Rich Engle

That's a damn skippy quote!! American Idol: a trainwreck I love. I don't even watch it, because all I have to do is turn on the early morning news to see the train wreckage I want to see. "The horror. The horror." - Joseph Conrad In The Heart of Darkness Did you catch what I just said? I can see American Idol on the morning news. Every day. That's just so wrong on so many levels. American Idol and all of its red-haired stepchildren are about a couple of main things. The first and foremost is the purposeful spread of narcissism, via vicarious experience. The second, and this is key to the first, is the purposeful spread of mediocrity. Mediocrity is the key ingredient- it is not too difficult for most anyone to imagine themselves in the place of the mediocre, er, I mean finalist participants. It's all there- trainwrecks to make the talentless feel semi-talented, accessible mediocrity to identify with. Goofy, pathological authority figures. I wouldn't hit a dog in the ass with any of the American Idol winners, because, and there is no better way to put this, they all suck. As a seasoned musician, I am putting that stake in the ground. I play in a little regional rock band, and my 44 yr. old singer can make mincemeat out of any of them. And she's better looking, too. And she has a personality, even. You want to talk self-esteem implosion and general weirdness? Let's talk about The Biggest Loser. Two words: Chastity Bono. The horror. rde A side of me I only bring out on special occasions.

Hypotheticals in general are limited, artificial, because they are so reduced to the essentials. The essentials lie in the way the hypothetical is presented. In effect, you are hearing a story and being asked to either finish it, or if you agree with how the major protagonist acted. More or less, that is the situation when one is presented with a moral choice type of hypothetical. In this hypothetical, 99% of the time, if not more so, I'm going to help the child. Why? Because of my reverence of life. Because my moral compass automatically defaults and overrides in those situation. Because it is right, it feels right. To me. That is not shameful self-sacrifice of anything. I believe it is called by different names. Nobility. Bravery. Compassion. Love. rde Sometimes You Have To Take One For The Team.

Wow, welcome to the forum. If you look at my signature you'll see that the local heretic does a huge amount of his business in Euclid. I am based out of East Cleveland. Next year at Euclid Sq. Mall we are planning to host a very large RC convention. I saw a video of it and it was amazing. We are considering building an indoor track there. The thrust is RC racers but I think the airplane guys are going to be included too.

I found this article to be one of the most spot-on, honest treatments I've read on the subject in a long time. We get in trouble with someone no matter what general name we use for it. I tend to talk about it as "individual religious consciousness". But, with the caveat that I am not referring to a specific form of organized religion. That is key. As Michael mentioned, I am a part of a religious community, specifically a Unitarian Universalist church in Kirtland, Ohio. Unitarian Universalism is a pluralistic, non-creed based (so it is covenant-based) denomination that includes atheists. I bring this up because there is often a fair amount of blending that goes on in dialogues of this nature between the individual religious experience and the ecclesiastical one. Like any other community, there are certain things that can be done within it, both spiritually and otherwise, that cannot be accomplished or experienced alone. My goal in the mysticism article was to differentiate (and historically trace) the individual mystical experience from the word mysticism as it is broadly used (to the point of uselessness) in Objectivism. There are two books I highly recommend for learning about this area, one old and one new. The first is William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience," and the second is a book by Ken Wilber called "The Marriage of Sense and Spirit." Your article also made apt mention of various systems' neglect or non-inclusion of either eye-of-flesh reality such as science shows, as well as the same situation in terms of leaving out the interior domain. Basically, there has been a huge rift between modernity and premodernity. Both have their dignities and disasters, and Wilber, who is probably the best integrator out there, makes major headway in this book. I also recommend taking a look at his "AQAL" model, which can be found here: http://www.formlessmountain.com/KW-WTC/foo...notes/aqal.html Once again, thanks for this piece and welcome to the OL community. Best, rde

Law or not, here's the thing: People can and often will do whatever they want, whenever they want. There are choices that have no ramifications to a man, other than what the action will leave him with, in the interior domain. I am positioned a little differently, obviously, because of my religious faith. Yes, faith, that's what I said, and no, it bears no resemblance to the little circus show that some Objectivists will open up on that over and over. For want of a better word, let's say. What I mean by that is that I have a moral compass. I already know that. MSK has a moral compass. Lots of folks do, but we can always use more... O:) That's standard equipment for a real human. My interest lies in experiencing ways that I can expand my moral compass. You can do that. I virtually always know what the right thing to do is. I think most decent people do. MSK touched on this. There is no need for stylized, articulated sophistication. That is only looking at things through the eye of the mind. For one thing, it is too slow that way, for two, it is prone to generating what Frank Zappa once referred to as "statistical density." That type of mental gymnastic, while something that apparently is considered by some to be as intellectually stimulating as chess, is not only slow, but error prone. The real problem is then going ahead and taking that action. The kinds of situations we are talking about are no joke. They are about life, and they are real. There are no things more important than these decisions. One reason the mental chess approach is so error prone is because it is a dissociative use of the mind. It is a use of the mind only. What is required of a human to make a sound moral decision requires the entire human, acting in full parity. If you would like to narrow it to something similar, but not all inclusive, consider the term "emotional intelligence." This state will allow for a much better chance of doing the right thing, and doing so with no hesitation. best, r

My, what an interesting week. What to say... I can only go for broad strokes. Their kung fu is no good. I think one of the many peaks was one of them saying that, due to the supposed hardening that living on a farm gave them, they would walk past a starving, crying kitten in the woods, and... do you still want to know me? No, because you are either a very callous human, or, more likely, a liar. The worst and most dangerous of which are the ones that actually believe their own b.s. That was a pathetic display of male bravado, to be sure. That is not kung fu, it's not even pro wrestling. If anything, it suggests a possible past of animal torture, albeit the balls-less varities such as burning ants with a magnifying glass. Oh, it is so easy to make a man like that cry. I so want to name names and proclaim how painfully obvious it is that there is no way any of them could be any good in bed. Too much acting in one's own self-interest. I know, I know, to do otherwise is immoral. I'd rather be happy, and one of the best ways to do that is make someone else happy. Blank out. Bad kung fu, and here's one reason why: Rehearsed, repetitive movements, rehearsed responses of any kind are, in fact, inferior when addressing reality, which is fluid, dynamic, and evolving. Their kung fu is slow, and it is stiff, and it is heavily, heavily predictable. And, of course, there is the whole dissociation/pathology that goes along with an integration gone wrong. Or one not done at all. We're starting to see that with all the sniffy, superior fronting. Thrown into the thick of a real deal, these boys would either freeze their processors, or make a really, really bad decision. Thought, awareness, feeling, perception, these are things that come from the whole of you. The you that is seamless with the universe. That's right, that's what I said. You gotta be like water, my friend, and what I'm seeing is concrete. If water pounds the rock over and over, the rock is what loses, not the water. Best, rde Has reasonably workable kung fu.

Well, I'm not sure what you were smoking, Roger, but if you get anymore of it, get hold of me to have a modest shipment sent over to Cleveland- me and the boys in the band might just have to break protocol in the name of psychotropically-induced spiritual expansion, as limited as that might be. I knew right away it was crooked, and I don't see how anyone would think otherwise, unless they are a fresh ripe turnip that just got loaded onto the truck. And that's the hellishly funny part of it; the care, the near-fawning. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... For some reason, the part that really ripped me up was there in the thick of it, and you came back with some reflections after your evening walk (about the moors, in a yellow slicker and boots, no doubt). That was just precious- sitting there typing (IMac, no doubt) and enjoying a bit of clover tea by the fireplace. The ethical outrage, Roger. The pain, the dishonesty, Roger. The breach of trust! I think it's COURT HOLDING TIME, my misguided neo-Objectivist brother! What you should have done to ice it was have an essay loaded in the chamber. You know, something deeply metaphysical to the point of non-conprehension. Or maybe just something like "Do Objectivists Fart?" So wrong, on so many levels. They're going to need one of those adult check things like on the porno sites. Jesus Mary and Joseph, dude. rde There is no escape from The Spanish Inquisition

Roger, now really! That's not altruism. It's a simple handshake business transaction involving standard value-for-value exchange of goods (well, let's not get gross) but in this case more of services. All it is is that the buyer has negotiated, shall we say "net 30 minutes" terms, repayment to follow in the form of whatever (since no cash is involved, hopefully, we're talking about organized barter, which is perfectly acceptable). Think of it as a delayed billing sequence, to accomodate the respective business models of both entities, not to mention being a customized solution speaking to, er, manufacturing flow. Now that I'm done cementing my tongue into my cheek... Altruism, for one thing, is overrated, almost as much as physical reality is. I've been in a lot of places and I have never really run into that many truly practicing altruists. Altruism is mostly lip-service. It's damn near a straw man, in my eyes. The altruism that Ayn Rand was talking about had historical origins, based mostly in political ideology. More there than in religion, I think. Were and are there religious altruists? Sure. They are mostly dumbasses. Political altruists are more serious and deadly. The real ones. Most people that espouse altruism are not real altruists, they are con artists; they have an agenda that is easily satisfied by pulling heart strings. In the wild, it is generally found as pseudo-altruism, specifically: dedicated sheep-shearing action. In families, you'd have to be a total loser to really march out real altruism. Granted, that's one place where it's probably the most popularly rolled out. I"ve seen whole families of altruists. I find that where you have one or two parents that have the "amiable" personality type, if you're familiar with that type of personality analysis. I tend to view it as more of an innate defense mechanism when you see it there. You aren't likely to see much altruism where mom and dad are both strong driver types. The real altruists I've seen in those situations are very destructive to the family, because included in the altruism (or maybe it is just the heart of the matter) is a lack of accountability. Things just "happen" to them. r

Jody's question brought some to my mind that I never asked you, Barbara: How exactly was the casting process done? I thought Eric Stoltz did a great job (but, I'm partial to him, I think he's a very skilled and multifaceted actor). Also, what kind (if any) background study did he do for that role? I didn't think he went for a carbon copy of Nathaniel (that would have been difficult), but still, he seemed to really pour himself into that.

Perhaps I was not inclusive enough, I was only mentioning a couple of things from the long experience there, you know? For the longest time, that was the only place I ever posted. The NB board has always been sporadic. The truth is, it's very easy to start things moving there, pretty much at will. I suppose some of us always felt like we were self-imposed exiles over there, because a lot of us wouldn't post on Objectivist forums, not being interested in the bloodsports (unless we created our own). Mike Psych at one point actually came out and said that the whole reason there was any real activity on the board was because of him, and if he left there wouldn't be- he made some modest announcement to that effect. But that was part of his beauty. He did contribute some very good stuff to the forum. There was this stylistic thing he used to do once in awhile that used to make me want to work him over. It got funny. But we got along OK. I think one time I even sent him a powerpoint presentation I had to help him with a school thing he was doing. Mike Lee and I for sure have had to seriously reign in our style due to management requests, which I understand to a point. I do like vulgarity on occasion, but still- the forum should be a welcoming community. In a lot of ways I'm glad the usual suspects haven't spent much time over there. On the other hand, they could stand to learn a lot. NB reads that board, and he will reply if he's asked a straight question, one that he hasn't had to answer over and over. Isn't it funny that someone like him makes himself awfully available even though he's busy, and more people don't take advantage of it due to preconceptions or whatever other issues they think they have involving him.

Glenn said I find this to be an incredibly good question. I can give you the other side of the coin, to a point. I wasn't so much turned off by other Objectivists, because I rarely ran into any of them. If anything, I'd meet people that had read AR novels, and those were always (well, almost always) exciting moments for me. There just weren't that many ways for me to network, because I really didn't get decent internet access until about 1990. As far as that went, I didn't find all that much in the green-screen and early web world, but of course there were some things there. I remember getting knocked around a few times when I attempted polite outings. The real problem for me was that I had developed an edge, and it definitely was related to my Objectivist learning. I became off-putting and harsh. A lot of times, I didn't even think I was, but I was. People were getting treated like they were being grilled. You know, the typical Objectivist logical drilldown that you can subject people to if you know what you are doing. I attributed this to sticking by my principles. There was a point where people who knew me were requesting me to avoid getting into philosophical conversations in social situations, avoid bringing up Ayn Rand in general. Looking back on this, from what I can tell, anyway, I don't think I was even as guns forward as a lot of people with the same background, but a little bit seemed to go a long way. I was particularly harsh and cruel with religious people, whether they "deserved" it or maybe not so much, if at all. I got to the point where, while, I still believed in the big chunks of Objectivism (particularly those things related to capitalism, and general human dealings in the value-to-value area), I decided to withdraw from these kinds of activities, because I was isolating myself, and a lot of times burning bridges before I even got the opportunity to discover if I wanted to cross them or not. Around this time, in the course of my business career, I became exposed to a lot of different training, particularly in the area of interpersonal skills; learning about the personality types, modes of communication, other things. And, I started looking at eastern mysticism, starting way back by reading a book called "The Tao of Physics." I had been exposed to eastern thought because I had been in martial arts since I was eleven, and had the benefit of training with some early generation asian masters. So I started reading Lao Tzu, and I found Taoism the closest thing to spirituality for me. For years, if you asked me what I was spiritually, I would have said just that. I found the Taoist mindset to be a very useful way of working with life (because it was using the eye of contemplation, rather than the eye of flesh or of mind, I suppose). I would still continue to turn people on to Atlas Shrugged, though. Flash forward, I happened to discover that NB was still around, and he had a website, and he was still working in the area of self-esteem. I had read "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" a number of years before that, in the course of devouring anything related to Objectivism (I have read virtually anything in print, at least the big chunks, down to including any copies of "The Objectivist" I could snag, which were residing bound in a few libraries. I don't think I really understood TPOSE that well, because I didn't know as much about psychology in general as I thought I did. Anyway, I started the devouring process on NB's books, and contacted him out of the blue, to which I received a cordial reply. The work on SE became majorly impactful in my personal life, not just for me, but for my wife, and our family. Impactful to such a point that I went up to Toronto for a two day thing NB was doing at the Learning Annex, and it was incredible. At that point, I suddenly found myself in a state of mind where I could appreciate Ayn Rand again. I had a different approach to it, and it was softer. I would have never reread any of that work were it not for NB's work somehow making it "re-available" to me. The rest is recent history. Unfortunately, in my mind, I found a number of interpersonal issues within the movement that mirrored my own back in the day. And, some amazing people as well. But, at that point I had gone further into other areas, and that included things like Joseph Campbell, William James, and, ultimately, the UU church. So that's kind of how it played out for me.

I was on NB's list almost from the beginning, before it went to Yahoo. I was one of the heaviest posters. There were some amazing days on that list, and yes, it was all over the map. We were pushing the line incredibly hard. There was a lot of creativity, and there were a few nasty firefights. I did a lot of stupid stuff on there, and I wasn't the only one. It went through a lot of iterations. We got to one point where we started looking at exactly what was pointed out in this thread- that there was a large amount of lurkers. We thought that some people were afraid to go on there, given the pyrotechnics that were being set off on a regular basis. See, the thing is that the website is ultimately about talking about Self-Esteem. That's what you're supposed to do with it, more or less. I'm not sure that makes for extended discussions. You either read the books and understand what the work challenge is, or you don't. I don't really know for sure why it toned down. Well, I kind of do. One reason is that there became other more appropriate places to work- more eclectic menu choices. I took most of my stuff over to SOLO, (and occasionally Atlantis II) because of the broad categories. I mean, you can almost justify anything topically on the Branden forum, but it started turning into the Kevin Bacon game. It just didn't seem right to make it such a catch-all. Of course, SOLO backfired for a lot of us. I'm suprised I had the run I did on there. The whole thing is really a shame, how it broke down or broke out or whatever you want to call it. I'm not an Objectivist. I used to be one, and I think I integrated and grew out of Objectivism into something else. But that dog doesn't hunt real well on a lot of O'ist forums. Certainly was no problem on NB's site, which I always appreciated. I don't want to be in a "club," you know? The whole "club" aspect of what is struggling to be a community annoys me. I got ripped on for converting to the UU faith, but mainly that is out of ignorance. Objectivism could stand to learn a lot about how the UU community operates- we get things done, big time, and there is no ad hominem crap, period. We have a covenant that involves being together in mutual respect. Results are important. I'm looking at places where they are, in theory, talking about activism. I see talking, and very little action. I could give you a list of the brick and mortar activism I accomplished while I was watching people play intellectual footsy with each other, creating brainstorms. Sorry, but that is just the way it is. Show me some skin! I hope more folks here visit and post on NB's forum. The fact is, there are a lot of people that surf in there, and they are trying to improve themselves. The more of us that give them a warm welcome, the better. best, rde

Actually, Rick's site is more of a clearing house. For the longest time, there wasn't anything at all about Ayn Rand there. But it is a good resource. He is also an expert witness, and cult deprogrammer. Look up one of the mainstream cults, and you'll see it's very strong. I don't think many people outside of the movement even know enough to say what about O'ism, really... best, r

Whoa! Big Dog in the house! Welcome, Nathaniel. So, Scientology seems to me like one of those dog and pony show things, where it is being "sold". Baffle the natives with B.S. And now, it is the luxurious and costly discipline of the stars. Now, it kind of freaked me on one level, because at the time ('70's) I was reading almost nothing other than science fiction (or, as Harlan Ellison renamed it, "speculative fiction"). I'd read collections where you'd have, say, Asimov, Koontz, others, and maybe Hubbard. He was a good writer. I had no idea what he was about when "Dianetics" came out; I never associated anything with L. Ron other than sci-fi. I read that book, and it seemed pushy, but shallow. Certainly not as good as his short stories. I always have some suspicion whenever there is a heavy financial barrier-to-entry for systems. I don't mind paying dues, but there is a limit. Nathaniel, if you ever want to research cult phenomena, the best place is a very good man named Rick Ross. www.rickross.com I suppose that almost anything in the range of human improvement bears the risk of being labelled "cult," but in the end hucksterism will define one thing from another. I would also say that Scientology borrowed (rather than overtly stole) from a number of other places, just like EST/Landmark did. I remember asking you about that, if you had any encounters with Werner E. Things like this are patchwork systems, replete with smoke and mirrors. Best, rde

OK. I haven't even read through the posts about Mike Lee. That even includes reading Barbara, who I am so happy to see here that I generally read anything that comes off her pen. I'm just very busy today with being a capitalist, and making preparations for playing music. I will read Mike Lee's post post facto. I can speak in front of Mike Lee; he is one of the funniest people I have ever read in my experience with O'ist forums. No, erase that, he IS the funniest. He is simply a great writer. I've never corresponded with him, because I thought that would spoil it. You know, there is a lot of ground that got covered back in the NB forum days. We used to run wild and free in there. Now, it is different, and there are few posts. But, there were days, man. Amazing writing, funny and powerful stuff. That needed to be said. If you go in there to the archives, you could see, if you had a machete and cut through the swamp of all of it. It was probably the most amazing forum experience I ever had. I don't know much about RCR, the moderater, other than two facts; he has been reasonably civil to me, and he has not been very successful as an impresario. We used to rock that place. Look at the stats. Now, it is humbled. Maybe that is OK. We were mean, and we probably weren't attractive to newcomers. I understand that part, but I don't understand the non-results that now are the case. Mike Lee is a great writer. He doesn't hold back. I don't even know his email address or who he is, but I'll tell you one thing: I'll read anything he writes. rde Censorship always sucks and this is why.

Go tear it up, Roger!! Make sure you have lots of rotary valve oil- it's hard to get in the backwoods... #-o I'm about to go active again, as well. We took a year off to write, but we just got signed with an agent, and he put us out there WAY before we thought. We're going to be pounding the NE OH market, 2-3 times a month starting this Saturday, which is a lot, because we are all full-time professionals; The drummer runs the food service end of Baldwin-Wallace College, the singer is a speech pathologist, the violinist is a teacher, the bassist is a policeman, and I'm in the "Number One" (as in Star Trek) position in a family property and business empire. Proceeds from the performances are going to recording costs for our album. Here's a little myspace spot I whored out into a temp band site: http://spaces.msn.com/ontheairband/

One place where Objectivism has and could continue to make useful inroads is in business, particularly with management people. There is definitely some resonance here- take a look at this article that came out a couple of years ago in USA Today, titled "Scandals Lead Execs to Atlas Shrugged." http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/ma...-ayn-rand_x.htm Nathaniel Branden made some excellent inroads in his business consulting practice (a practice not that often discussed in Objectivist circles). If you look at his essay "The High Self-Esteem Leader" (available in a book called "Partnering: The New Face of Leadership" you can see the potential there as well. As far as the more ethereal things that get argued in intellectual and individualist forums... I am not a technical philosopher, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck either. To me, Objectivist metaphysics are questionable, or at least in an arrested state of development- things stop at A=A, in a lot of ways. While that is somewhat practical and useful in day-to-day living (especially if you never thought of anything like that before), it doesn't go farther. A thing is itself, but it is also a part of another thing- consider Koestler's concept of "holons" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_(philosophy) Objectivists have a great fondness for asking for "evidence," and sometimes I wonder if they know what "evidence" might actually consist of. I also do not see any thought towards the idea of integration and differentiation, which is kind of sad because that's exactly how Objectivism evolved, developed the emergent properties that make it valuable. But we are asked to make everthing stop after that, and I do not find that compatible with how the universe evolves. Objectivism is generally considered a "closed" system, and my experience in life tells me that "closed" anythings generally are not healthy. The responses I often get (at least the civil ones) are that attempts at evolving Objectivism are not possible, it is self-contained and basically what I'm talking about is breeching the hull. I do not see this. What I see is where Objectivism evolutionarily sits; what came before it, and where things are leading next. Instead, the diehard generally has the view of a chaotic world of non-reason before Objectivism, which rose out of the ashes, and a world of postmodern crap after it. This is a naive and fragmented way of looking at things, and I can't help thinking that if it weren't so prevalent, Objectivism would become more attractive, and efficacious, in the world.

I'm with Roger on this. Dactyl and Trochee are pretty simple descriptions. Dactyl is three (only), the first of which has an accent (whether it is held or not doesn't matter). OOM pah pah Trochee is two (only), the first being accented. Da-da Michael, you're a conductor, I'm just a composer (and worse yet, one who plays guitar). What do you say?

Oh, I don't know what for combatible. I stopped asking that question so long ago. What if something isn't, yet one accepts it? Then what? First thing: take it underground and don't tell the locals. Probably not, because as well as it does what it does, Objectivism pretty much stops perceptually at the waking rational state, and this deals with the transrational. To my knowledge, Objectivism does not acknowledge the evolutionary differences between pre- and trans-; for that matter I don't think it even acknowledges the existence of the various transrational states- you're either rational or you are not. So this would be not, and, specifically, it would be mysticism. I don't even know how Objectivism addresses things about transrational states that are even empirically flung in front of it. How does it feel about the fact that trained people can exhibit sustained delta brainwave states, yet be completely awake and highly aware? So, unless Objectivism were to acknowledge and understand the transrational states as ones that have integrated yet differentiated from the rational states, there is basically no discussion. Again, things within the interior domain have no specific location, so they are resistant to monological scrutiny (even though a non-specifically located process is used to make that scrutiny).

Dragonfly: I don't know why I wasn't typing that right yesterday. Some kind of glitch... rde

I don't see why everyone is so suprised about this, it is de rigueur procedure in such situations. Behaviorially, it is a normal response. Look: when cornered, there are only two responses. Flight, or fight. What you are talking about, Michael, is flight. The pain was so much that it produced hardcore denial, to the point of revisionism. Or, you could call it soft aggression, I suppose. The nature of Objectivism (namely, being a closed system) is such that dissociation is surely going to occur. And it is going to bring what dissociation brings, which is pathology. Or, you could look at it in a cruder light, the cult of personality light. Meaning, all there is to hold on to is the memory of a dead leader. And, out of mis-shot compunction, people will eradicate things to put their world view back into focus. It is ironic (and I believe I am using the term "irony" correctly here, or at least making it a term of grace) that those who quietly do this (thinking no one will be as facile as they to notice their actions) are using the same big gun that they accuse post-modernists of: creating your own reality. What you are doing is bringing the facts to the forefront. I will remain unplussed if their is no answer in return; why would I expect anything less? I think it might have been Chris Sciabarra (who has taken an exquisite amount of dirty streetfighter hits from within Objectivism that... No, let me rephrase that, a streetfighter at least acts overtly, as he doesn't have the advantage of the kind of tacit attack that can be done in the intellectual domains) who was talking about how (Nietzsche?) the first generation of students of a philosopher need be forgiven. True that, and no harm, no foul, I suppose, other than the fouls that these first generation ones perform upon themselves. De rigueur (trace it, it means "when to wear a silk hat") will be the following process, if there are any who are noble enough: you will have "apologists". Personally, I doubt it will even go to that, the dissociation is so deep. Now, all that being said, I think that generally, yes, people who call themselves Objectivists (or students of the writing of Ayn Rand) are pretty much decent people. And, pretty much a cut above the norm, because they are thinkers. Are they true freethinkers? Probably, with the very painful exception of how they deal with other freethinkers; this to be something that is very cumbersome and difficult for them. If I had to say anything to that, it would involve the idea of using "judging." Maybe it is a temporal problem; that by the nature of looking into the past (the history of the movement, and its founder), they lose awareness. That they look into a snapshot of the past, and that is not now. I would like to know what Barbara thinks about that whole thing, because she seems to have survived immune to that difficulty. I understand the fondness of looking back, but fondness is not a remedy, it is only a certain kind of feeling. Respectfully Submitted, rde

W.C. says: Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do. Maybe we don’t understand yet, but we’re working on it! Each mystery solved opens up vistas of unsolved problems, and the scientist eagerly moves in. This is true of some people. Two flavors come to mind. The first is the time-honored con artist. That trait is in even some of the great and true mystics (Gurdjieff was notorious for sheep-shearing). There has always been a lot of this in martial arts, too. In the end, the only real secret is that there are no secrets. The other flavor is prevalent in the postmodern world, and I agree with Ken Wilber when he attributes much of it to narcissistic, "me-generation" behavior. Most of that is benign, some of it is obnoxious. I know a lot of people into that kind of head. The benign ones, well, I tend to take more of a Campbellian/Jungian view. Really, I don't care what kind of fabric they drape over it. The hardcore narcissists, there is not much one can do; I usually try to turn them on to Nathaniel Branden books. I hope you can see why I took the tack of narrowing mysticism down to the mystical experience. I still think that William James covered the most ground there as far as Westerners go, even though his work is nearly a century old. Rufus Jones made a huge contribution to taking the exotic weirdness out of mysticism. My interest in mysticism now is mainly directed at sustained spiritual experiences, and there is a technology there, there has been for thousands of years. Various eastern schools of meditation can satisfy broad empiricism (that is, empiricism that is applied to the interior domains as well as the exterior ones), can satisfy scientific method, in terms of the paradigm/analyse results/repeatability-teachability process. I believe that transient mystical experiences occur frequently and broadly, but sustained ones require a disciplined, methodical approach, namely meditational practice.

I caught part of that show too, Barbara! I think the thing that got to me the most was, as you mentioned, the relatively "normal" type of person seen, rather than the insane fantatic. The "we" aspect of life is a good one-quarter of everything that is for most people. Studying group psychology is fascinating (and, often, disturbing, like in the experiment you mention). In business, it is very interesting- I got exposed to a good bit of that while my wife was finishing her M.A. in organizational management. Cults, in general, seem to be on the rise. It's really something to go to a place like Rick Ross's excellent site www.rickross.com and see the massive database he has accumulated on cult and near-cult activities. Unitarian Universalists (of which I am one) have a very good reason for including the phrase "not to think alike, but walk together" in their bond of union.

Ethan, Well, there is no short answer! The shortest one might be to tempt you to visit the other side of the tracks, and read "The Marriage of Sense and Spirit" by Ken Wilber. That is a pretty quick way to get to the essentials of discussions like this. There is a lot of extreme thought out there, ranging from hardcore scientific materialism to some very narcissistic and generally silly New Age stuff. On one end, modernism has, in my opinion, pretty much collapsed the interior dimension. That was a backlash, that was baby with the bathwater. It is the mirror opposite of extreme postmodern thought, which meanwhile is going around talking about how "you create your own reality." There are higher levels of consciousness than the rational/awake level. They can be taught and repeated. There is the possibility of sustained nondual experience, and that state will inform us in ways that rational/awake will not. It does not mean disregarding rationality, it simply means continuing to evolve and integrate. Contemplative practices such as the various types of meditation (say Zen meditation, for instance) require sustained practice, it is hard work. Contemplation/meditation is a different way of knowing than what you see with the eye of the flesh, or the eye of knowledge. Objectivism does not address any of this, which is not that suprising because in the West, at least, there was not that much available until recent decades. One thing I am saying here is that there are practices that exist inside spiritual/wisdom traditions that can be looked at through broad empiricism. EDIT: OK, I'm not convinced I was being as complete as possible with that answer, even within brevity, so I am going to go a little farther. What you were talking about when you contemplate was not the same thing as what I'm talking about, although what you do is what we all do, and it is invaluable that we have evolved to the level of doing so- it is essential to our survival. To try to describe or understand what a 4th consciousness state is using normal dialogue is not really possible. But we can talk about the processes, how it is taught, what measurable things we can see, how long it usually takes to develop, etc. I've given a very simple example of it that helps to illustrate the challenge, though. That is to simply attempt to quiet oneself and see how long we can go without having an associative thought, or any internal dialogue- how long we can hold an "empty mind". This is a very difficult thing, most people cannot do it for even thirty seconds. Of course, a fair question might be "why would we want to, and even if we could what value would it bring?" Well, for one thing, my experience has been that anything that requires disiciplined, hard work usually has value attached to it. There's a short answer. I was exposed to various meditational techniques pretty early in life, because of who I was involved with in the martial arts. But, it tended to be for more pragmatic purposes. Also, my various interests led me to research in various brainwave states. As opposed to the mystical state, which is normally a very transient one, there is more to be had in learning to sustain different states of awareness. It is interesting to consider the possibilities that can be developed. One is the ability to bring one state into another. For example, to be able to engage in "lucid dreaming". It is also interesting to consider the fact that there are those who can actually maintain a delta (deep sleep) brainwave state, yet be fully awake and superaware. So, we are working with the mind in a more full way, an additional way to the rational/waking state we live in most of the time. Again, it does not mean dispensing with rationality, but simply acknowledging that rationality can be built onto.

Hey, Roger- I heard a piece on NPR a few months ago about a guy who developed a program that accesses some kind of giant song database, and it works like this: If you put in the title of a song you like, it will spit out other songs that you would like because they are similar on some plane- he's using a pretty complex algorithm, it appears, and it accounts for overall tonal/timbral "feel", from what it seems. I'm trying to find out where his site is, but no luck so far. Interesting stuff. Have you heard about this?