineers.

--Brant

I find the superiority complex some people get from NOT being engineers fascinating, given that engineers are one category of profession actually crucial to mankind's survival, and actually doing their job. I think if we could kick out the lawyers and politicians from the upper echelons of society and put "linear reasoning" engineers in their place, we'd be a lot better off.

There's no such thing as "linear reasoning" in actual engineering Brant, it's a highly creative, highly non-linear career, unless what you are doing is not actual engineering, but technician work.

Shayne

I'm always willing to be educated. I'm not an engineer and take your word for this. I have no superiority complex about a profession I could not do well in--or at all--never mind why.

--Brant

superior to inferior

It's a repeating theme in our culture to denigrate engineers because they can think, to think that there's some "higher wisdom" in irrational thought processes, thought processes that are a gun to the head of an engineer coercing him to obey the orders of parasites. Note the connection with the denigration of the superiority of reason.

If you're trying to pick two issues that really piss me off you did a great job of it.

Shayne