Steve Gagne

Hi, Victor! Welcome back. You may not be Victor, of course, but since you haven't introduced yourself except with this gratuitous and stupid screed, anyone is free to assume the worst. --Brant Yes Brant, but if it were Victor, who would he have copied it from? :whistle:

Ellen, Daniel I apologize for my obscurantism. While writing the post above, I was aware that some points would tend to be mistaken for each other, but hoped that my meaning would be clear. But it obviously wasn't. The thing is, that to answer fairly, is akin to eating an elephant. You have to do it one bite at a time. So I will not address all points in this one message, but will break the explanations into pieces, to be read, and then go back and read the original post in that context. Okay the thrust of my notes here is that "empirical induction" may not be "science" per se, but it IS the process of human concept formation, within the context of the human S-I-R learning paradigm (with feedback). As in "equals", "is the same as", "is just another name for", etc. And no, it isn't perfect, but it is quantifiable, and thus it is testable. I understand the contrapositive argument. What I am discussing is falsifiability, or testability as an actual discipline. As I have discussed elsewhere, the goal-directed practice of testability is an incremental, statistically-based, hands-on process, requiring multiple iterations, of empirically relating members of a set to the definition of the set itself, within a specific environment or context, rather than a simple a priori comparison between instance and definition. The purpose is to develop a reliable answer, i.e., a correspondence, between instance and generalization, of greater than N percent, and if necessary, to develop corrective measures (within a specific environment or context) to ensure that result. (N being selected according to the discipline involved: as I've stated elsewhere, "commonsense" logic usually requires at least 50% correspondence, and usually 67%-75%, in order to operate; "business" logic requires 78%-84% to operate at a minimal level or 84%-92% to operate successfully or 92%-96% to operate at a superlative level; scientific inquiry operates at the top of the scale.) It is thus akin to a technology of logic (like the scientific method), rather than (arbitrarily) a single rule or set of logic equations. Please note that this does not necessarily imply the following syllogism: 1) All swans I had seen were white. 2) I just saw a black swan. 3) THEREFORE I MUST KILL ALL THE BLACK SWANS. {as a corrective measure} What it does imply is that a single instance of a contrapositive may be a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient one, to invalidate an entire definition or hypothesis a priori. It does, however, become part of the statistical mix, and if present in "enough" iterations of the hypothesis testing, indicates a need for at least a new "placeholder" concept, or "knowledge stub", if not a redesign of the initial concept. Okay the wife is telling me to get off the computer. More later. Steve

(I don't know where this goes, so I have this posted here and at the other thread also.) ================================================= But why why why? If we look at the Popperian assertion regarding the single counterexample, why is this a falsifcation? It seems to ignore some basics that are not stated, but if they became the focus, might change some definitions completely. 1) Human logic must be defined in terms of human capabilities. A definition of logic that leaves out human capabilities is an oxymoron. 2) Every entity that exists, having a physical being, is finite. There is nothing that has been observed (that I know of) that is infinitely large. (Note: the "Universe" is a reified construct and cannot be adequately defined in relation to any other entity outside itself, except by theists.) 3) As finite human beings, we lack the capacity to perceive infinite entities using our finite sense data. We lack the capacity to observe something infinite in scope. 4) Our set of empirical observations (inferential knowledge) is by nature thus limited in scope and quantity, and the realm of these observations is defined and delimited by how we focus our attention. (This is the side issue of volitional consciousness.) 5) Every enitity exists in time and space, and when we focus on an entity, we focus on it in a specific defined place or realm (context). 6) Within every set there is a finite number of instances of finite entities within the defined realm. 7) If there is an instance of something (similar to the set members) outside of the defined realm, it is irrelevant. The rational mind cannot focus on two different defined realms simultaneously. 8) If there is an instance of something (within the defined realm) that is outside of the set, it is outside the set; it may be used as a delimiter of the set definition, but according to the Popperian definiton, it must invalidate or falsify the set. I don't see this as a valid inference. 9) Inferential knowledge is thus based in statistical probabilty, which I have referred to elsewhere as "the Confidence Factor". Never 100%, but it's what we've got. What I am calling a "set" is what elsewhere is called a "concept", as formed within the basic S-I-R paradigm (with appropriate feedback loops). Sets of percepts are delimited empirically, and this is entirely a "psychological" process. The so-called "logical induction" of perfect concepts is an artist's dream, nothing more, and should be discussed under a separate subject (if not dismissed completely) of "Logic as an Art", instead of as a science. Whereas inductive generalization is the process of locating in similar realms, duplicate or parallel sets of entities. But nothing goes on forever, additional realms are not necessarily identical, and so these derived generalizations tend to undergo their own peculiar "entropy" over time. (They "fall apart", usually through some ill-informed attempt at exegetical application.) But at least at first, in their generalities, they approximate reality well enough to be able to use them to succeed in some other goal-directed behaviour. This provides justification for continuing use of the "concept". ("Don't Argue with Success!") Until the defined realm is sufficiently different that the "concept" doesn't work any more.; it is then maintained as an irrational "falsehood" in the face of "reality"; or else it is abandoned for and replaced by a new organized set of percepts, derived from a new defined realm being brought into focus. And no, AR did not address this topic in full detail.

(I don't know where this goes, so I have this posted here and at the other thread also.) ================================================= But why why why? If we look at the Popperian assertion regarding the single counterexample, why is this a falsifcation? It seems to ignore some basics that are not stated, but if they became the focus, might change some definitions completely. 1) Human logic must be defined in terms of human capabilities. A definition of logic that leaves out human capabilities is an oxymoron. 2) Every entity that exists, having a physical being, is finite. There is nothing that has been observed (that I know of) that is infinitely large. (Note: the "Universe" is a reified construct and cannot be adequately defined in relation to any other entity outside itself, except by theists.) 3) As finite human beings, we lack the capacity to perceive infinite entities using our finite sense data. We lack the capacity to observe something infinite in scope. 4) Our set of empirical observations (inferential knowledge) is by nature thus limited in scope and quantity, and the realm of these observations is defined and delimited by how we focus our attention. (This is the side issue of volitional consciousness.) 5) Every enitity exists in time and space, and when we focus on an entity, we focus on it in a specific defined place or realm (context). 6) Within every set there is a finite number of instances of finite entities within the defined realm. 7) If there is an instance of something (similar to the set members) outside of the defined realm, it is irrelevant. The rational mind cannot focus on two different defined realms simultaneously. 8) If there is an instance of something (within the defined realm) that is outside of the set, it is outside the set; it may be used as a delimiter of the set definition, but according to the Popperian definiton, it must invalidate or falsify the set. I don't see this as a valid inference. 9) Inferential knowledge is thus based in statistical probabilty, which I have referred to elsewhere as "the Confidence Factor". Never 100%, but it's what we've got. What I am calling a "set" is what elsewhere is called a "concept", as formed within the basic S-I-R paradigm (with appropriate feedback loops). Sets of percepts are delimited empirically, and this is entirely a "psychological" process. The so-called "logical induction" of perfect concepts is an artist's dream, nothing more, and should be discussed under a separate subject (if not dismissed completely) of "Logic as an Art", instead of as a science. Whereas inductive generalization is the process of locating in similar realms, duplicate or parallel sets of entities. But nothing goes on forever, additional realms are not necessarily identical, and so these derived generalizations tend to undergo their own peculiar "entropy" over time. (They "fall apart", usually through some ill-informed attempt at exegetical application.) But at least at first, in their generalities, they approximate reality well enough to be able to use them to succeed in some other goal-directed behaviour. This provides justification for continuing use of the "concept". ("Don't Argue with Success!") Until the defined realm is sufficiently different that the "concept" doesn't work any more.; it is then maintained as an irrational "falsehood" in the face of "reality"; or else it is abandoned for and replaced by a new organized set of percepts, derived from a new defined realm being brought into focus. And no, AR did not address this topic in full detail.

Hmmmmm. From over here I see a reification of the concept of "LIFE" as a spiritual "entity" rather than as a material process. Not sure by whom, but I smell a bad sequence.

I wish I could agree with you, Michael. But our greatest enemy is our own behaviour. Ten years ago, there were 13 major fishing beds, of which 4 were dead and 5 were dying. Now 8 are dead and 2-3 more dying. This is primarily due to overfishing, and mass poisoning by environmentalists. The oceanic algae plumes are screwed up. This is due to chemical runoff from the land into the ocean, especially on our west coast and the east coast of Brazil. The deep sea cold water currents which regulate the whole world's climate are screwed up. This is due to the loss of glacial meltoff into the great lakes, the origin of ALL the world's deep sea cold water currents. And we're about to go through a MAJOR climate change far outside of the bounds of the 650-year cyclic one we've had since the the beginning of recorded history, maybe closer to the last ice age. And no, I am not blaming human beings for CAUSING it, only for AVOIDING FIXING it (or even delaying it). The thing is, the scenario is too much as if it were taken out of the script of the movie "Soylent Green", with all that that implies. I've lived here in what has been a charming little piece of Paradise in Florida, for nearly 14 years now, and in that time I've seen the crabs disappear, the birds disappear, the groves disappear, the anole lizards disappear, the skinks disappear, the snakes disappear, most armadillos disappear, some of the turtles disappear, and they've been replaces by mammal scavengers -- opossums and raccoons and wild boars. I'm not necessarily complaining about feeding the "kids" (although opossums are stupid & nasty, and the pigs will run out in front of you when you're doing 60 mph & wreck your car in the middle of the night), but the loss of diversity is just that -- a loss. One from which we may not recover. I don't know how to combat these things.

I would like to thank all of you for clarifying who's-who and what's-what. I probably would have been willing to totally embrace o'ism 30+ years ago if it had been an open system philosophy; N Branden's writings certainly filled in a lot of holes for me when I was doing some fundamental reevaluations at that time. Beyond TVOS and TOE, NB's "The Disowned Self" was crucial in enabling me to gain the understandings (and moral sanction) I needed to live my own life rather than to follow someone else's script. Michael's observation of preachy-save-the-world types versus serious-scholar types probably holds more water than many think. With the preachy types being closer to AR. If you look at the premise of AS, of the "ideal man" withdrawing the "good people" from society, and allowing the world to collapse under its own evil, this is a motif stolen straight out of Darby's xian salvation heresy of "The Rapture" from 125 years before. So yeah, they're going to get preachy over it. Religion is a basic, essential human cultural activity, and this is one thing that o'ism has never addressed adequately. And part of that is an error on the part of Ayn Rand: she continually identified the errors of individuals with the expression of their ideas. This was a counterfeit argument, a fallacy: a classical ad-hominem attack. Why hasn't anyone noticed this? Why didn't anyone ever call her on it? And if she's stealing ideas from religious "mystics", aren't her own ideas subject to the same strictures she calls down upon them? No matter how effective a tool of social control it is, I just hate hypocrisy, and it seems like the o'ist world is full of it. (Except here.) Thank you all again. steve

The mark of an artist. Or as Robert Frost once wrote, "Please excuse the length of this letter. I didn't have time to write a short one."

From the

From the Pastafarians -- The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Open Letter To Kansas School Board I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design. Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him. It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith. Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease. I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t. You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature. In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence. Sincerely Yours, Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen. P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

Okay I have been visiting here for a number off months now, and it seems that quite a bit of the conversation here centers not on ideas or their applications, but on personalities and sleights by people who aren't even associated with this board. I've tried to sort it out, but it's at the point that I don't know one group from another, and it's getting confusing. Every modern edition of AR's books that I've seen Leonard Peikoff's name on has had the wording of critical texts changed from my that in my early 1970's signet paperbacks -- but he was supposed to be AR's "intellectual heir"? NBI, ARI, TOC, Atlas Society, who are all these people? Unreadable SOLO? Return of Reason? Stand to Reason? (Haha..a xian "intelligent design" group.) I see names like Peikoff, Valliant, Hsieh, Perigo, David Kelley. Who are these people and why should I care about them? Can anyone recap what the different O'ist groups are, the people associated with them, their origins, their relationships, and accomplishments (if any), without turning it into a slamfest?

Der Ms. Murr Thank you. Your writing is clear, crisp, and opens doors previously unseen. Much appreciated, and welcome. On a personal note, congratualtions on getting your key. You studied under Dr. Hicks the entire time you were at Rockford? When did Dr. Walhout retire? I look forward to reading more from you. vty Steve Gagne

Bob You said Why choose? There are no contradictions in reality. If your philosophy and science contradict each other, check your premises. steve

This is funny. There are those who claim that the "reasonable" thing to do is to challenge Christianity its uniqueness, on the basis of the "Golden Rule" existing in most world religions. =================================================== Baha'i­:" "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, 71 Buddhism: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga, 5:18 Christianity: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." Matthew 7:12 Confucianism: "Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you." Analects 15:23 Hinduism: "This is the sum of duty: do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." Mahabharata 5:1517 Islam: "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." - Sunnah Jainism: "In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." - Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara Judaism: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a Native American: "Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace Sikhism: "Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." - Guru Arjan Devji 259, Guru Granth Sahib Zoroastrianism: "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." Dadistan-i-Dinik, 94:5 Is Christianity as unique as Christians think it is? =================================================== If you believe in the so-called "Golden Rule" then on the surface one would tend to agree with the "broad path" interpretation presented. I don't. There is no such thing as "The Golden Rule" as has been presented in Christianity in the last 1900 years. It is a farce, used to afflict the conscience of immature believers with a rule of behaviour that cannot be obeyed, and by needless guilt help maintain the hierarchy, hegemony, and MONEY of the established church(es). The usual quotation used is Matthew 7:12-14: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (KJV) "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many, For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (RSV) "Do for others what you want them to do for you. This is the teaching of the laws of Moses in a nutshell. Heaven can be entered only through the narrow gate! The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide enough for all the multitudes who choose its easy way. But the Gateway to Life is small, and the road is narrow, and only a few ever find it." (LVB) The thing is, in the received greek text for Mt 7:12, we encounter this: -- Transliterated, Unaccented text Matthew 7:12 "Panta oun hosa ean thelete hina poiosin huminhoi anthropoi, houtos kai humeis poieite autois. Houtosgar estin ho nomos kai hoi profetai." "houtos kai humeis poiete autois" -- "to (an)other/s also you are working the same (thing)." This is written in the simple declarative, NOT written in the imperative -- it is NOT a command. It is a simple statement of fact and it is the Lord's Judgment on mankind: That which you would have others do unto you, YOU ARE **ALREADY** DOING UNTO THEM LIKEWISE. This is not some namby-pamby aquarian new-age pronouncement of peace-&-love, this is the Lord Jesus Christ, who whipped the money changers & chased them from the temple, who reviled the religious leaders as "hypocrites" and "vipers", who announced His return as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, leading a huge army of Judgment, announcing: JUDGMENT DAY IS HERE! NOW!!! ANYONE WHO DESERVES VENGEANCE FOR HIS ACTS, BY THOSE ACTS GIVES PERMISSION TO THE AVENGER TO WREAK PUNISHMENT, FROM NOW ON! Can't you see how subversive this was (and is)? He gave moral sanction to every oppressed person (within earshot) to topple his oppressor, by force if necessary. He told the cripples, lepers, eunuchs, and blind that they were forgiven and healed, and told them to go into the Temple where they were not allowed to go. By this so-called "Golden Rule", He said to the Zealots that if they were oppressed by Romans, then those Romans had better expect an uprising where they would be made to pay for their sins. You thought the high priests were afraid of the rebellion caused by Jesus, that the Romans would respond badly? YOU BET YOUR SWEET PATOOTIE THEY WERE! AS IN >>>TERRIFIED<<<. THEY ALREADY KNEW FULL WELL WHAT JUDGMENT WAS DUE THEM. And so do I. And so do you. Which is why so many people hide behind struggles with theology and philosophy, rather than simply turning to Him in repentance and being received by Him through His Reconciliation on the Cross: Isaiah 6 1-4. IN THE year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim; each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory." And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. 5-7. And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!" Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin is forgiven." 8-10. And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here am I! Send me." And he said, "Go, and say to this people: 'Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive.' Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn to Me and be healed." (Coming soon: An objectivist validation of the Ten Commandments.)

It looks like chess notation. Others who are better versed in the game will have to take it from there... Robert Campbell Had to specify the W(hite)/B(lack) due to lack of column/move number notation. Move: Black Queen's Knight to Black Queen 3. Part of a general power strategy of "controlling the center of the board." Answer: White King's Pawn takes Black Queen's Knight. I tried to play rugby chess but I got owned. There were complaints like "it's a bitch to get the dirty cleat marks out of the board."

My comment was: "BQK-BQ3." So yours is....."WKP x BQK"? Hmmmph. Polemics is a strange game. :homestar: Ice cream,anyone?

Steve, what would you have me do when I agree with someone's post? It is exactly true that I was about to state several of the points Kevin made in his post. I can't imagine that you think I should have simply repeated them. "Me, too," expresses my agreement. I'm not clear on the meaning of your last paragraph. I'd appreciate it if you'd explain further. Barbara Dear Ms. Barbara Considering the gentleness of your response, it's clear my curtness toward you was out of line. I apologize, and will endeavor in the future not to make snap responses like the one above. Regarding the 2nd graph, I'm hoping that your second comment on what legacy we leave future generations was ironic; you thought enough of it to write it, but then disowned it as "ridiculous". You expressed dismay at the possibility that posterity might make bad choices ("whom we do not control and who therefore may grow up to be irrational and criminal" -- your words). To project that on those yet unborn struck me as unfair and wrongheaded, as if it were your general expectation that people are born evil. And that the only way to make sure they don't become evil, would be to make sure that they remain unborn. That is the origin of my comment about malevolence. You also spoke of intelligent people writing books. If you eliminate posterity, there will soon be none left to read your books. Now, as I said, I hope you were making this comment ironically, essentially holding up a mirror to accuse me of precisely the same thing. Saying that I am making the unfounded claim that the future children (in foreign lands) would be "born evil". If that is the case, please understand the thought is not lost on me; it's just not relevant in light of other topics I've touched on in other threads: 1) Cultural milieux as social quasi-contract; 2) Nature of knowledge acquisition (from test theory); 3) Nature of concept formation (from information theory); 4) Biological replacement as a basis of a generational social theory; 5) Discussions on the death of the Enlightenment 200 years ago; 6) Origins of the American Republic. So, though you may see yourself in agreement with Mr. Kevin, you will also see by my response to him, that I find his defense of his position poorly thought out, poorly structured, poorly supported, and based in misunderstandings and misrepresentations of my position, if not outright lies. Not to mention a tone of ridicule from him more befitting "political correctness" or some other such version of social metaphysics. Ms. Barbara, you and I are not children. You have your legacy, and I have mine; you have your ~45 year portfolio of writing, I have my ~40 year portfolio of music. I also have a family. We both speak from experience, not projection, and neither of us needs to suffer fools gladly. So I do appreciate the grace you bring to your answers here, and again, I apologize for my rudeness. vty, steve p.s. Re: "Steve, what would you have me do when I agree with someone's post?" Well, if you were to state his case better, I would at least be able to accept a "me, too" from him.

Dear Ms. Barbara: You don't know me from adam, and owe me nothing in the way of a rational response. But I have always respected your independence and clarity. So, were you to respond to this thread, I would have expected better than "me, too" as your response. Further, whereas unborn children will never become criminals (what a malevolent expectation!), neither will they become the productive people of the future. Least of all, the writers you would extoll. (steve) Dear Mr. Kevin: In spite of your condescending attitude, I think that you really want to engage honestly on this topic. So be it. BQK-BQ3. Yes she did. Two words for you: Leonard Peikoff. Two more words: James Valliant. Dayam. If my kids misrepresented "my" thinking like that after I died, I'd rise up out of the grave & beat'em to death with a baseball bat. ;) C'mon yourself. It took soviet russia 70 years to dig themselves out of the mess they made, only possible from intellectual cross-pollenation from the west. (Project to your future response: two words -- behavioural modeling.) Three generations were sentenced to slavery and death in spite of Ayn Rand's presence in the academy there at the start of it. In spite of the rationality of many individuals who lived through it, the evil of communism still held for most of their lives, and they were sentenced to an unnecessary hell because of a society based in wrong ideas enacted by evil men. Yes, it collapsed from within. But what happened during that time? Generations being sacrificed & enduring torture for...nothing? And what has taken its place? The russian mafia? This is the model of rationality we should seek? But they haven't come up with any better, because, in spite of the proposition nation advocated by supposed objectivists and their co-religionists, there is no organic culture of freedom or rationality there, no "pool" of rational expectations from which to draw within their culture, except within certain narrow ethnic and religious groups. Beyond all that, where is your victory for rationality and capitalism? In a world where rationality has been equated to a one-world government dominated by brutal dictatorships? Loss of privacy equals advancement? The only place capitalism has a chance right now is in Costa Rica (r.i.p. Laissez-Faire City), while the rest of the world is being swallowed in fascist corporatism. The threats we faced when Ms. Rand was alive are not the same as the ones we face now, and it is a misguided respect for her that can cause us to dwell on the past in that way. Would that it were only that simple. "Fundamentalist Islam", as slimy as it may be, is just a cover story, and the US-financed Al-Q'aeda is merely the tip of the iceberg. The irrational brandishments of unbridled force by the US government in the last 15 years (Ruby Ridge, WTC I, Waco, OK City, Flight 800, Kosovo, Somalia, USS Cole, WTC II, IBT Indianapolis, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now, Ed Brown in New Hampshire), intended to destroy the will of the US populace and render them ineffective in withstanding the NWO, are even more effective than the communist-financed John Birch Society in confusing people into supporting their own destroyers. We're not talking about a centralized threat here, but "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinc(ing) a design to reduce them under absolute despotism". (c.f. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776; The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America). That is one HUGE assumption, Steve. Three words: human developmental psychology. Back to my previous reference -- two words: behavioural modeling. Some more words: positive reinforcement for successive approximations. Where are they going to get it? Two apparently-different, but reality-related points: getting back to your topic of gratitude toward previous generations, you would have no gratitude if you had never been born, and consistency demands that we grant to any other human being that which we would recognize in ourselves; also, what we see in our own lives is what we can project on others, because we know nothing different. These points are the basis of what I was saying, and they still stand. (steve)

31 years with the same woman -- 29th anniversary of making it official was this past week. Tried to interest her in TVOS and Anthem when we first met. Her mother found the books, and spent years trying to get her to break up with that "horrible immoral creep who reads that garbage." Mother-in-law even succeeded in getting the wedding cancelled & convincing her side of the family I did it. So my wife showed up with her suitcase at the door of my artist's loft apartment in alphabet city in NYC, and said "We're getting married! Now!" I said OK. So we went down to the NYC Municipal building, and President Jimmy Carter was there, and he wouldn't let us get married, either. So we had to wait a day for him to go away. Got us a great little "you'n'me agin' the world" thingy going which lasted nearly 15 years. Daughter now grown, married, & out of the house, 1st son graduating from HS this school year, 2nd son graduating HS the next school year w/AA degree at the same time (dual enrollment). Like me, none of them know what they want to be when they grow up.

If this doesn’t scare the hell out of you coming from a presidential candidates’ mouth, maybe you ought to rethink your definition of freedom. Giuliani Embraces George (Orwell and Bush) Posted Aug 12th 2007 8:11AM by Phil Bailey Filed under: President 2008, Republicans, Gaffes, Rudy Giuliani Sometimes it's hard to decide who is more entertaining: John "Bomb" McCain, Mitt Doggie Romney, Fred Lobbyist Thompson or Rudy 9/11 Giuliani. But for today, we'll give Mitt the paid-for-win in Ames, Iowa but Rudy gets the 'I Can't Believe He Actually Said That' award. This doesn't eclipse the BS he handed out the other day about how he worked harder than anyone at Ground Zero (he had to apologize for that documented whopper) and now comes this "Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do." See, to be free you have to give up freedom. Just give it up to the authority (me) and we''ll take care of everything. This continues the line put out by Bush/Cheney and exemplifies how close to a totalitarian state we have come. However, Rudy's full record as mayor is going to come out, Mitt's going to continue to dig himself into one verbal hole after another and Fred Thompson isn't even in the race and his lobbying efforts and being a spy for Tricky Dicky are surfacing. If I were mired in the second tier of the Republican contenders I wouldn't give up too soon because the top tier is embarrassing themselves.

Actually the negative has been asserted without anything beyond a whiney "NO I DON'T WANT THAT", whereas the positive has been argued: if it weren't for having babies, you wouldn't have ever been here to criticize them. Your life is a value. It exists NOW because you were born, and were a child, sometime in the past. Looking from the specific to the general, this is a universal condition of human life, hence necessary by nature, and looking back from the general to the specific, it is applicable in principle to every and all human life. (And as you observe following, without continuance by reproduction, human life ceases, i.e., all values come to an end. Choosing to end the capacity for rational choice is self-contradictory, not a rational choice.) No, I am not "OK" with that. The choice NOT to have children is the "not particularly rational act", especially in a world in a state of war. The concrete-bound mind, unable to see beyond the present, sees the war and says, "what a horrible world! I cannot risk or afford the effort it will take to care for another in this ghastly world! And for such a dubious reward!" The one who has the vision sees beyond the battle, and with the grace and confidence of one who has already won his war, looks to rebuild from the ruins. I'm assuming that those who are raised with rationality will have more reason to understand it and embrace it than those who don't; they, our children, are our fellow workers in our efforts to rebuild.You don't want to be part of that? Fine. Starve: "The only inalienable right is to die for ones beliefs. Those who choose beliefs over knowledge, as well as those who don't know the difference, will not survive the collapse. In most cases, they will have done the only good thing they have ever done, which is to take their defective genes out of our species." -- Don Sisco, AKA Kurt Saxon, founder of Atlan Formularies & Survivalism.

Ellen I hadn't seen it that way. I was seeing it from the viewpoint of "externalization phenomena", which comes to us from Jung via Eliade et al. But I went over to the Wiki page you drew the quote from, and found this in the discussion section: Umm, yeah, what he said. steve

JD -- Freudian? More Jungian. The "individual" id was essentially powerless, until conjoined (through the fictional advanced technology) to the darkness of others', shared (collective) unconscious. At that point its evil, destructive forces would start to feed on themselves, creating an "ecstatic" condition which overpowered, not just the higher individual ethical conscience (Freudian superego), but actually destroyed any consciousness of identity (atomistic ego). Definitely Jung (by way of Eliade and others). BTW, the reference to the robot was iconic. (As in Jungian archetypal symbolism?) Like "Play it again, Sam.", which line never occurred in Casablanca. But it was the same robot in the movie and the tv show. Perhaps a mis-spelling of "en masse", meaning "taken altogether". It still means I'm going to need a new version of SETI@Home -- in over 7 years on SETI I haven't found anything even remotely resembling the "WOW" signal of 45 years ago. Not even a nibble. l8r steve

I only have 28k dial-up (I live in a redlined area) & so it takes me days to download multiple videos. I also share this machine with my two teenage sons, who would rather play Halo, RuneScape (run-escape?), Renegade and Red Alert in realtime rather than let their old man download anything. Is there any way of getting transcripts for these & other video links?

Which "suppressed savage instincts" were found to corrupt, and eventually derive from, the "benevolent human explorers" as well. This addressed the concept of internal corruption from historical collectivist viewpoints. "Uncle Martin" the martian, however did have a duplicitous, deceptive, paranoid side, characteristics he shared with the "Dr. Smith" character from the series "Lost in Space" a couple years later. The difference being that the former was a rather good-natured fellow only seeking his own well-being until he could return home, whereas the latter was a destructive Commie Russian Pinko Bastard (to put it mildly). Or, to put it as Robbie the Robot did, "Danger-Danger-Will-Robinson!"