william.scherk

Easy. Canada will continue to work with the Pakistanis to ensure Peace, Order and Good Government. Economically, we are doing fine. Our products are selling in US dollars at par. Our native Muslims are just finishing celebrating Christmas. Pakistani-Canadians are lamenting/cheering. Our global military strategy is to support the US except where we don't support them, as in Iraq, where we support them via helping take in Iraqi refugees (or sending money via the UN High Commission). Our global military strategy is dependent on . . . oh, you mean This Country, the USA! Zero effect. That Bhutto is gone means only that Musharaff gets more billions to fight the terrorists. He is doing a fair job with 80 billion a year, so he will do a better job with twice that. Economically, you guys are set. Housing market and coming credit collapse, booming Christmas sales, the usual. No need to change a thing. Your elections will pump about 85 billion into your economy and the chattering classes will chatter. Forgive the sarcasm/cynicism, but your foreign policy is set. Why change a good thing? When Hillary/Barack/Rudy/Pastor Huckabee/General McCain/Melchizek Priest Romney takes over the reins, they will bounce in the saddle and say whoopee! America is great, and find that steering the ship of state is like steering Antarctica.

By the time I got to the guard shooting, I was not capable of being jarred any longer. I think by that point I grokked the book, and began to enjoy it as a read. Before that point I had the same problem I have with science fiction: "Huh?!" A few of the mildly jarry notes along the way, without page numbers and likely filtered by sloppy reminiscence: - so the countryside is blighted and dark and black, reflecting the breakdown of the world. Huh? - so the baddish people get crushed in a tunnel - so the perpetual energy machine is, um, the engine of the world. - so the skyscrapers begin to decay as soon as the strike is well underway - so the farmers no longer know how to farm. - so a 'forcefield' protects Galt's Gulch - so Dagny likes to make love in railway tunnels - so all the villains are worse than Skeletor and the Psychlos - so the cigarettes in Galt's Gulch are made by a . . . um . . . the cigarette factory? Huh? - so . . . Was a wonderful, lengthy work of fiction qua philosofiction. I got it, finally, and I even trudged through The Speech. I no longer quibbled over things like leaves withered and blackened by Unreason, or a magical metal, or even the idea that radio jamming and radio broadcast replacement was . . . well, Huh? It is a great book of fiction shot through with Huh? moments. So what. It sells half a million copies a year, I am told over and over and over again, though it never makes the best seller lists at the end of the publishing year. As for the guard, he deserved to die just as much as the trees and the tunnel people and the farmers and the other unthinking brutes.

The Emperor did not see it coming, was the thing. It stung badly. When the only colours you have on your palette are a stormy dark grey and a light eggshell beige, what are you to do? Which is the colour of villainy and betrayal, and which is the colour of hubris? In high opera, there is little beige, and many swords and knives and fits and screaming. Rowlands is intolerant, but plays his cards close to his scarcely-beating heart. Lindsay was shocked at a royal flush. Cresswell has his own martini-fueled lair. He only posts to toot his own bilious horn; Elijah Lineberry is his new martini-chum. It is best to keep one's lackeys close, but Lindsay is a busy man.

Golly, not a lot of snow for Saskatchewan. Lovely. Hope you might post a snap of your picture window. The only time I was ever in the Netherlands, I was amazed at all the household window displays. As if the curtains were pulled back to display the occupant's taste and sense of community, spectacular. A vase, flowers, an ornament. A small thing, one of many small things that make that country rich and great.

It's worse than you think. Such a quiet (and probably a bit boring) man like Immanuel Kant looks so innocent, but did you know that he's responsible for the holocaust? It's all the result of his malevolent plotting to destroy humanity!/quote] Far worse that even you can imagine. I am not only shocked, but HORRIFIED. Horrified to realize, upon insistent coaching, that the Spawn of Kant have metastasized, have infected every single Philosophy Department in North America, and have forced out Reason entirely. No science is safe from these hideous minions. I have seen this prophesized, nay, verily. I am reading again my tattered copy of Return of the Primitive, by the flickering embers of a destroyed civilization, and the prophecies of Fr. Schwartz have come true in every instance! Women's Lib, Communist Takeover, the last staggering steps of Capitalism . . . and America on her knees, besieged by enemies within and without. With our Pope under guard in Orange County, in the demon's lair. And so it came to pass . . . soon, we will be forced to choose whether to feed the fire with our campaign contributions to Rudolf the graft-nosed Giuliani, or to perish in the Yawning Abyss. Hark! Hark! Verily! [With apologies to the true Prophet Joseph Smith, um, Mitt Romney, um, Diana Hsieh, er, um Mike HUCKABEE . . . er . . .]

Lovely and very Christmassy . . . I give back this image of our pre-Santa tree up here in Hillbilly Hollow (available light, so a bit blurry/magical -- you cannot see the figures of Kat & Michael reaching for the 'heavens' on top). Later we will add our salt-dough ornaments.

Golly, Laure, I wondered who had yanked up that thread to 1200-odd reads! I don't know that I was sweet in today's exasperated posting. I am going to have to get my turkey-bloated ass away from the fire on Xmas evening and send him a cheery note, and hope he doesn't take this as further evidence I want to destroy him. All in all, I am glad Lindsay hasn't opened the trapdoor under Nick. Compared to the witless Scientologist kook, he does have a certain gravitas. Because you too are so sweet . . . here is a snap shot of my temporary holiday home at No Lunch Lake, BC: Let's put the X back in Xmas!

It would help me if you could post the two quotes that you have in mind. This is a puzzle, but it might be difficult for some of us (me!) to grasp the puzzle without having the actual words in view. I extend a welcome to you, RT Brooke. Good intro to the puzzle. Some of us here (me!) are apt to jump into discussion with an intuition/guess/conclusion already formed, a key to the kingdom, or a key to the vault of certainty. Some of us (me!) wait for others to see if they make the same blunder. Usually one of the extremely intelligent Rand thinkers (not me) will find the time to post excerpts of articles in question and ask cogent questions. At the moment, I suspect the joy and horror of this most festive/frustrated season overwhelms some of us. Having said that, and knowing that Roger and Ellen and Dragonfly and Ba'ab are busy with other antidotes to unreason, I will leap headfirst into blunderhood: -- what makes the two scenarios disanalogous is, as you point out, excluded aspects, or unstated aspects. Romantic ethics cannot enter the first scenario. Gender is irrelevant. Sexual compatibility is irrelevant. In winning or losing particular means of resource acquisition, the three people in question are usually well-briefed on the particular qualifications necessary to 'win.' The irrational, illogical component of the decision-making, on the part of the employer, is presumably dealt out -- the criteria are explicit, and any statement such as "Well, Candidate B, I don't like you." will NOT be verbalized. The ethics are explicit. In the other situation, Candidate B, Candidate A, and the Selector are engaging their emotions actively, can be said to have invested the outcome with emotion. The selector is not selecting an employee, but a potential mate. Sexuality is an issue, gonads are in play, and a rational choice cannot be explicated, as the criteria are fundamentally involved with reproduction, not resource-gathering. The investment is much much greater, and subject to the logic of love and sex. Are there accepted, standard ethics to guide the rivals for affection?

Marvelous, Stephen. I am struck by a suspicion that this quote could be taken from Antonio Damasio's "Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain," though Damasio finds that evaluation = cognition (in the sense that mind = brain). The joy of Damasio is that he teases out the neurology of the pleasure and pain mechanisms without losing the sense of a whole being constantly evaluating itself and its sensations. My philosophical education is as mealy-worm to your eagle, but have recently discovered Mindpapers. I am encouraged to think that neuroscience/cognitive science/philosophy have set up breeding relations over the past generation, and I believe cross-breeding 'the special sciences' with the Queen Science promises non-sterile offspring. Once the hybrid forms solve mind/brain/consciousness, they can move on to test this entailment against the great beast reality. I will be 453 years old by then. -- as an aside, I note your cross-posting to SOLO has been met with that board's customary glazed stupefaction at such scholarship.

No, the British read their Dawkins and Ruse, so know that it is funny and ironic to ape evolutionary psychology in a consumer mag filled with pictures of, well, big houses, and feminine curves. No, they are unveiling their inner homo sapiens. No, Grazia is one step above Boobalicious -- though not a weekly. No, marketing analysis of the Grazia target audience tastes weighted the questionnaire (it cost 20 thousand pounds). No, the answer key was mailed out in advance with a 10 pound coupon for "Find a Provider/Slut" -- Grazia's sister publication. The market value of The Ladees is objectively determined by the marketplace, yes. Rand hasn't sold a book in the UK since last February, no. Yes. The ladees are the ones who (largely) have to sit on the egg. No, there is nothing objective about about gonads being wired to values or advertising campaigns. See Damasio's In Search of Spinoza. See the current covers of Maxim [uK] and Bloke's Guide to Buying a Russian Bride (the special "You DON'T Need a Big Wallet issue"). See the Ayn Rand Lexicon entry on "Tabula Rasa." Seriously, Roger, this is post of week. Thanks for the merriment. Intellectual yet satisfying of our deepest prejudices yearnings.

I like that young woman. A shame she isn't posting here -- but maybe she'd find some of the assembled company (such as, for instance, yours truly ;-)) too non-Objectivist for her tastes. She is a doll, smart, empathetic, not doctrinaire at all (I've had some great chats with her). I will try to get a message to her with your regards, and hope she might find the time to become an OL participant.

Once again, I spoke too soon. Lindsay has reinstated Ross Elliot. Is there anybody left? Well, there is me, for one. And the beautiful, belligerent Claudia, and the belligerent and bald Jameson, and a few other posters with non-doctrinaire opinions like, well, um . . . It has been a good week for SOLO; readership is again peaking at 19-25 . . .

Gosh, I spoke too soon . . . Ross Elliott, member #10 at SOLO, has just now been dropped through the trap door. Because he . . . well, let's let Emperigo tell it: You're a prick, pure and simple. A weasel indeed. And you're gone. One thing I won't put up with on my own turf is being called dishonest. You half-truthing, slimy fuck. Good riddance. Link Urp . . . The demented Scientologist 'healer' Kevin Owen, and the whiny martyr Nick Otani are still there, of course, providing the most-read threads on the site.

Is there a garden variety Objectivist? Seriously, you are right, in my opinion. The problem for Rick with SOLO is that he is smarter than some of the dolts who are in ascendance, and whatever emotions drive him, he keeps them mostly cloaked. Those who oppose him let rip with their reactions, and tumble into a festival of angry ranting . . . which, it appears, is Total Passion for the Total Heights, as per Emperigo. Rick has a blog, Silent Running, which does what he could do at SOLO, were he not judged an insane weasel. There is something unsettling about lazy, angry, bitter and uninformed dolts leading the charges on a purportedly rational enterprise. For an example, I am discussing 'skepticism' with one Ross Elliot. Ross seems to think that the international skeptical organizations such as CSI and the Skeptic's Society are informed by the ancient Greek school or Skeptoi. They are not, of course, and it will be interesting to see if Ross can acknowledge his category error. Many debates/discussions at SOLO fizzle in umbrageous ranting. I don't know why. The Emperor sets the tone, I expect. Swaddled in the certainty that the key to the kingdom of knowledge in in their hands, the worse examplars find no contradiction in becoming intellectual hyenas. As with Ross Elliot, a contradictory bit of information turns into a evul virus . . . since Ross's definition trumps all -- in his mind -- the moats of his mind fill with acid, the drawbridge to reason is hoisted, and corrections to his doltishness are met with demented defences of the indefensible. I sometimes think that the rump of objectivishists at SOLO have become unmoored from the basic precepts of reason. As with Valliant, the self-image of Rational Incarnate trumps reality. "You are wrong, sir." "I can't be wrong, because I am right. If I was wrong, I would melt into a puddle. Since I haven't melted into a puddle, I am right, right, right. And no amount of arguing can convince me otherwise. Unless you melt me, you are wrong, you insane weasel."

-- a note on staffing from Emperigo indicates that Rick has been placed on moderation. From "insane weasel of evul" to "we are watching you" in only four days. As Ellen notes, the prime wrestling ground is found now in threads in which Richard Goode and James Valliant discuss morality, Hume, man qua man, and the ultimate value for cabbages. Um, ah, well . . . it appears the new Commissar of Kass, Captain of HMCS SOLO, Lance Davey, has deported Rick Giles once again to the netherworld. What this says about Rick, Lance and Lindsay is a subject for future historians of online Objectivism. "Rick Giles has, in the space of 2 short days, managed to have his ban reinstated. In what I now see as true to form Rick fashion, he has lied outright, claiming never to have been offered the podcasts coordinator position back and accused Lindsay and myself of engaging in "mind games" and of having "confrontational issues". An absolute crock. An elaborate conspiracy cooked up in his head, that had no resemblance to reality. In light of that, as a sure sign that the man is delusional, mentally deficient, and basically just a bad egg to have around that stinks up the place, the offer of the podcasts coordinator position is rescinded and the ban reinstated." Link

I doubt it -- if you intended "any single ethical principle." Anything posing as such a derived principle would be a commonplace or a tautology or deform the definition of ethical principle. In Randian thought, 'ethics' point to 'values' point to 'human life.' In one sense the 'material nature' of humanity as social and mutually-dependent can give rise to what we might call a prime directive: "Do not murder human beings" (killing other humans is fine, in all its non-murderous variations, of course **). I would say no, unless you take notes on our makeup as part of our clade. In which case, recent research in primatology where it intersects with ethics/game theory/altruism/inborn 'moral grammar' is suggestive. Suggestive of a thin conclusion: Primates share a primitive ethic of 'fairness.' I won't insult you, Ba'ab, in giving you the links. I trust your reading of the vast scientific literature on ethics/morality as pertains to primates is well-informed. This question needs to be reformulated to be less ambiguous. Give us an example of a purported ethical fact, so we know what you are describing. "Nature" is a weasel word. "Nature" per se has no semantic meat to it. If by nature you mean the whole natural machinery of deterministic processes, from hydrogen generation in supernovae to capital punishment of apostates -- material processes (e.g., Natural Selection) are rather uncaring, punitive and vengeful stars like Kolob notwithstanding. Yes, indubitably, with the caveat that like 'emotion,' it can be argued on scientific grounds (a la Plutchik, Ekman) that there is a universal format to the primate faculty. Convention and protocol are to universal primate 'ethics' as is Javanese and Inuktitut are to 'universal language.' So . . . I don't think you will get a decent answer from a strict Randian, for the sage has already spoken. The gong has sounded. Dinner is served and there is only one dish. Gruel, but described as 'manna.' ** it could be argued that those without such a faculty (a universal ethic) lack also a certain 'material' in their frontal lobes. Evidence from the laboratory suggests that a moral sense can be destroyed by lesion, or fail to develop. Such is sociopathy, inborn and induced. Such is the stuff of mirror neurons, 'empathy,' compassion, and other brain states and systems.

Well, there are only a few things that a website/debating club can actually do. The last lurch into action for SOLO was helping organizing marches against a pending Kiwi electoral law, and organizing a relentless campaign of, um, press releases to the world media. Like any club, the deception involves a gap between the proclaimed influence and purity of the organization and its actual import. In this sense, the deception is self-deception and rather effulgent with the pride of a small toad in an exceedingly small mudhole. Here, at OL, the archives are excellent, and the debates are worth reading/saving -- since the participants are on the whole intelligent and thoughtful. For my objectivish online wrasslin' -- I still like SOLO. If the wider world (which rarely notes the existence of any Objectivist organization besides ARI and Atlas Society) remarks upon SOLO, it is as a personal fief of New Zealand's last Right Man, and his extremist claque. In the meantime, Lindsay has made a good decision. He has removed from his organization the demented arch-capitalist Elijah Lineberry. The context was not Lineberry's transparent elitism, but his screed against SOLO's only Maori member.

-- a note on staffing from Emperigo indicates that Rick has been placed on moderation. From "insane weasel of evul" to "we are watching you" in only four days. As Ellen notes, the prime wrestling ground is found now in threads in which Richard Goode and James Valliant discuss morality, Hume, man qua man, and the ultimate value for cabbages.

Sounds ominous, Robert! I look forward to engaging with you. Good food for thought in your posting; for other interested parties, I will dig up some links that illustrate in small part the Fodor/Pinker mud-wressling. When you get a second, can you expand a little bit on this?

I dunno. No skin off my teeth, but I wish someone besides me would read Pinker's new frigging book, so we could tie discussion of language and concepts back to someone who influences the larger contemporary debate . . . I like that Thomas (GS) is here and active, but my post there was a tease. Why not read the book, fercryingoutloud(?). He spends a lot of time here reading people who don't have a chair at MIT, and folk who don't publish books that sell a million . . . (forgive me, I have gone over my caffeine limit today). Not to single out Thomas, or anyone, but I get the impression from several O-forums that some books and articles in the world are 'tainted.' At its worst, this attitude suggest to me that some objectivists live/work/think in a cul-de-sac, as the world roars by . . . No. But plenty of folk do. No kidding. Mind you, there is still a great puzzle on how the fact of what you note is translated to the feeling of what I think. Have you read any of Damasio's work? If you don't mind a personal question, have you considered publishing some of your rants? You have a powerful polemical style.

But, for your analogy to make sense and correspond to this thread, the person on stage would be who? Bob started the thread and you heckled him. But, you are the heckler saying Bob is full of shit, Michael. In this thread at least. Bob has answered this already. I will only add that you have reduced Bob's ethos to a pretty bare minimum. You have more options than these, surely. You don't have to choose (3). You can choose: (6) Moderate Bob. I know. I know. This is the problem of being Emperor and Policeman.

Is it a reasonable corollary of this to say "There is something wrong in doing an act that benefits others, as a primary effect"? Your subjective take on the ethics would be interesting. I wonder if this thread could become like the wonderful "Baby in the Woods" thread on Rebirth of Dogma . . . in that thread I got the impression that every last Objectivist would pick up the baby and carry her to the Ranger Station, but that each Objectivist (except MSK and the other people banned) would defend to the death the right of any person to walk on by and have the infant die. Regarding the irrational act, the 'sub rational impulse' . . . I agree. As I asked, "what other animal would do this?" (act altruisticly, jump in the water, rush to do a Heimlich, be ready to offer assistance to the birthing Korean, lay down his or her life for another on the field of battle, etc). What does it suggest about the nature of the beast?

No problem; I thought you might find it fun that Pinker introduces "Conceptual Semantics" and the language of the brain as being concepts, in light of your "I think you will agree that ultimately [concept] must be some sort of neural structure or reproducible nervous activity." Talk about stealing! Which of Pinker's books had you struggled through before becoming a non-fan?

I love Auden. That craggy old face, those sharp bon mots. But the biggest stumbling block for me regarding Objectivism is the antipathy to altruism (or maybe 'altruism'). I live my life by a strict accordance to how people treat me. If they consider me, I consider them. If they think only of themselves and what benefits themselves, I don't consider them fully human. If they have no urge, hidden, vestigial, dormant or within reach, to empathize with others, to care about other people, and to occasionally put their own short term advantage aside while considering its implications for others, I withdraw from congress with them. I don't want to live in a community that is ruled by selfishness. Having said that, I do understand the concept (in Randianese), and reject an imposed altruism, or the religious guilt trips that enforce putting others First above all. But I also reject that black and white are enough to see by. All or nothing. Red or Blue. Right or Left. If we actually lived in a social world where there were Altruists and there were the Selfish, the Altruists would exterminate the Selfish. We don't live in that world. We live in a world of human colour, where each human being is dependent on others. And although there are evils associated with altruism, and although there are evils associated with selfishness . . . I don't believe any human being is without altrustic impulses, or -- to put a fine point on it -- without the ability to sacrifice for another, if only in a small way. To illustrate my point, during the hideous crash and sinking of Flight 90 in the Potomac on January 13, 1982, several people leapt into the freezing water to try to rescue the doomed. I wept, not for the dead and injured, but for the altruistic efforts of those rescuers. I regard that impulse, from whatever depth of humanity, to be part of human glory. What other animal would do that? It certainly wan't Kant who pushed them into the water at the risk of their own death.

I agree . . . though I would ask Bob to show a little linguistic charity. Dekadent and his thoughtful minion, Laure found a means to express their definition through a bit of poetic language, or metaphor. By so doing, they essentially agree with Bob's contention that "BOBJECTIVELY, THERE IS NOTHING TO CONSIDER, YOU FOOLS!" -- but in a nice way. Indeed, Bob the Ba'al, in his tricksome way, asked what is the "meaning." Well, sweet mother of gawd, it is but a short leap to "BOBJECTIVELY, NONE, YOU FOOLS!" Michael, your heart is in its right place, between your lungs and beating with a furious samba rthythm, but you might take heed of your own warnings. What you are falling into is a trap, clearly labeled: TRAP. When Ba'ab gets up on his hind legs, the bristles on your rump stand up and you lunge. That shows the sense of life of a Doberman against an intruder. In reality, the intruder strides up the front path every day, delivering your daily paper, in which the headline is, most days, "BOBJECTIVELY, AYN RAND'S PHILOSOPHY HAS HOLES IN IT." You can easily stop Ba'ab the mailman from coming by at all, merely by letting your dog out of the castle, and taking off his muzzle, and not feeding him for a couple of days. As I have said before, you cannot properly be Emperor and Policeman at the same time. That is what Emperigo does, with uncertain results. I totally agree with Studio/Laure, and I totally agree with Ba'ab and I totally agree with Juffertje: they are all saying the same thing.