Kat

Next Ayn Rand Meetup day is Saturday, Dec. 17. Meetings are at 6:00 pm The Merritt Island group meets at Barnes and Noble at the mall The Chicago group meets at Clarke's Restaurant on Belmont east of Sheffield. The meeting agendas are posted on Meetup and RoR.

Note from Administrator: The information in this thread was for the old domain and/or phpp forum software, but it is still mostly valid for the present program (Invision Power Board). I just added some categories and fixed the Test Category to say Objectivist Living. It is going to take some time to fill stuff in, but I feel it is good to set things up first rather than trying to reorganize things later. Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions of what they'd like to see. Let me know. Kat

Let's start this up with a poll. What are you reading? Probably more than one book, right? In Objectivism, there is so much to read out there. I know I have barely scratched the surface. The last couple of books I have read were *horrors* not by Ayn Rand, but her "enemies," namely Nathaniel Branden and Michael Prescott. Taking Responsibility and Dangerous Games are wonderful books by people who have been associated with Objectivism. I'm reading Ayn Rand Answers and The Romantic Manifesto now. Although she makes many good points and observations, I have some issues with RM as I feel her views on the creative field are too narrow. Are her tastes in art, music and literature part of the philosophy of Objectivism or just her tastes? In other words, fact or opinion, cognitive or normative?

FAQ: What does Objectivism Consider to be Art (Aesthetics) (Note from MSK in May 2017: The link to The Objectivist Center in this post is no longer valid as the organization has been renamed The Atlas Society. And it seems like William Thomas might no longer be at TAS. However, for historical reasons, we are leaving the post as is. To get the current TAS information on Objectivism, please go to Objectivism 101.) by William Thomas - The Objectivist Center Just as language is distinctively human, so is art. Every human society has imagined and recreated its world in stories and music, in pictures and sculpture, and in derivative forms of art such as theater and dance. Many people think art is an indescribable, almost mystical aspect of human existence, that it is a self-contained realm, indefinable except in terms of itself. This has given license to those who want to turn making art into play, who say that art is anything one wants it to be and reject objective standards for the arts. This view is standard fare among art promoters, philosophers of art, and many self-proclaimed artists. The result is that today the average person does not know what is art and what isn't, and believes that the only basis for aesthetic preferences are subjective opinion and personal taste. In fact, art is a distinctively human institution because it fulfills a vital need of human consciousness. And aesthetic issues can be analyzed objectively, like any aspect of reality. The Objectivist epistemology teaches that humans are conceptual beings. We are aware of the world directly and immediately through sense-perception, but we do much of our thinking at the conceptual level, using abstractions, language, and logic. Our concepts and theories have meaning only insofar as they are grounded in reality, but one cannot see a theory or feel an idea, nor can one perceive, in a single glance, all the facts of reality that validate a theory or idea. The wider and more fundamental the abstraction, the harder it is to experience it as having the reality of the concrete things we can see and can feel in perception. The unique and vital function of art is to present, in concrete form, what is essentially an abstraction. We can use artistic techniques like pictorial representation or metaphor to show what an idea looks like: this is what a graph of economic growth does, for example. Art as such performs this function for the most fundamental abstractions: the elements of a world- view. And because a person's world-view, his deepest values, are experienced most clearly in the emotional form of a sense of life, [see FAQ: What is Philosophy"] a work of art can touch the deepest places in us, feelings we often have trouble defining and making explicit. The different forms of art do this by re-creating reality, selectively representing things, sounds, or events either directly to the senses (as do pictures, sculpture, theater and cinema, music, and dance), or through the vividness of directed imagination (as with literature). The artist does the selecting, stylizing the scene or the world and presenting it in a certain light, with some things emphasized and others taken away. Journalistic and historical narratives, audiovisual recordings of an event, and museum displays are, like artworks, representations, but they are representations that attempt, in so far as possible, to convey the actual facts of a matter. The artist's function, by contrast, is specifically to interpret the world and present it as he re-envisions it, using particular concrete elements to capture a deeper, more universal truth. An artwork must therefore be accessible to comprehension at the level of perception. It must be recognizably representative of something. A painting that presents a figure or scene is art. Paint splotches are not. A composition of recognizable tones is music. Random noise is not. A fictional narrative of sufficient length is a novel. A collection of sentences with no narrative structure is not. So it goes for every form of art: it must present something accessible to the senses, in the ways appropriate to connecting with those senses as forms of awareness. Saying that something is not art, does not mean it is not a pleasant decoration, nor does it mean it is worthless. It simply means that it cannot be used for the function of concretizing our deepest values and experiencing directly the equivalent of a sense of life. For instance, because architecture has significant structural and functional obligations (a house must have a roof, bathrooms, kitchen, and so on), Ayn Rand concluded that it was not a pure form of art. Yet anyone who has read The Fountainhead knows how passionately she cared about the artistic dimension of architecture and what worth she attached to it. Part of what makes art "good" is the artist's skill at capturing his world view and essential concerns in his art. This has many aspects. It includes making an engaging and clear presentation, which requires drawing skill in the visual arts, for example, and talent with plot, character, and dialogue in drama and the novel. It also requires skill in organizing and integrating ideas. This is vital to choosing thematic elements of a work and for making it rich in symbolism and inner structure. Some of these are skills that make for good decoration and design. In this sense works of design, such as a fine Persian carpet, can be lovely and well-made, even though they are not art. Many conventional accounts of aesthetics confuse decoration with art because they center aesthetics on the question of "what is beauty?" Objectivism regards this as a secondary issue, and because one's idea of beauty is inevitably informed and affected by one's sense of values, it is an issue that, like art in general, depends for its explanation on man's dependence on philosophical principles. In addition to the artist's skill, art can be judged in terms of its meaning. One may find a piece of work to be skillfully realized, yet be repulsed by what it says at the level of values and sense of life. This was Ayn Rand's reaction to Tolstoy's novels. Similarly, one may be greatly pleased by an artist's sense of life while not being entirely enamored of his skill in conveying it. This appears to have been Rand's reaction to the detective novelist Mickey Spillane, for example. Ayn Rand envisioned a school of art called "Romantic Realism." Romantic realist artists would, like Rand, combine a commitment to presenting believable scenes set in something like the real world with the ideals of a new romanticism, one that shaped scenes, melodies, and stories to present the essentially heroic character of man. In her own novels, Rand developed a style of "slanted realism" that wrapped rich characters around plots centered on key principles and ideas. Thus the world of her novels is not merely a report of the world as it is, but as it "might and could be." © Copyright 2005 - The Objectivist Center, reprinted with permission http://www.objectivistcenter.org The Atlas Society (formerly The Objectivist Center) A very special thank you to our friends at The Objectivist Center for allowing us to reprint their summaries on Objectivist philosophy.

FAQ: What is the Objectivist View of Law and Government (Politics)? (Note from MSK in May 2017: The link to The Objectivist Center in this post is no longer valid as the organization has been renamed The Atlas Society. And it seems like William Thomas might no longer be at TAS. However, for historical reasons, we are leaving the post as is. To get the current TAS information on Objectivism, please go to Objectivism 101.) by William Thomas - The Objectivist Center The Objectivist political theory has three main elements, all of which draw upon the classical liberal political tradition. First, the foundation of the political system should be the fundamental right to live free from physical force. Second, government has the strictly limited function of protecting rights. Third, government power should be exercised in accordance with objective laws. Capitalism is the politico-economic system implied by these principles. Individual Rights The Objectivist ethics holds that each person can live and flourish through the independent exercise of his rational mind. Economically, humans flourish through production and trade, as is evident from the fact that the freest countries are either the richest countries or are getting rich most quickly. Socially, trade is the model for how people can best deal with one another. Trade is voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. We trade money for the goods we need. But we form friendships and join clubs and associations as a kind of trade, too, investing our time, money, and energy in a relationship, for mutual enjoyment or the advancement of a shared cause. Independent people are traders because they give value for the values they receive from others. They do not mooch off of their friends and relatives, and they do not loot the resources of strangers. It is possible to live independently only if one is allowed to do so. One's choices must be voluntary if they are to be freely made. Fundamentally, only the threat of deadly force can undermine one's ability to reason and choose. Assault, murder, theft, fraud: all these are examples of the use of force to deprive someone of freedom, of goods, or even of life. Normally, one employs one's mind to support one's well being. The threat of force makes one accept someone else's dictates, rather than one's own judgment. This was the way the totalitarian systems such as Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Maoist China treated their citizens, and that is why the effect of those systems was a gray, uniform style of life, faltering production, and periodic bouts of mass imprisonment and slaughter. Because force is a fundamental threat to the independent life of production and trade, there is one fundamental principle of social organization that a just society must secure: the principle that no one may initiate the use of physical force against any other. The principle of non-initiation of force does not prohibit its use in self-defense. Objectivism is not a pacifist philosophy. A trader does not seek to profit from the use of force, but he is able and willing to defend himself, his friends, and his goods if they are threatened or attacked. The pacifist is right to recognize that violence is not the best way for rational beings to deal with one another. But when the rational and good fail to defend themselves from those who attempt to live irrationally, through force, they are surrendering all that is decent to all that is not. Those who choose the life of the animal, the life of tooth and claw, deserve a response in kind, if that is what will eliminate the threat. The individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness—mentioned in many American political documents—identify different dimensions of freedom and prohibit the corresponding types of force. "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context," wrote Ayn Rand. "There is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life." To live, one must be able to take action, by one's own choice, in support of one's life; that is the right to liberty. We are material beings, and so we need the freedom to keep the fruits of our labors and use or dispose of them as we see fit: that is the right to property. And we live as ourselves, for ourselves, so we have a right to pursue our own happiness. Limited Government The power of government is the power of the gun. It has the power to enforce a set of rules in the territory it controls, a power that is often turned against freedom. Objectivism therefore advocates a strictly limited form of government: a republican system that has only those powers and takes only those actions required to secure our rights to freedom from force. There must be a military force for defense against external enemies. There must be a system of legislation and law courts to establish the law and to adjudicate disputes in which force might be used. And there must be a system of enforcement of the law such as the police, to make sure the law is a social rule, not empty words. No country today scrupulously respects our rights, and indeed many people do not understand what rights really are. A limited, rights-respecting government would have no welfare system and no forced pension-paying system like Social Security in the U.S. It would not have agencies with open-ended and vaguely defined regulatory powers. There would be no anti-trust law, nor zoning laws, nor anti-drug laws. This does not mean that a free society would not have unemployment insurance or pensions, or that it would not have distinctive neighborhoods or public campaigns to reduce the use of dangerous narcotics. But if people wanted any of these things, they would have to organize and undertake them voluntarily, through individual contracts and free associations. And no one would have the right to enforce his preferences on someone else through violence. Free debate and rational persuasion would have to be the means a social organizer would use, and the result would be a system of freedom, in which each person would choose for himself the best course in life and would suffer or enjoy the consequences of his choices. Objective Law Civil law (primarily contracts, property, and torts) is government's main positive service. Civil law provides objective, just, and peaceful means of resolving disputes among producers and traders. In so doing, it provides the context needed for reliable long-term planning and contracting, which in turn are necessary conditions for the prodigies of global capitalist production and the wonders and conveniences of modern life. Police and the armed services, by contrast, serve in a negative role: they protect citizens from threats by criminals and foreign aggressors. In both civil and criminal realms, law functions by providing clear standards for determining which actions and interactions among people are consistent with individual rights. Without these legal institutions, society collapses into warring camps; each interaction invites violent dispute; and life becomes more inconvenient, less productive, and more brutal—at best. Objectivity in the law is crucial to its function. The laws must be clearly expressed in terms of essential principles. The highly detailed, programmatic laws so common today violate this principle, as do the vague standards under which many regulations are issued. The law must be intelligible to the people on whom it is enforced. The law courts must be structured so that objectivity and impartiality are the hallmarks of any legal decision. And the law must always be grounded in principles of rights. Capitalism Thus capitalism is not merely a system of economic freedom, much less an economic system favoring big businesses. In its pure form, capitalism is a social system characterized by individual freedom, diversity, and dynamism. It is a system that treats people as individuals, with no ethnic, religious, or other collective principle enshrined in the law. It is the system under which each of us makes his own choices and must take responsibility for his own life and happiness. It is the system in which long-term peace and unbounded prosperity are possible, if people will work for them. As Ayn Rand said, it is the system of separation of economy and state, just as there is separation of church and state, and for the same essential reason: because each person has a right to think and to live as his own conscience dictates, and because we all benefit from everyone having that freedom. © Copyright 2005 - The Objectivist Center, reprinted with permission http://www.objectivistcenter.org The Atlas Society (formerly The Objectivist Center) A very special thank you to our friends at The Objectivist Center for allowing us to reprint their summaries on Objectivist philosophy.

I love sugar! I can't help myself. If it ain't sweet, fattening or high in carbs, it ain't food. Michael is the sweetest guy in the world and he won't touch anything with sugar or booze. I am a total chocoholic and I want more sugar, not less. More! Tiramisu is one of my favorite desserts - sugar, booze, goo and chocolate. Michael has never had it and he won't touch it knowing what's in it. What is the magic formula for substituting honey for sugar in cooking? He might take Splenda in small doses, but it is made from sugar cane too. Also, is there a non-alcoholic substitute for the liquor? And what is that cheese? Is it like cream cheese? I know this seems like a royal pain in the butt, but low-sugar diets are becoming more common. As a chef, knowing how to adjust the recipes for low carb, low sugar or meatless diners is a valuable skill. Remember this when you are writing your cookbook or doing your new show on the food channel. Kat

FAQ: What is the Objectivist Position in Morality (Ethics)? (Note from MSK in May 2017: The link to The Objectivist Center in this post is no longer valid as the organization has been renamed The Atlas Society. And it seems like William Thomas might no longer be at TAS. However, for historical reasons, we are leaving the post as is. To get the current TAS information on Objectivism, please go to Objectivism 101.) by William Thomas - The Objectivist Center For thousands of years, people have been taught that goodness consists in serving others. "Love your brother as yourself" teach the Christian scriptures. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" preach the Marxists. Even the liberal Utilitarian philosophers, many of whom defended free market capitalism, taught that one should act always to attain "the greatest good for the greatest number." The result of this code has been a bloody trail of wars and revolutions to enforce self-sacrifice, and an endless struggle in society to achieve equality among people. Meanwhile, like the barnyard revolutionaries of George Orwell's "Animal Farm," the advocates of uniformity and self-sacrifice strain to prove themselves "more equal than others," so that they may determine how much love is enough, or what your ability is and what your needs should be. It seems loving our fellow man is a fine way to hate him. The Objectivist ethics rebuilds morality from the ground up. "You cannot say 'I love you' if you cannot say the 'I'," wrote Ayn Rand. According to Objectivism, a person's own life and happiness is the ultimate good. To achieve happiness requires a morality of rational selfishness, one that does not give undeserved rewards to others and that does not ask them for oneself. Traditional moral codes have taught that social life is a war of dog-eat-dog, which must be restrained by self-sacrifice and self-abnegation. "Live simply, that others may simply live," is their slogan. But unlike these doctrines suited to a world of peasant villages and warrior elites, Objectivism was made for the era of industrial capitalism. It teaches what became plain as the West got rich: that a harmony of interests exists among rational individuals, so that no one's benefit need come at the price of another's suffering. Because one person's happiness does not come at the expense of another's, a life of mutual respect and benevolent independence is possible for all. It is the doctrine of "live and let live," to the full and in every way. Now how can such a harmony of interests exist? Aren't our interests really in conflict? Aren't we each at the other's throat? The answer is that human beings are not vampires, feeding on each other, nor need we live as hunter-gatherers, simply feeding on limited natural resources. Where animals graze the land, humans can cultivate it. The human mode of living is production: the creation of value from the raw materials around us. Human beings see a rock, and we invent tools, smelting techniques, stone buildings, steel girders, paved streets, and so on and on. We see a tree, and we make furniture, fuel, papers, books, construction materials, medicines, and so on and on. The application of reason to our problems allows us to create solutions. Thus we are not like dogs squabbling over meat or children sharing a pie; we are each creators, making new goods through our productive work, materially and morally. Material well-being is possible for everyone, and no one needs to make others poor to get rich. Consider the fact that the richest people in America are entrepreneurs who created products that millions of people were glad to use. And since knowledge, ideas, and other non-material goods can be shared as widely as need be, we are not in fundamental competition with others for our spiritual needs, either. So, because reason is our means of survival, we stand to benefit from every discovery others make, every image or story they share, and every dollar they earn by production and trade. Objectivism holds that the purpose of morality is to define a code of values in support of one's own life, a human life. The values of Objectivism are the means to a happy life. They include such things as wealth, love, satisfaction in work, education, artistic inspiration, and much more. We choose many of our values, such as what work we enjoy and who are our friends and lovers. But we cannot choose the need for material goods or for friendship, if a happy life is what we seek. The ultimate choice open to us is whether we want life or not. Life is a choice we must make consciously and seriously, argues Rand, or else we may find that, by default, we have chosen the alternative: suffering and death. The cardinal values of Objectivism are Reason, Purpose, and Self. Reason, because it is our means of gaining knowledge, and, through production, our means of survival. Purpose, because each of us has free will and must direct himself toward chosen goals, through a chosen course of life. Self, because without self-esteem, a self-motivating being cannot find the means to continue. Just as one's own needs lie at the heart of the Objectivist ethical code, so should respect for them lie at the heart of one's values. The Objectivist ethics is a code that honors achievement and counsels the celebration, not the envy, of greatness. It honors the creativity not only of artists and scholars, but of the producers on whose shoulders civilization rests: industrialists and engineers, investors and inventors. It holds that any work is spiritual that is well and thoughtfully done, no matter what the scale of achievement, from the factory line worker to the corporate CEO, and from the most unknown clerk to the most celebrated movie star. The virtues of Objectivism, then, define principles of action that lead to the achievement of objective values, considered in the full context of human life. The key principle of the Objectivist ethics is rationality, as against mysticism and whim. The ethics is a code of benevolence and justice toward other people: holding evil-doers to account for their vices, but treating rational and productive people with good will and generosity. It entails integrity, allowing no breach between our principles and our actions. A rational being practices honesty, loving the truth more than deception; and he lives first-hand, on the basis of his own judgment and effort, so independence is a virtue. The Objectivist ethics places industry and productivity in one's chosen work at the center of life's concerns. It is the code of a person who holds his head up with pride, in an objective appreciation of his merits and in aspiration to improvement in the future. Traditional ethics contrast the image of man as an animal with the ideal of man as an otherworldly monk. Man is by nature a ravening beast, on this view, and he must be taught self-denial and self-sacrifice to be angelic and meek. Objectivism holds that man lives best as a trader, acting rationally for his own sake and dealing with others by exchanging value for value. Traditional ethics extol courage in the face of death as a virtue; Objectivism counsels integrity in the long-term pursuit of happiness. Traditional ethics extol charity as the mark of nobility; Objectivism extols productive achievement, because no one exists merely for the sake of others. It is an ethic for those who want all life has to offer, consistently, over the full course of life. © Copyright 2005 - The Objectivist Center, reprinted with permission http://www.objectivistcenter.org The Atlas Society (formerly The Objectivist Center) A very special thank you to our friends at The Objectivist Center for allowing us to reprint their summaries on Objectivist philosophy.

FAQ: What is the Objectivist Theory of Knowledge (Epistemology)? (Note from MSK in May 2017: The link to The Objectivist Center in this post is no longer valid as the organization has been renamed The Atlas Society. And it seems like William Thomas might no longer be at TAS. However, for historical reasons, we are leaving the post as is. To get the current TAS information on Objectivism, please go to Objectivism 101.) by William Thomas - The Objectivist Center Objectivism holds that all human knowledge is reached through reason, the human mental faculty of understanding the world abstractly and logically. Aristotle called man "the rational animal" because it is the faculty of reason that most distinguishes humans from other creatures. But we do not reason automatically. We are beings of free will and we are fallible. This is why we need the science of knowledge—epistemology—to teach us what knowledge is and how to achieve it. The basis of our knowledge is the awareness we have through our physical senses. We see reality, hear it, taste it, smell it, feel it through touch. As babies, we discover the world through our senses. As our mental abilities develop, we become able to recall memories and we can form images in our minds. Other animals are also capable of perception and memory. What most obviously sets humans apart is our bountiful use of language. The difference is more fundamental, though: at root, language is a means of formulating and expressing abstract thoughts. Abstractions are ideas that correspond to an unlimited number of things at once. When you say or think "horse," for example, your mind focuses on an idea—a concept— that refers to all the horses that ever have been or will be. Concepts allow us to consider the past and the future, things that are, things that might be, and even things that can't be. Using concepts together, we can formulate general principles, like the laws of nature, that apply to many situations. The ability to grasp reality in the form of abstract concepts and principles is the essence of reason as a human capacity. But thinking abstractly is often a difficult process and each person must undertake it for himself in the solitude of his own mind. Because abstract thinking is not automatic, people can easily make mistakes and end up believing in false ideas. The only way to ensure the objectivity of one's thinking is to use a deliberate logical method. "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification," wrote Ayn Rand. Because there are no contradictions in reality, two ideas that contradict each other cannot both be true; and any idea that contradicts the facts we can observe through our senses is necessarily false. Logic gives us standards we can use to easily judge whether an argument makes sense. The scientific method is an advanced form of logical reasoning. Through it, reason has unlocked the secrets of nature and made our industrial civilization, with all its wealth and comforts, possible. Objectivists defend the efficacy of reason against all critics. Skeptics say that because we are fallible, we must doubt all our beliefs. But this claim is a self-contradiction: the skeptic is claiming certainty at least for his belief in our fallibility. Religious mystics often claim that God or the supernatural is so different from everything we know that it is beyond reason's ability to understand. But since whatever exists has identity, i.e. definite and delimited properties, it is always possible to contrast it with other things, conceptualize it, establish standards of measurement, and thereby begin to reason about it. At a time when mathematicians explore the properties that even infinite spaces and processes must have, it underestimates the human mind to think it incapable of plumbing deep or complex phenomena. Anyone who claims insights that do not derive from sensory evidence and logical reasoning is, in effect, asking you to abuse your mind. Someone who claims, skeptically, that no real knowledge is possible is asking you to abandon your mind entirely. Objectivism holds that it is possible to be certain of a conclusion, and that there is such a thing as truth. But being certain depends on scrupulously following a logical, objective process of reasoning, because it is only that kind of thinking that allows us to formulate true ideas. To be objective, people must know how to define the terms they use (so they know what they mean), base their conclusions on observable facts (so their beliefs are anchored in reality) and employ the principles of logic (so that they can reliably reach sound conclusions). © Copyright 2005 - The Objectivist Center, reprinted with permission http://www.objectivistcenter.org The Atlas Society (formerly The Objectivist Center) A very special thank you to our friends at The Objectivist Center for allowing us to reprint their summaries on Objectivist philosophy.

FAQ: What is the Objectivist View of Reality (Metaphysics)? (Note from MSK in May 2017: The link to The Objectivist Center in this post is no longer valid as the organization has been renamed The Atlas Society. And it seems like William Thomas might no longer be at TAS. However, for historical reasons, we are leaving the post as is. To get the current TAS information on Objectivism, please go to Objectivism 101.) by William Thomas - The Objectivist Center Objectivism holds that there is one reality, the one in which we live. It is self-evident that reality exists and is what it is: our job is to discover it. Objectivism stands against all forms of metaphysical relativism or idealism. It holds it as undeniable that humans have free will, and opposes metaphysical determinism or fatalism. More generally, it holds that there is no fundamental contradiction between the free, abstract character of mental life and the physical body in which it resides. And so it denies the existence of any "supernatural" or ineffable dimension for spirits or souls. Let's consider each of these points in turn. Relativism and objective reality Today, especially in university departments of literature, there are some fashionable "postmodernists" who claim that we create reality with words, in our own minds. This view is an instance of a position that has frequently reappeared in philosophy: metaphysical relativism or idealism. It is the view that, ultimately, nothing is real except in relation to our perceiving it or thinking of it. But reality is not a function of our ideas. It exists, and it is what it is, regardless of whether we want it to be or not. Denying this is the intellectual equivalent of closing one's eyes while driving down the highway. Car crashes do not happen just because one believes they do; they often happen even when we wish them not to. Facts are facts, independently of us. This is why things happen that surprise us. It is why science has been the process of establishing the truth about nature without regard for our preconceptions. It is why babies have to learn: they are discovering the world "out there." Things in reality have real properties and exert causal powers without regard for us and our knowledge of them. Ayn Rand summed up this attitude to reality as the principle of the primacy of existence. "The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists," wrote Ayn Rand in "The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made," "i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge by looking outward." Consciousness (i.e., the mind) is in essence a faculty of awareness. We are aware of the world around us through sense-perceptions, of course, but even in our abstract and theoretical knowledge we function primarily through identification of how things are. To give a simple example, we decide whether to say "that is a yellow house," but we know that what makes that statement knowledge, rather than hot air, is whether or not it identifies a house that really is yellow. Free will vs. determinism Through our senses we see and feel a material world. It has physical characteristics such as form and mass. But our thoughts seem free: we choose by our own lights what we should do, even how we should move our bodies, and we can rove with our minds into worlds of fantasy and imagination that never existed. Our legs can be made to flinch by the tap of a hammer on our knees. But we can make our minds up unflinchingly to do whatever we must, even if it costs us our lives. Many philosophers and scientists believe in metaphysical determinism. This is the idea that everything in existence proceeds ineluctably from cause to effect, like a computer program, the orbits of the planets, or the motion of billiard-balls on a pool table. According to determinism, the universe was set in motion somehow, perhaps in a Big Bang, perhaps by God, and everything that has happened since has had to happen: nothing else was possible, the outcome is determined. In this view, we may feel like we make choices, but underneath our choices there lies some process that proceeds like clockwork: our genetic development, social and environmental factors, or perhaps something else or all of the above. Whatever the causal story given, in this view our actions and even our thoughts happen in the one and only way they can. Objectivism holds, in contrast, that man has free will. We have the ability of choice, not over every aspect of existence, of course, but over a range of actions within our power. Every day we do things that we might have done differently. Our freedom to choose our actions is of the essence of what it means to be human: it underlies our need for moral guidance and is a major cause of our fallibility, but is also at the root of our ability to progress by imagining and creating improvements on the brute forms of nature. The fact of free will is self-evident: each of knows we have the ability to control our own minds, to focus our thoughts on one issue or another, and to direct our own actions. Some fear that admitting the existence of free will is not compatible with science, that it involves denying causality. After all, science has ably demonstrated that most things in reality function deterministically. Mechanistic theories of physics and chemistry, for example, work brilliantly because they are true: planets do not choose their orbits, and DNA molecules do not recombine out of delight in making life. But the idea of free will doesn't deny causality or science, it just points out that for at least some of the things you do, you are the cause. We may not yet understand scientifically how the chemicals in the brain and nervous system give rise to this capacity, but science can no more explain away the fact of free will than the germ theory of disease could explain away diphtheria. Science doesn't eliminate real features of existence, ones that we experience in every moment; it explains them. Mind and Body Free will is just one way in which the mind seems quite different from physical matter. The spiritual realm of thought, imagination, values, and aspirations seems far removed from the realm of material objects, physical forces, and biological need. Many philosophers have puzzled over questions such as whether a thought has weight or what the size of the mind is. One simple solution to these questions is that the mind is somehow radically distinct from the body. In different forms, the mind-body dichotomy underlies many traditional ideas about human nature. Religious thinkers, for example, see the mind as an immortal soul that transcends the mortal husk of the body. They posit a spiritual life that is higher, freer, and better than material existence. This dichotomy has led to the tradition of asceticism, i.e., abusing the body for the sake of spiritual purity, and to the ideal of chastity, the experience of love unconnected to sex and the other lusts of the body. It also exists in secular forms, such as the division between reason and emotion symbolized by Star Trek's unemotional Vulcans: the rational self is the mind, in this view, which must struggle to be free of the irrational passions that arise from our physical nature. In sum, it projects a view of man at war with himself, an angel imprisoned in the body of a beast, at once both Dr. Jekyl and Mister Hyde. Like many classical Greek philosophies, including Aristotelianism, Objectivism rejects this entire conception of man. There is a difference between the mind and body, to be sure, but no dichotomy or conflict. They are both aspects of human nature. We are living organisms, and all our faculties, mental as well as physical, work together to keep us alive. What we call the mind is the set of capacities to be aware, to perceive the world, to think about it, to feel, to value, to make choices. How do these capacities arise? In many respects, the answer to that question must come from science, not philosophy. But everything we know indicates that they are the product of biological evolution and that they depend on our physical sense organs and brain, as well as on the many other support structures that the body provides. What we call our spiritual needs, moreover, are not in conflict with our physical or biological needs. They are rooted in the same basic need to maintain our lives through purposeful action. Human beings lack sufficient instinctive drives to survive without thinking, learning, and making choices. Reason is our most important tool for survival. But it is a complex and highly demanding tool. According to Objectivism, our spiritual needs for values, principles, ideals, aesthetic experience, and love are requirements for the healthy functioning of a rational, volitional mode of cognition. In the course of life, we all encounter specific conflicts between our spiritual and our physical values (as well as conflicts within each category), but there is no inherent, global conflict between these aspects of our nature. Indeed, our most important activities serve the needs of body and soul, together. We live best when our reason and emotion are in harmony, for example. We know true love when we combine mental esteem with physical passion. Productive work is both a means of earning our daily bread and an expression of our creative powers. Natural vs. Supernatural The idea of exalting the spirit over the material existence of the body has long been tightly connected in religious thought to the idea that there exists some reality beyond the material world we know through our senses, a world our spirits long for as an escape from the needs of the body and the constraints of physical reality. In many traditions, this is a heaven, a place beyond all physical law to which the spirit can travel and in which many or even all things are possible. Many religions attribute this supernatural kind of existence, this existence beyond nature, to their God or gods. Objectivism holds that it is simply nonsense to speak of anything "supernatural"—literally beyond or above nature. The term "nature," in the broadest sense refers to the world we perceive, the world of objects that interact in accordance with causal law. If we discovered some dimension or universe that had radically different properties from the environment we live in, it would still be part of nature. If we could discover it or it could affect us, it would have some real, specific properties and would interact with our world in some way. However strange it might be, its characteristics could be compared in meaningful ways with things we already know, and it could be measured somehow. In fact, science has already explored some very weird and alien realms, as compared with the level of reality we see and hear. To pick just one example, light functions in ways so strange that we are not sure how to describe it: wave or particle? But even so, we know a tremendous amount about it, and use it to banish the night and communicate around the globe in the blink of an eye. The supernatural is supposed to be beyond human comprehension, to exist in no particular way, to affect our reality miraculously, beyond any and all physical laws. And indeed, supernaturalists make great hay out of the areas where science is silent either because the question is not really scientific or because the scientific jury is still out. It is as if they resent science for not yet explaining every single issue to their satisfaction, and yet insist that their most precious beliefs be immune to rational scrutiny. In effect, the supernaturalists want to have their cake and eat it too. They claim that gods, angels, and devils exist, but are not anything in particular. They hope to go to a heaven by some means, but not any specific means. And heaven must be a real place (some even say it is a lush garden stocked with virgins or a cheerful land in the clouds), but it isn't anywhere real. The Buddhists even go so far as to deny that the realm beyond—nirvana—is any place at all. In fact, supernaturalism amounts to a brazen advocacy of contradictions. But, as Ayn Rand pointed out over and over, contradictions can exist only in the human mind, not in reality as such. No fact is essentially contradictory. So there is no world beyond nature, nor any life beyond this one. But in contrast to the supernaturalists' view of nature as a vale of tears, an oppressive prison for the soul, Objectivism holds that we live in a "benevolent universe." We are beings well-adapted to the real world in which we live, with the free will to carve our own path and the ability to achieve happiness and even exaltation. Reality does not watch out for us, and there is no reason to think any deity does so either. In fact, we must watch out for reality, as Rand recognized when she summed up her metaphysics with Francis Bacon's dictum "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." But command nature we can, and this is what makes the universe essentially benevolent: it is propitious to beings like us. © Copyright 2005 - The Objectivist Center, reprinted with permission http://www.objectivistcenter.org The Atlas Society (formerly The Objectivist Center) A very special thank you to our friends at The Objectivist Center for allowing us to reprint their summaries on Objectivist philosophy.

FAQ: What is Objectivism? (Note from MSK in May 2017: The link to The Objectivist Center in this post is no longer valid as the organization has been renamed The Atlas Society. And it seems like William Thomas might no longer be at TAS. However, for historical reasons, we are leaving the post as is. To get the current TAS information on Objectivism, please go to Objectivism 101.) by William Thomas - The Objectivist Center/The Atlas Society Objectivism is the philosophy of rational individualism founded by Ayn Rand (1905-1982). In novels such as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Rand dramatized her ideal man, the producer who lives by his own effort and does not give or receive the undeserved, who honors achievement and rejects envy. Rand laid out the details of her world-view in nonfiction books such as The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving happiness. But one cannot achieve happiness by wish or whim. Fundamentally, it requires rational respect for the facts of reality, including the facts about our human nature and needs. Happiness requires that one live by objective principles, including moral integrity and respect for the rights of others. Politically, Objectivists advocate laissez-faire capitalism. Under capitalism, a strictly limited government protects each person's rights to life, liberty, and property and forbids that anyone initiate force against anyone else. The heroes of Objectivism are achievers who build businesses, invent technologies, and create art and ideas, depending on their own talents and on trade with other independent people to reach their goals. Objectivism is optimistic, holding that the universe is open to human achievement and happiness and that each person has within him the ability live a rich, fulfilling, independent life. This idealistic message suffuses Rand's novels, which continue to sell by the hundreds of thousands every year to people attracted to their inspirational storylines and distinctive ideas. The answers to the questions in the FAQ section of the Objectivist Center's website provide a summary of the core ideas of Objectivism and the relationship between those ideas within a philosophical system. So we must first consider what philosophy is, and why it must be systematic. © Copyright 2005 - The Objectivist Center, reprinted with permission http://www.objectivistcenter.org The Atlas Society (formerly The Objectivist Center) A very special thank you to our friends at The Objectivist Center for allowing us to reprint their summaries on Objectivist philosophy. Also in this series: FAQ: What is the Objectivist View of Reality (Metaphysics)? FAQ: What is the Objectivist Theory of Knowledge FAQ: What is the Objectivist Position in Morality (Ethics)? FAQ: What is the Objectivist View of Law and Government FAQ: What does Objectivism Consider to be Art (Aesthetics)

Thanks Ciro, I am honored. purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Are you up for a real challenge? MSK will not touch liquor or processed sugar (honey is ok), what adjustments would I need to make to this to please my man? Kat

Beef Strogonoff Serves 4 1 ½ lbs round steak, cut in thin strips 3 T flour 1/8 lb butter 1 onion, grated 1 tsp mustard Juice of ½ lemon 1 lb fresh mushrooms ½ pint sour cream 1 small can tomato sauce 2 T sugar 2 T ketchup Salt Place meat in slightly buttered skillet and fry for 2 minutes on each side. Turn off element, and let meat stand in covered skillet while preparing the rest of the ingredients. Cut mushrooms and boil them in ½ cup water for half an hour. Melt butter. Remove pan from heat and add the flour, grated onion, and the rest of the ingredients except for the mushrooms. Stir. Pour the mixture over the meat in the skillet and cook for 8 minutes, stirring frequently. Add mushrooms at the last minute. This was one of Ayn Rand’s favorites, easy to make and delicious, a recipe she brought with her from Russia in 1926.

I want to extend a warm welcome and a special invitaiton to Ciro. Since this is a lifestyle site and one of our charter members, Ciro, is a professional chef, I am inviting him to share some of his his recipes and cooking tips here at Objectivist Living. He owns an Italian restaurant, is currently working on a cooking video and loves to share his recipes and cooking tips. I am sure that there will be a cookbook in the works soon as well as a possible catering gig at an upcoming event. Anyway, Michael gave a wonderful tribute to Ciro on another discussion board, which I will repeat here. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to start a thread like one starts applause at a wonderful concert. Ciro, I have seen you express your opinions, beliefs and thoughts in the most varied circumstances, including extremely hostile ones. I have never seen you back down from what you believe, nor have I seen you get into a nasty name-calling fight. I have seen you be considered as overly simplistic and then an appreciation grow for your depth and cleverness - an almost devious cleverness that you use joyfully like a kitten at play. When I "nudged" you to become Solo Food Leader, I had no idea of the wealth of posts that you would bring to it, covering a wide range of food issues - including philosophy and banter. I have seen people try to insult you and spit in your face. You always come back with an honorable upbeat response, as if no one on earth could kill your happiness. You are the most un-bitter person I have ever seen. I would characterize your sense of life as sincerity plus goodwill incarnate. It is a tremendous pleasure to know you. (standing ovation) Michael

Hi Andrew, We will be filling in the philosophy stuff pretty soon, but there is a good general intro at http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com or at The Objectivist Center http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/what-is-objectivism.asp ://http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ob...ectivism.asp ://http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ob...ectivism.asp The best source is a book called Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. It outlines the philosophy in the form of fiction. Kat

This is a little off topic of the rant, but the kitten makes the momma Kat purr. Inky just won a contest to design some artwork for another website. Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Now back to your regularly scheduled rant. Kat

I agree. The whole thing with the companies having to badmouth their own product is completely absurd. Why should anyone, even large corporatation, have to act as their own destroyer? Blank-out. The reason a company advertises a product that they have made is to sell the product, generate more demand for the product and give their company's product a larger market share. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you and having tobacco companies tell people through paid advertising to quit smoking and stop buying the product they are selling is certainly not in their best interests. It's a fucking joke. They are fools for doing it and someone should have had the balls to say no - this is insane. Maybe that would be contempt of court, who knows? And I am also wondering how much money the government is giving out in subsidies to tobacco farmers while hanging the evil capitalists out to dry? Quitting smoking is not a huge deal. People do it everyday without the help of those do-good tobacco companies who are greatly concerned for everyone's health. *cough* As many know, I quit smoking after just talking to Michael on the phone one day. This was even before we met. Without laying on the usual bull about how horrible it is, he made me think about how it could be incompatible with things that have a higher value to me. It was amazing. Smoking suddenly had zero value. The public humiliation campaign against the tobacco industry is nanny government at its finest. They are banning smoking everywhere and it will probably be illegal in Chicago within the next year. It is already illegal in restaurants and other places. One of the big reasons I quit was because it basically wasn't being allowed anywhere. Who wants to be at a bar or restaurant and have to go out side in zero degree weather to feed the habit? I say keep it legal. People are not idiots. Kat

Note from Administrator: The information in this thread was for the old domain and/or phpp forum software, but it is still mostly valid for the present program (Invision Power Board). Posting Issues How do I post a topic in a forum? Easy -- click the relevant button on either the forum or topic screens. You may need to register before you can post a message. The facilities available to you are listed at the bottom of the forum and topic screens (the You can post new topics, You can vote in polls, etc. list) How do I edit or delete a post? Unless you are the board admin or forum moderator you can only edit or delete your own posts. You can edit a post (sometimes for only a limited time after it was made) by clicking the edit button for the relevant post. If someone has already replied to the post, you will find a small piece of text output below the post when you return to the topic that lists the number of times you edited it. This will only appear if no one has replied; it also will not appear if moderators or administrators edit the post (they should leave a message saying what they altered and why). Please note that normal users cannot delete a post once someone has replied. How do I add a signature to my post? To add a signature to a post you must first create one; this is done via your profile. Once created you can check the Add Signature box on the posting form to add your signature. You can also add a signature by default to all your posts by checking the appropriate radio box in your profile. You can still prevent a signature being added to individual posts by un-checking the add signature box on the posting form. How do I create a poll? Creating a poll is easy -- when you post a new topic (or edit the first post of a topic, if you have permission) you should see a Add Poll form below the main posting box. If you cannot see this then you probably do not have rights to create polls. You should enter a title for the poll and then at least two options -- to set an option type in the poll question and click the Add option button. You can also set a time limit for the poll, 0 being an infinite amount. There will be a limit to the number of options you can list, which is set by the board administrator. How do I edit or delete a poll? As with posts, polls can only be edited by the original poster, a moderator, or board administrator. To edit a poll, click the first post in the topic, which always has the poll associated with it. If no one has cast a vote then users can delete the poll or edit any poll option. However, if people have already placed votes only moderators or administrators can edit or delete it; this is to prevent people rigging polls by changing options mid-way through a poll. Why can't I access a forum? Some forums may be limited to certain users or groups. To view, read, post, etc. you may need special authorization which only the forum moderator and board administrator can grant, so you should contact them. Why can't I vote in polls? Only registered users can vote in polls so as to prevent spoofing of results. If you have registered and still cannot vote then you probably do not have appropriate access rights.

Note from Administrator: The information in this thread was for the old domain and/or phpp forum software, but it is still mostly valid for the present program (Invision Power Board). Login and Registration Issues Why can't I log in? Have you registered? Seriously, you must register in order to log in. Have you been banned from the board? (A message will be displayed if you have.) If so, you should contact the webmaster or board administrator to find out why. If you have registered and are not banned and you still cannot log in then check and double-check your username and password. Usually this is the problem; if not, contact the board administrator -- they may have incorrect configuration settings for the board. Why do I need to register at all? Registration will give you access to additional features not available to guest users such as definable avatar images, private messaging, emailing to fellow users, usergroup subscription, etc. It only takes a few minutes to register so it is recommended you do so. Why do I get logged off automatically? If you do not check the Log me in automatically box when you log in, the board will only keep you logged in for a preset time. This prevents misuse of your account by anyone else. To stay logged in, check the box during login. This is not recommended if you access the board from a shared computer, e.g. library, internet cafe, university cluster, etc. How do I prevent my username from appearing in the online user listings? In your profile you will find an option Hide your online status; if you switch this on you'll only appear to board administrators or to yourself. You will be counted as a hidden user. I've lost my password! Don't panic! While your password cannot be retrieved it can be reset. To do this go to the login page and click I've forgotten my password. Follow the instructions and you should be back online in no time. I registered but cannot log in! First check that you are entering the correct username and password. If they are okay then one of two things may have happened: if COPPA support is enabled and you clicked the I am under 13 years old link while registering then you will have to follow the instructions you received. If this is not the case then maybe your account need activating. Some boards will require all new registrations be activated, either by yourself or by the administrator before you can log on. When you registered it would have told you whether activation was required. If you were sent an email then follow the instructions; if you did not receive the email then check that your email address is valid. One reason activation is used is to reduce the possibility of rogue users abusing the board anonymously. If you are sure the email address you used is valid then try contacting the board administrator. I registered in the past but cannot log in anymore! The most likely reasons for this are: you entered an incorrect username or password (check the email you were sent when you first registered) or the administrator has deleted your account for some reason. If it is the latter case then perhaps you did not post anything? It is usual for boards to periodically remove users who have not posted anything so as to reduce the size of the database. Try registering again and get involved in discussions.

The Objectivist Center and Atlas Society will hold their 17th Annual Summer Seminar conference July 1–8, 2006, on the campus of Chapman University. The Chapman campus is located in Orange, California, close to Orange County/John Wayne Airport, Disneyland, Huntingdon Beach, and of course everything else in the Los Angeles area. The Seminar program and registration information will be available in early 2006. Stay tuned. http://www.theobjectivistcenter.com

Are you out there? This is a pretty cool little map at http://www.frappr.com/objectivistnation Also take a look at Meetup to find other Ayn Rand fans in your area or start a local group.

Hi everyone glad you could stop in. I kinda left the door unlocked there for a sec but I think it is now set up correctly. Kat

The Virtue of Silliness by Kat & Michael Stuart Kelly Note: Michael and I co-authored this by e-mail. We exercised a little poetic license with some events. We wrote this prior to our first meeting. Now we are engaged. – katdaddy There SHE sat, in Chicago, trying her best to be serious. Her Sense of Life seemed like a thing of the past. SHE had shrugged off a no-good mooching tomcat and felt like a homeless alley kat—between jobs, barely scratching out a freelance kittance, having trouble getting milk for her two kittens… almost foraging for katfood stamps. How did SHE ever get so low? What was missing? People told her that God would always provide for her and the kittens. Well, where was God now? SHE knew they meant well, but it still made the fur on her back stiffen up. Her kittens would mew, people would smile and say silly altruistic bromides, or tell her to pray harder and all would be well. SHE would hiss back, "Talk to the paw!" Nobody ever seemed to understand her. SHE was unconventional and did not fit in well with any of their political or social sentiments. Maybe SHE was an alley kat after all. Once, after a particularly wretched katfight, SHE thought of putting herself down. SHE had almost let herself become a sacrificial animal. But then SHE remembered her kittens, remembered the way life could and should have been… "Stop it!" SHE had said to herself. "Don’t be silly." A few years earlier a friend told her, "You’ve got to read Ayn Rand. Seriously, it’s you." So SHE started by reading Atlas Shrugged. Meowing with excitement, SHE went on to the other books—first the novels, then the non-fiction. Her older kitten even started pawing through Rand and became a rational teenager, that is, to the extent that such an animal could exist. Here was Objectivism, a philosophy for living here and now. SHE didn’t need to live with contradictions. SHE didn’t need a leash. SHE didn’t need an owner. SHE certainly didn’t need some mystical god to be a moral fearless pussykat or raise her kittens. It was her life and her responsibility. SHE especially liked The Virtue of Selfishness. Serious stuff, not fluff. When SHE got confused, SHE would meow to herself, "A is A—and I’m no fraidy-kat. I’ll simply have to check my premises." When SHE thought about having answers like that, SHE would lick her paw contentedly. So what was wrong? Why was SHE so unsatisfied? * * * HE had just arrived from Brazil. HE had been roaming the world trying to get away from the silliness of it all. HE was seeking—HE didn’t quite know what it was yet… something serious maybe… definitely a woman who loved like HE did… HE was a randy young man looking for nookie qua nookie when HE had left the USA… and Brazil was so full of gorgeous women… HE remembered when HE first arrived there. It was like reaching a wild frontier. There were adventures to live, new things to learn, and all that color and singing and dancing and beaches and jungles and cities and tropical food. Everything was so exciting! The whole country was like one big silly party—VW Beetle police cruisers, electric shower heads that sometimes blew up, nationwide worship of all things soccer, oceans of beer and caipirinhas, and all those stunning women everywhere. HE loved it. HE could turn on the TV and see John Wayne get off his horse, swagger over to a gunslinger and ask, "Como vai? Tudo bem?" John Wayne speaking Portuguese! Cool! HE could laugh to his heart’s content. Whatever it was HE was looking for, there was no doubt HE could find it here. But sometimes things didn’t feel so right. There were some not-so-heroic bribes you had to pay and a very unmetaphysical inflation that sent your money to a kind of financial noumenal realm where it disappeared forever. Stuff didn’t work when you needed it to. Everyone was late all the time. Why were there all these unnecessary problems? Why this huge blank-out party? Oh well. What did HE think a frontier was supposed to be anyway? HE had his ready-to-wear perma-press life back in the States if that was what HE wanted. Here HE could make a difference. No more chains to the past. No more sanction of this here victim. HE was alone in the wilderness and loving it. But HE was alone and longing, and it was such wistful longing… His Brazilian friend once said to him, "You work too hard. You want good sex? Good food? Good weather? You came to the right place. You want more? If you fancy getting serious, go back, go back." But HE was razzled and dazzled by all the new adventure. "Stop it," HE told his friend. "Don’t be silly." HE especially wanted to do something about Objectivism in Brazil. HE could even make his own Objectivist friends from scratch, from pure raw Brazilian people stock… In the States Objectivists were always snapping and bickering and fighting with each other. Some were really ornery and most were no fun at all to be around anyway. Argument-from-intimidation freaks. HE was extremely lonely for people who thought like HE did without all the sour-pussing. Well now HE could do something about that. In Brazil HE could even handcraft his very own happy-go-lucky Objectivist woman to love—feminine, beautiful, sexy, laughing and smart. What a glorious task! And it was too, except that the results were glorious failures. “You just can’t do it second-hand that way,” HE finally concluded. “Got to find something else … something different… a little more feline maybe… someone who is already rational and playful and sexy… someone I don’t have to change…” So after many magnificent failures at severely dichotomized love, and many daring adventures, and many analytic-synthetic years, HE decided to go back to the USA. * * * SHE hunted all over the internet for spiritual chow. SHE needed more than just books. SHE was a social animal and wanted to meet others who shared her worldview. Who knows? Maybe there was even a rational, playful, sexy HE for her out there somewhere. A HEro-kat SHE could look up to. One who was ruthlessly honest and unafraid to drag stuff into the middle of the floor and let this particular kat smell it. Someone who loved the best within her. One day SHE came across an Internet forum, SOLOHQ. Hmmm… Looked pretty darn good. SHE silently stalked in the background for long time, patiently watching and waiting… and then impatiently. SHE finally couldn’t bear it anymore and pounced. SHE was lonely. Then one day SHE froze. A doubt had crept in. Would this be in vain too? Maybe SHE had found some pretty cool kats, but most were gay, married, randroids or pomo-wankers. Some were good for pussyfooting around with. Some SHE had to use a kat-o’-nine-tails on. But SHE couldn’t find much for a lonely hard-thinking kat in heat. “Where is HE?” SHE meowed over and over. “There has to be at least one for me out there.” Wait. Maybe there were many. Maybe they were hiding. Maybe they just didn’t care too much for her. Maybe SHE wasn’t good enough… “Stop that,” SHE told herself. "Don’t be silly." * * * HE was lonely and confused. Over thirty years in Brazil and what did HE have to show for it? HE had conquered some of the wilderness. HE had won some hard-fought battles. HE had even grown to love this new culture. But where was his SHE? Did SHE even exist? HE had to keep looking… Then HE discovered SOLOHQ. Water in the desert. Manna from heaven. Real people talking Ayn Rand, talking reason and productiveness and pride and all the rest—and they were able to laugh while they did it. Not like those HE had met years before in college…those who so badly needed a dichotomectomy. HE had to think. Were there really Objectivists around now who were not castrated or constipated? What had happened while HE had been gone? Was a place like SOLOHQ an oasis? Were there others? Or was this a psycho-epistemological mirage? HE started posting. Others posted back. Cyber-friendships were born. HE even managed to post to Barbara Branden, his real-life heroine. HE had carried her in his heart all over Brazil for over thirty years. Now here SHE was posting to him! Wow! Miracles do happen! This was for real! This was fun! HE couldn’t get enough. Then one day HE stopped in his tracks. His heart started beating faster and HE whistled in admiration. There was a pretty Kitten posting, picture and all. Dayaamm… Maybe? Could it be? But wait a minute. Not so fast. This place was full of good, value-oriented, self-esteemed-up individualists and all, but… what was all that gay stuff about? Huh? Nothing wrong with gays, but that certainly was not for him. “Got to be careful,” HE thought. “You don’t want to embarrass or hurt anybody.” Besides, SHE called herself a fag-hag. Well what on earth did that mean? Was Kitten a frog in disguise? Was Kitten in reality a human man in katdrag? Was katdaddy a stage name for a drag queen? “Go slow,” HE told himself. "And don’t be silly.” * * * SHE got into a few katfights on SOLOHQ—discussions about katerwauling, legalization of katnip, integration of metaphysical katness and why superheroes wear their underpants on the outside. SHE proudly strutted her stuff. HE was broadsided a few times because HE disagreed with a few silly issues. Once HE even said that Ayn hiccuped about Kant and the katcalls were merciless. With all that ruckus going on, they noticed each other at times. Interesting. Very, very interesting… One day SHE was rereading The Fountainhead and wondering about why SHE had the heebie-jeebies all the time. What was wrong anyway? Could SHE do anything about it? Was there any sense to all this? Then SHE came across a passage that seemed to sum up how silly it all was. This was it! Eureka! SHE had found the words to express her restlessness perfectly! So SHE blurted the quote out on SOLOHQ: “Toothbrush in the jaw toothbrush brush brush tooth jaw foam dome in the foam Roman dome come home home in the jaw Rome dome tooth toothbrush toothpick pickpocket socket rocket” What? Did HE hear a mating call? Was Kitten meowing? Dayamm! That was one sexy pickup line! Was that hot little Kitten in heat? What could HE ever do to answer such an erotically charming come-on? This was serious. HE did not want to blow it. How could HE tell HER that HE was interested, but still keep the backdoor open for an honorable exit just in case HE got the signals wrong? Hmmm… Got it: “Branden in the rand branden done done brand rand meek seek in the meek peikoff seek so weak weak in the rand peek seek brand branden brand pig gigolo polo solo” SHE could not believe her eyes. HE understood. HE had heard. And HE was silly too! They were on the same frequency… like two cartoon characters on the same show! Could this possibly be real… or just dumb cyber-banter that withered away into boring unreality later? “Well, pay attention,” SHE told herself. SHE started noticing his posts even more. Sometimes serious, sometimes silly. SHE was confounded. Could it be him? Was this guy for real? SHE wondered "Oh, My Galt! What if HE is gay too?” Where on earth was his picture? Was HE ugly? What if HE looked like Jabba the Hutt? What if HE was bony and dorky? What if HE had two noses and seven eyes? Was HE afraid to be seen? Nonetheless, HE made her purr like SHE had never purred in her entire nine lives. Sometimes SHE pounced too boisterously and got too frisky. Then HE would pop up and tell her, “Git to the kitchen.” Kitchen? Wait a minute. Who did HE think HE was anyway? Nobody had ever dared to tell her anything like that before. SHE would show him a thing or two! SHE would swat him so hard that SHE would put him in a katatonic coma, and without a living will. But SHE always waited… eagerly breathless for the next time. One day SHE got tired of kat-and-mouse. SHE sent him a private e-mail threatening to scratch his eyes out after HE posted a particularly unkatty remark. HE answered with a laugh. Laugh? Hey, SHE was being serious! Hmmm. HE was for real! And HE seemed interested! Really interested! His picture finally came online. Not Jabba! Two eyes and one nose! HE was downright adorable. What a relief! They sent e-mails and started calling and instant messaging each other every day—and posted on SOLOHQ, of course. Some laughed there. Some called them silly. One even scowled in disgust. But they were way beyond caring. Sometimes HE talked in a sweet Southern drawl. Sometimes HE seemed like HE was thinking HER thoughts. HE was like nothing that had ever crossed her path before. SHE lapped up his tales of adventure in Brazil, his heart jerking sagas and outrageous silliness. HE was like all her heroes in Atlas Shrugged and favorite cartoon characters all rolled up in one very real and exciting man. SHE had found her hero. Kitten was smitten. HE couldn’t believe his luck either. Here was a woman serious about life and silly about living. Feline, beautiful, rational, playful and sexy. HE had roamed for decades over two continents in a desperate quest for this. HE had lived a legion of wild hair-raising adventures. HE knew agony and HE knew ecstasy. Now HE was taming a lioness disguised as a kitten. Was this a dream? Or was HE embarking on his greatest escapade? Did HE dare? In a fit of passion, HE had written her a haiku (but changed the animal, just in case): Duck floats on rough pond. Two swan siblings trail behind. The sun shines and smiles. And lovingly SHE wrote him a Seussed-up ode… I do so like my Southern ham. I’ve liked him since our poetry slam. I‘d like to do it here or there. I'd like to do it anywhere. In a house, or down south. With a goatee. On a boatee. In the rain. On a train. In a box. With my fox. Maybe in a tree. We shall soon see! They had seriously fallen in love on SOLOHQ… in silly cyberland. * * * They finally met. Two lonely misunderstood egoists seeing a perfect real-life reflection of themselves for the first time. It packed an overwhelmingly erotic punch. They rushed into each others arms, smothered one another with passionate kisses and tore at each other’s clothes… Ahem… at this point there is a rather discreet fadeout to signify the passage of time… a fairly long time in fact… * * * Later… They are laying beside each other. Silent. Pensive. Happy. Serene. So what happens next? They look deeply into each other’s eyes. There is a fierce love shining through them that had been bottled up for so long. Far too long. Then a flicker of doubt appears. Each thinks gently, timidly… “Is this real? Will it end soon? Will the other become a frog, or worse—a dichotomy? Will such uncontrollable happiness be denied? Is this rapturous joy a mere illusion?” They both sigh… No, not an illusion. It is very real. It is right there in front of them. They exist. They love. "Don’t be silly," they murmur in unison. And they live happily, forever after... purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Welcome to Objectivist Living. Come on in and say hello.