Fran

Great, I love happy endings ;.) I love silliness too, so it's nice to know that there are other barmy people out there. :D/ Congratulations on finding each other (in the most original of ways!) and all the best for your future (and present) happiness together

Paul, I appreciate your giving me the link to this excellent site - I learned a lot about myself from it I've browsed a lot of MBTI websites, but none of them provided me with the understanding that I gained from this one.

Hi Barbara Here are my thoughts on this, although I'm only a newbie to the psychology field so you may disagree with me entirely, but that's okay. And I won't go onto another website and denounce you as a a mean-spirited person ;-) I wonder if some of it has to do with the fact that the founders of the movement, AR and NB, did this a lot (denunciations and excommunications). It's almost like, well if my 'parents' did this, it's okay for me to do the same. Or more so, this is what we're supposed to do. Denouncing people is a way to draw attention to one's self and make one appear to be important. It's like "Oh, I'm not very well known in the O'ist movement, I know, I'll set up a website where I denounce other O'ists and this gives me the exposure and status that I crave." In a movement that places high emphasis on achievement and self-actualisation (which are good things), someone with poor self-esteem may see this as a 'threat' and attack others as a defensive strategy (I'm going to reject you before you can reject me). One other aspect is - and this is a guess of mine - people who are most drawn to Objectivism probably have the Myers-Briggs NT (iNtuitive-Thinking) temperament, who are not renown for their interpersonal skills/emotional intelligence, more for their critical and analytical faculties. I'm not intending to bash NTs - I like them a lot and really value these skills, and it doesn't mean to say that they can't develop emotional intelligence, of course they can, and do. I think AR was probably an NT - :-k INTJ if I was determining her full personality type, as these can be highly original thinkers, but also critical and judgemental. I'm guessing that NB is an INTJ too. Also, I think it a great shame that NB and AR never found a resolution for their feud. If they had, I wonder if this would have made people's fall-outs be just that, rather than elevated into something related to their moral standing and to be denounced as immoral. A resolution between the two would have provided a very powerful example of how issues between people, even extremely painful ones, can be resolved. I think this would then have motivated people to work through their own upsets, which is challenging, rather than take the easy way out and denounce people. I've been involved in an organisation called Non-violent Communication (NVC) for about six years. Which is needs-based communication and is used all over the world in conflict situations (whether community or domestic). I sometimes wonder how open O'ists would be to this, as it is inherent in the philosophy (Virtue of Justice) to denounce 'wrong-doers' (which incidently doesn't help them to change), rather than recognising that people are always just trying to meet their needs (even though we could objectively judge their strategies for meeting their needs as wrong). People are much better equipped to come up with more life-affirming strategies, when they are clear about what their needs are in a particular situation. I can't really comment on ARI. I have only been to day-one of a weekend conference with ARI lecturers that was held in London last September. I found the lecturers to be excellent - I really enjoyed their clarity of communication, the intellectual stimulation and the knowledge and enthusiasm they conveyed about their chosen subject. I didn't feel 'judged' by them either and the only time any judgement was passed by one lecturer, was on Ayn's sister Nora when she visited Ayn in USA, and Ayn found that Nora had changed her worldview. Even then, understanding was conveyed about Nora's historical context (living under communism) and so therefore she wasn't an 'evil' person. It was interesting to me though, that away from the lecturers during lunch, I mentioned in conversation that I had been to a TOC conference and I was met with with glares and a stony silence. The attendees were somewhat on edge about being judged, but the lecturers conveyed no judgement of people that I could see, so where does this come from? (Although I didn't mention TOC when within earshot of the lecturers and so they may have responded differently to me if I had.) [As an aside, I did have an attack of the 'mischief-maker' during a lecture on 'people who have been influenced by O'ism' - and I was tempted to put my hand-up and say "What about NB - did you interview him..." so maybe a part of me knew that I couldn't benevolently discuss TOC with them like I could discuss ARI with TOC] //;-)) No model is perfect (NVC has its problems too), but it's the contribution that they make to my life, despite these flaws, that's important to me. So, despite all of what I have said above, for all of the problems that O'ism is experiencing, I am still hugely grateful that AR came up with this philosophy and that NB and yourself put it out into the world. I'd rather have O'ism and all its flaws than no O'ism - no contest. Fran

I haven't been to see the film because I didn't enjoy the book enough. The Code was a page turner until I found out what it was they were looking for, then it lost all meaning and therefore interest for me. To be honest, I thought it read more like a trash novel and thought the ending appallingly weak. They were looking for a bunch of bones - big deal! The only thing I liked about it was that it rattled the cage of the Catholic Chruch so much :evil:

Thanks for this suggestion Kat! We're going to Vegas the week before the TOC conference, so hopefully we'll be able to catch one of their shows. I'd love to be picked to help them with a trick - what did you do to be 'the chosen one' and are there any tips you can pass on??! If I wave my arm in the air, look keen and eager and cry "Pick me, pick me," will that work??

Oh, wow! Thanks Charles for this insight, this really helped clarify for me where I'm going wrong. :D/ I know that what you've said here is supposed to be implicit in Objectivism, but somehow with all the in-fighting, this seems to get pushed aside.

I just love this so much that I wanted to share it with you all Nubar Alexanian Penn Jillette is the taller, louder half of the magic and comedy act Penn and Teller. He is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and has lectured at Oxford and MIT. Penn has co-authored three best-selling books and is executive producer of the documentary film The Aristocrats. "I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows, and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough... It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. " Morning Edition, November 21, 2005 · "I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond Atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire? So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The Atheism part is easy. But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God." Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day. Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around. Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something. Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future. Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-o and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have." [i received this via email from an Objectivist email group I subscribed to when I was still living in the UK. From what I can gather, as it wasn't referenced, it's the transcript from a God slot on a popular US radio show where you are supposed to explain your faith and belief. I like the way he gets around that. Sorry Kat, I hope that by posting it here I'm not infringing any copyrights, but I really don't know.] Edit: Hmm, that'll teach me not to check on the web first. Here's the link to the original article and I couldn't see anything about copyright: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...storyId=5015557

I have a confession to make: I too am a vegetarian. Does this mean that when I go to the summer seminar, I will become part of the menu for the cook-out??? [-o<

I am interested in hearing your many other reasons, if you would be willing to share them?

Just seen a brilliant ad for Sky TV: "Sky is so easy to use, even an adult can use it."

This is my favourite quote to date. It says so much.

So does this mean then that Nathaniel and Leigh will be posting photos of their wedding on this site? Always wondered what Nathaniel would look like in a grass skirt and leis Ah, the joy of living far away, I can be cheeky and get away with it... Seriously now, all the best to them both.

Barbara, I hope your cat gets better soon - I hear how upsetting this is for you.

I very much appreciate everybody's response to my post and the insights I've gleaned from them. I'm particularly grateful to have people's understanding for where I'm coming from. It's nice to share this kind of thing with people who respect my decision and don't think I'm some kind of alien for it. I love the spontaneity and freedom that not having children gives me. It's also so much easier to take risks in life when I don't have to worry about the impact it'll have on someone else!

I would really appreciate hearing from anyone who has made a personal choice to remain childless. I'm almost certain that I don't want children (I'm now 32 and have never wanted them). Whilst I know that no one can make this decision for me, I've had warnings from people who have children saying that I may change my mind, but I've never heard from anyone who chose not to have children (rather than couldn't) and is glad they made that decision. I'd particularly like to hear from women. If there is anybody who decided not to have children and now regrets it, I'd like to hear from them too, if it's something they would be willing to share, as I realise that this is probably painful for them? I have a nephew and niece and friends who have children, so I wouldn't be completely isolated from them.

Why is homosexuality unfortunate and suboptimal? Unfortunate to whom? The homosexuals, or her? It's certainly suboptimal when they deny their sexuality and marry the opposite sex.

What a beautiful letter. I often wonder how much further the Objectivist movement would have progressed if those who spend/have spent their time vilifying other Objectivists, instead invested that energy into persuading non-Objectivists of the philosophy's merits, and doing so without partaking in character-assassinations of these people as well?

Me too. I want to hear about Muttnik as well.

"They keep finding new ways to celebrate mediocrity" - Mr Incredible.

Barbara I love the name Pussy Cat for a dog. What made you call her that? Fran

Michael I agree with you that there is something missing from the Objectivist ethics and I'd like to contribute from a different slant. A former clinical psychologist, Marshall Rosenberg Ph.D worked with Dr Carl Rogers at a time when he was developing the components of a helping relationship. Marshall then went on to develop something which he has termed "Non-violent communication" (NVC) - don't be put off by the name NVC stems from the premise that all of people's actions come from a desire to meet one or more universal needs. These are split into categories: PHYSICAL WELL-BEING (e.g. food, shelter, clothing, water); AUTONOMY (e.g. freedom, self-responsibility, choice); MEANING (e.g. learning, self-expression, understanding); PEACE (e.g. harmony, order); CONNECTION (e.g. love, companionship, security, empathy, compassion); HONESTY (e.g. authenticity, integrity, presence); PLAY (e.g. joy, humour). When we meet our needs we feel pleasure and when our needs are not met, we feel pain. However, we can also feel pleasure by meeting other people's needs, if we are clear about what needs of their's it would meet, and if we are doing it out of choice. This is because one of our needs is to 'contribute to another person's well-being'. NVC is not about being altruistic and is very clear about "Never doing anything for anybody else unless it meets your need to do so, otherwise you'll only make the other person pay." Marshall is also adamant that people are fully responsible for their actions and their feelings (nobody makes you feel a certain way, they can only trigger feelings within you). NVC teaches that as people all share the same universal needs, people only clash in their strategies to meet those needs. For example, an Objectivist will try and meet his/her need for security by living in a free country with minimal government control. Whereas someone else may try and meet his/her need for security by wanting to live in a country where everything is regulated. Once people have a conscious awareness about what needs of their's they are trying to meet, they can choose better strategies for meeting that need. They can also see that it might not be meeting other needs as well, such as their needs for autonomy and freedom. NVC differs from Objectivism in that rather than judging people's actions, the purpose instead is to understand what needs of theirs they were trying to meet and empathise with this. There are several advantages to doing this, firstly they are more likely to alter their behaviour because empathy is a more effective tool at catalysing change than judgements (otherwise psychotherapists would judge rather than accept their clients); it brings greater harmony to relationships with people, and most importantly when I judge people I don't feel great, I feel annoyed. Whereas if I can hear people's needs behind their rants, I am in more in touch with my own needs and feel happy. So if happiness is my goal in life, not judging people is one way that I can contribute to this. This is, of course, easier said than done... NVC is also about explicitly expressing your own needs in a way that other people can hear them without. It is easier for another person to meet your need if you are both clear about what that need is. It is split up into four sections: 1) Observation without evaluation (the facts rather than your analysis of it). 2) The emotion that you feel when you observe this. 3) The need of yours that is not being met by this thing you have observed. 4) A specific, do-able request within a given time-frame that will allow your need to be met. You can also do the above for expressing happy emotions when your needs are being met by someone. NVC is used in conflict situations with success. Marshall is an American Jew and he visited a Palestinian refugee camp where there were tear gas canisters that were made in USA. He was called a 'murderer' and other insults by an extremely angry mob, after spending time constantly empathising with these people's needs, their rage disappeared and he was invited that evening to a celebratory Ramadan dinner. NVC is explained lucidly in Marshall's book: "Non-violent Communication: A Language of Life: Create Your Life, Your Relationships, and Your World in Harmony with Your Values" available from Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/189200503...5Fencoding=UTF8

I think what he means is that rather than looking to reality to tell him/her what is right and what is wrong, what to think, what to believe, what actions to take, the social metaphysician instead looks to people. So he/she believes whatever other people believe, would probably do whatever other people tell him/her to do, etc.

One of my favourite films is Pleasantville (1999). It's about teenage twins whose parents are divorced and they don't get on; he's a geek and she's only interested in looking cool to her mates. He's mad on an old B&W 50's sitcom called Pleasantville and knows everything that happened in every episode verbatim. Pleasantville is a perfect town where suppression rules, everybody always gets along, the sun always shines, it never rains, the books don't have words in them, nothing burns, women are only homemakers, there's nothing outside of the town - it just doesn't exist, and most importantly, everybody knows exactly what is going to happen - there are no risks, no surprises and definitely nothing dangerous. It's centred around one family who have teenage twins. The teens end up being transported into Pleasantville as 'Bud' and 'Mary-Sue', and they're in B&W too. Bud is eager to keep everything as it is - he likes it that way! But he also thinks if they change anything they'll never get back home. Mary-Sue, however, refuses to play along and act how her character should in the episodes they've been transported into. And she is definitely not just interested in holding hands... Doing something different, expressing emotions that they have normally suppressed, causes colour to creep into their world. It's an interesting analogy for how people resist change and want to keep everything the same, because it's safe. Also, how people try and resist change in others and can even react violently towards this change, out of fear. Most importantly of all - it has a happy ending I'm definitely a happy ending person.

I wanted to post a new topic on dumb laws because I think the EU will always win. [in Cyprus all the street signs, labels and menus are in Greek and English. It's in their best interest to do so as their main source of income is from tourism - nearly all whom are British who come to escape from the miserable UK weather...] Cyprus joined the EU last year. Here's the latest dumb EU directive: "All medicine and supplements must now be labelled ONLY in the country's mother tongue." So we have everything else in Greek and English, but supplements and medicines must now only be in Greek. This has got to come from the French.

I've been hearing some really interesting stuff about Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (which tied for 9th with Australia, Estonia and Luxembourg in Cato's 2005 report on the freest countries in the world). Does anybody else have information on Dubai that they would like to share, whether negative or positive, because I would certainly enjoy hearing it? I plan to go and visit in September as it's only a 3 hour flight away from Cyprus, which is where I'm living after escaping the encroaching police state of the UK. Apparently, there is no income tax, capital gains tax, or inheritance tax and with only 5% import duty. There are free zones, with a 20 or 50 year guarantee that there will be no tax on businesses there, if the laws on tax do change (hmm, worrying in itself as it implies that they might). These free zones are also ruled by common law rather than Islamic law. Islamic law also only seems to apply to the natives. So immigrant women can go around wearing whatever they like and they do (according to a friend's eye witness accounts). It doesn't have a democracy and instead is ruled by a benevolent ruler whose aim is to make it the most prosperous place in the world. (I know that many people, myself included, would have serious misgivings about its being run by a 'dictator'.) Only 15% of the population are natives with the rest being immigrants (you get automatic 3-year renewable residency if you buy a property), and anybody (no matter what their skill level) can get a work permit if a business sponsors them. The rules are: you don't speak out against the ruler, you don't speak out against Islam, and you don't try and convert muslims to another faith. Ok, so there are restrictions on freedom of speech, but if he has created this fairly free society, then I have no reason to speak out against him as he's not affecting my life and instead has created a prosperous nation in which I would like to live, neither would I have reason to speak out against Islam as their way of life would not be affecting me (unlike in the UK). I don't what the penalties would be for breaking these rules, but for other crimes like theft, I've heard that they stopped chopping people's hands off many years ago. He seems to be succeeding in making it successful, rumour has it that one in eighteen of all the cranes in the world are in Dubai! I have a friend who didn't believe this rumour until he went out there, but now thinks that it is true. Yes, I know that it's not Galt's Gulch and there are probably problems with it that I am missing and won't find out about until I try and live there, but it seems to be possibly the closest thing that I'm going to get to a free-ish country in my lifetime. I know somebody who is heavily involved in politics in the UK and he hopes that there will be a tax reduction there within the next 20-30 years - that's almost the rest of my lifetime!! I'm not prepared to wait that long.