Rich Engle

Thanks for the above post, Barbara! Very in-depth and illuminating. I've said something along this line before, I'm going to state it again; it is a very straightforward view of the scenario. I am not sure that the possibility of legal consequences would be effective as a motivator in such a situation. To some, it might. But, those kinds of people (those that are mindful of society's laws, and so forth) probably are not so much in need of feeling consequences for not assisting in such a situation. On the whole, my guess is that there is a pretty good chance they would try to do something anyway, unless there was some strong mitigating factor (their own survival concerns, anxiety, something psychological that would deter them from doing what they truly believe is right). I do not believe for a second that there is any other answer other than to assist, if you are a life-affirming person. If you have any heart in you at all. And you either do, you don't, or you're trying to learn how. The bottom line is that whether or not there is a law in place, if the person does not assist, the child dies. Consequences are after the fact and do nothing to address the loss of life; it is gone. So, would it help to put a law on the books? Maybe. Would it do harm? Only in the minds of certain kinds of political/philsophical thinkers. Surely anarchist types wouldn't care for it... [-X . I suppose if you had a cruel enough extremist, knowing that a law is telling them to do something might be the edge that keeps them from acting. But, that kind of person is not likely to be very efficacious in the first place- not in these do or die humanity-type scenarios. My conclusion is that the outcome is very close to predertmined, because it is a here-and-now decision-making situation. So, whatever that person IS, at that moment, is going to have a great deal to do with their action or non-action. There is little time for contemplation, it is a time for action. Although, sometimes this kind of scenario will elicit a profound change of heart in the hard-hearted. Sometimes, it will bring up a great empathy, a great feeling, the type of which has often been kept under tight guard, locked in the basement growing with the mushrooms. Sometimes, a person goes out of their comfort zone, and that to me is heroic. Best, rde

Me too, Roger (double gag with a half-twist). It is true that the best road is the high one. That is a nice way of saying ignore. It's better to not get stuff caught on one's clothes and shoes. But, clearly there is going to be discussion of the bad behavior. Even though I have never had all the "stuff" like that intrude into my inner circle, I still find myself kind of baffled because I expected more; something completely different. rde Trying so hard to keep his windows wiped off.

I posted this before, just reposted it over at NB's forum. It is an interesting bit worth reading. I think it would be foolish to disqualify reading it because it is associated with a mystic like Gurdjieff. Relevant to the thread, I believe. Mr. Gurdjieff, The Psychology of Common Sense, and the Neurosciences: http://www.quartavia.org/inglese/neuroscenze1.htm Check it out!

Well, like NB has written, work today is an expression of thought. So a lot of times thinking comes under attack, we know that. :D/ rde "Being intelligent is not a felony. But in most socieites it is at least a misdemeanor." - Robert A. Heinlein.

I believe that if you are confident in yourself (healthy self-esteem), and you truly revere life, and civilization, your tolerance pretty much comes into place; it will measure itself well in most situations. Sometimes, often, intolerance comes from lack of understanding, unfamiliarity. Intolerant behavior is really something inward-turned, if you think of what the word tolerance actually means. Things like scapegoating, well, I have more direct terminology for that, but usually not in polite company... best, r

Call me jaded but I'm down to just shrugging whenever I see someone like Mike Lee attract those mildly outraged PC type posts that always appear whenever anyone who has some real stones writes something. But there's always a Mrs. Grundy in the neighborhood, somewhere. I count on it. For one thing, if I really run out of things to do there's always that to work with- you can go into perpetual motion with them. I just read one of those about Mike elsewhere and I noticed that I felt de-energized and flat afterwards. Why do I want to go through all the trouble to screw off at work just to get that? rde For me, entertainment values can outstrip family values on occasion.

Hi, Kat! I like playing postcard chess on the 'Net, although the real-time stuff is awesome because you can get a game (usually some kind of speed chess) anytime with people all over the world. But, with postcard you can fit it into your schedule. To answer, it can be done at www.postcardchess.com When you get there, you'll see a link for email chess. The directions are very easy. I have a lot of fun with that, been doing it for years. I really wondered if it would help my face-to-face play, and it seems to have done so; I just started playing in-the-flesh with a buddy on a regular basis during the week... r

Prime mover versus boat anchor is the overriding vibe in FH and Atlas. That's what I remember as the main vibe when I first read them. I really believe that on one level or another that is the main thing that most people retain from the books. As true as so many things are she says in that regard, I can see how it might be the kind of thing that embitters people, makes them kind of mean.

Now, I'm playing 3 people at once on internet postcard chess. In between actually working, that is... The only bad thing is sometimes you confuse games if the positions are similar. I try to study at least one new opening a month. Sometimes I practice solving chess problems online. What I found interesting was when I started up playing a little bit in real life. I haven't done much of that in awhile. It is so totally different, I forgot. The game I play face-to-face does not remotely resemble the online stuff. Sort've like the difference between knowing someone on a forum and knowing them in real life.

Yeah, it's like the female version of "wing man" Now, JW's, they do it overt. A primary modus operandi is to case the neighborhoods out with the grunt troops first. Then, wherever there are young guys, they come back for a second pass, but it's the old lady and the totally hot babe team, the older lady's purpose being to make sure things don't get jiggy. Basic show business- hey, I have great players in my band, but it doesn't hurt that two of them are major hotties. It definitely helps my bookings- I'm booked out through Sept... But it's good with the JW's because if you ask you get one of those cool comic books they hand out. Reminds me of the old joke where they talk about how if there is an earthquake, a safe place to be is under a doorway, which means if it's bad, pretty much all that's going to be left are JW's and vacuum cleaner salesmen. rde You want male pig I'll show you male pig.

Fundies are fundies, it's always the same out of them. I had some Mormons call at my door Sunday, and they got very confused when I told them I already belonged to the Unitarian church. Of course first out of the gates was the well-worn "You are the folks who believe in anything." Answer, of course, "I don't believe in Nazi Skinheads, so no." I used the word "theology" once and I got the dazed look of non-understanding. On and on, circle after circle. They gave me a little Jesus tarot card and left. Ever notice how they always pair up a real hot babe with a not-hot one? What's that all about?

Even though the concept of self-esteem is brought up in Ayn Rand's work, it is not nearly as illuminating or thorough as NB's work on the subject. And I think that there are some pretty knowledgable Objectists who evolved into who they are without the benefits that his work offers. Looking at those in the movement who have low or pseudo self-esteem does a lot to explain why they behave the way they do. rde

I don't know, even great people clearly are capable of silly throwaway remarks. Chess is one of the oldest, most intricate, coolest games in the world. I've been playing since I was nine. When I was in high school I even played on a team and was USCF rated, albeit not a real high rating. I play postcard internet chess every day with two partners, one in Chicago, the other in London- two very old friends. It feeds and develops the mind in a way that very few things can. Whether it's on the web or in person, it is an elegant, enlightened thing to do. There is no waste in playing chess. Strategically, it helps me to be a stronger businessman because it expands and focuses. The heck with her on that one. rde Try learning a decent Queen's Gambit game then tell me how wasteful it is.

I just want to point out that the movie is IMHO extremely well made, and intense. I think it's been showing up on Sundance. rde Two thumbs up. Way up.

The best part of these types of soirees is the fallout phase. It's the equivalent of what I was talking about in a post elsewhere involving the dynamic that goes down when two Baptists run into each other while they're shopping at the liquor store. rde I thought the answer was Nathaniel. He always knows what the real deal is. :D/

Well, I don't know about all this other stuff, but I do know that generally, the biggest source of anxiety for many Baptists and other Fundamentalist types is how to handle themselves if they run into other Baptists when they are at the liquor store.

John- In reference to instinct did I say "rely"? As in priority to it, or solely? If I did, let me be clear. I mean "use". You don't sacrifice one for the other. Objectivists repress emotions because they think eventually, they will basically generate/control all of them, and I know that is b.s. It may be with good intention, but that causes repression. Emotions are one of the primary centers. The key is to have the centers all harmonious with one another. That is what a full person has. If you stick any of the centers over the others (intellectual over emotional, say), you ~will~ repress, and you ~will~ create pathology. I have no doubt that that is where a lot of the funky behavior you see in Objectivism comes from- it is a particular type. The rest of the behavior is more or less because, following what has been said here, an a-hole will often remain an a-hole, but now be an a-hole O'ist, like anything else. O'ism can and does elevate people, but it is not the universal tool of redemption. What is? I think I know, but I'm not going there at the moment. The eye of the mind is not the king. None of them are, not eye of mind, of flesh, eye of contemplation, or eye of spirit, if you believe in that. They are built and bound together, they each contribute a different uptake from the universe.

Tough. I'll fly off the cuff, no order. Blade Runner (preferably director's cut) Chaplin (Robert Downey Jr. is amazing in it) Fellini (pretty much any, but "City of Women" is fun) Apocalypse Now A Clockwerke Orange Kurosawa (any) Hitchcock (any, but "Rear Window" is great) All That Jazz There's a few for the pile.

Man, you guys have really been getting into some, er, "hijinks" over here. Wait, did I see "pomo" in that list? There's nothing like a prancing, drunken pomo, you know... so harsh on the outside, but precious and delicate on the inside. As if they had just finished a whole case of twinkies. Delicate sensibilities, and tender mercies! rde Don't Get Me Started.

Why would you want to throw cosmology out of philosophy? Isn't it better to look at things like this and see how they interrelate with one another? What they share? It's interesting to look at the idea of philosophy pulling the strings of science. Interesting because I think it evolved from the times when religion controlled science. When scientific development finally got formidable, things changed. We broke into discrete units of operation, free of being interfered with. The Good (religion, philosophy) The True (science) and the Beautiful (art). They could grow undisturbed. But with the pulling apart, different problems arose. Modernity created flatlands. Science was treated quite like a religion, one which was only what "is" without meaning. Unfortunately, science only tells us what is true. It does not tell us what something means. My point of not wanting to throw anything out of anything is that we have had that happen already, and it was a good thing, that also created bad things. My view more that of an integrator, though.

It seems to me that a lot of this is a lack-of-integration problem. Using the example, and what NB brought up (by what moral principle)... Sure, there can be a moral principle put into place that instructs you. And obviously, there are some that will instruct one way (help) and others that won't (serve your own survival first/foremost). But, in this case, we also know that something that sophisticated is not required, it is coming a great deal out of nature. What MSK (and I am the same way) are triggering off is a much deeper, more visceral, primal kind of thing. Instinct can function right along with rationality. Instinct is faster, rationality is more tactical. Both are invaluable. They can even operate simultaneously. It's an integration issue. If you totally separate rationality from instinct, you are separating something that grew out of the other, and that causes pathology. Not a smooth integration. Objectivism, it seems to me, is a top down system. Integrated, but linear. And not smoothly integrated in all places, particularly in how it subserviates emotions and instincts, which I find tremendously valuable. I like all the cylinders banging at once.

MSK- Heck, why not? I was resident heretic at SOLO for awhile, I can take it! There was a lot of funny stuff there, as you know. But I thought one of the funnier was when I explained that the UU church is pluralistic, including atheists. Of course the next question was whether I was "one of the atheist members or not." It just got all twisty after that, man... I just couldn't get individual religious consciousness through to some of them. rde

I haven't run into that many "recovering Objectivists" over the years. I never expected to become one (sort of). When I joined the Unitarian community, it was lot like how I always imagined Objectivism was or could be, in the flesh. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged were very liberating to me, especially at first. I think that's the typical reaction. I never saw anything in any of the books that suggested that you need to be an arrogant, superior prick. Yet, that's what happened to me and I didn't pay attention to that for a long time; to me it was simply sticking to principles. Had to work on that for more than a minute. The reason I looked for something else is because, while Obectivism satisfied (and in many respects continues to do so) most needs, it simply did not satisfy, for me, my spirituality. In this way, I felt very empty. What I did was more of an integration than a departure.

Right on, Jenna! Integrate is right!

Consciousness, yes. This is where things start to take off in terms of debate, at least if you're me. It depends on how many levels you acknowledge to exist. My last one, for instance, Objectivism does not acknowledge because they think it can't be demonstrated as a proof, although they are wrong in that.