MichaelJoyous

Members
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MichaelJoyous

  1. Hi Ciro:) One problem I see with your formulation:Hank Rearden was morally perfect even though through most of the book, his emotions were in conflict with what he believed. He was trying his best within his limitations, while always open to new ideas. To me, that's where moral perfection is at. It's not about emotional harmony. I've met folks who were scientologists with beautiful emotional harmony, though some of the screwiest ideas! That being said, I think it's a good thing for all of us to seek emotional harmony so long as we don't confine our basic premises to any particular Sacred Book! best always, Mike
  2. Hi Michael:) I think the key to understanding this is to look at the way "moral imperfection" is being used. When folks say that nobody can be morally perfect, they then say, "Everybody has a character flaw or two." They're not talking about perfection being associated with a point in time, as has been suggested in earlier posts. They're asserting rather, that everyone has a moral flaw. That no one is honest except a naive person. That no one makes a million without stealing some time in his or her life. To distinguish ourselves from this kind of stereotyping, I think we should all run to the security of Rand's notion that we can all be morally perfect. Can't we all be honest totally, in principle? After all, honesty doesn't refer to not lying to folks, just not lying to folks who you have reason to believe won't attack you unfairly because of it. Can't we all do that much? best wishes always, Mike Rael
  3. Hi Dragonfly:) It's very cool, especially in the summer heat:) I meant a concept without a referent, one that revolves in the mind in a kind of haze. It can move about, though--after all, the number of angels dancing on a pin changed from time to time, depending on who read the Bible. So, I guess it's not really frozen, just kinda slurpy:) An infinite dimensional space exists to solve problems with many many factors in them. If it's a *complex* space, that's very different and exists more as a plaything for mathematicians than anything else. Or as a way to associate with that which *does* exist in real space, even though it does not! Is a univorn equivalent to the square root of minus one? Maybe. When dragons fly! Friend Dragon, have you considered that I'm only interested in numbers that have real referents? best wishes always, Mike Rael
  4. Hi Dragonfly:) We don't need to seek out imaginary numbers to know that some properties are not commutative. For example, a-b does not equal b-a. The imaginaries are based on trigonometric functions, which are quite real. I'm not sure about quaternions. In any case, all I'm saying is that the number is based on reality and is about reality. Abstractions don't exist in the mind as frozen concepts, Dragonfly. best wishes always, Mike Rael
  5. Hi Dragonfly:) I rather like Frege's definition of number as the set that contains all sets having the same number of elements within them. Frege sees clearly that a "number" is an abstraction gained from viewing many different entities having the same number of elements within them. This kind definition helps explain why, for example, 3 groups of 5 (that is, 3 elements, each of which has 5 things in it) has the same amount of total elements in it as 5 groups of 3. It is axiomatic that a x b = b x a, but it is definitely not obvious. And thus is the point made, Dragonfly: the fact that a x b = b x a was discovered by exploring different numbers and finding out that those different ways of getting a total number yield the exact same number! The concept of number and the numerical axioms are at the base of all mathematical thinking, Dragonfly--at least of mathematicl thinking of *this* reality! They come from looking first at reality and then noticing similarities and differences:) best wishes always, Mike Rael
  6. Hi Paul:) I cannot talk about proactive behavior until I first understand better what "free will" is. As I see it, "free will" is the ability to transcend our previous emotional or cognitive responses when focusing upon the current situation, when deciding how the current situation is like and unlike past situations; then acting upon that new information. Within that definition, we all have a limited amount of free will, depending upon inborn capacity and the degree of stress to which we are subjected at any one moment in time. "Acting proactively" means, within that context, integrating the fact that we have limited time to achieve ends, (and that acting quickly to do so is, in the long run, far more productive than procrastinating) and that it is in our long-term self-interest to act in accordance with our deepest values, even though doing so may be harmful in the short-term. Causality is, as you or Roger note in later posts, about entities causing changes in other entities, all within their innate capacities and limitations. Since the only beings capable of integrating time into their behaviors are human beings, proactive behavior only applies to humans. Bears who eat much and then hibernate during the winter do not engage in proactive behavior, *as far as I know*. As I write this, it occurs to me that bears, beavers, and ants may have some concepts of time that motivate them. What an interesting topic for the physiological psychology of animals! Causality, as it refers to human beings, is about the way we are affected, more or less, by the happenings around us and inside of us. It includes the involuntary workings of our bodies. It includes the way we react to circumstances habitually. In also includes those times that we choose to be in full focus, knowing precisely what is happening to us to some degree, and choosing to act in accordance with our understanding of limited time or of our deepest values. best wishes, Mike Rael
  7. Hi Jenna:) As I see it, forgiveness comes in 3 categories. We got to forgive our parents for making mistakes as we grew up. All parents make some kinds of mistakes. Them's the cause of some kind of repression in just about everyone. We got to forgive our enemies, and people who are malicious. We do this not out of altruism, but because it hurts us to hang onto resentments over time. Most importantly, we got to forgive ourselves for the mistakes we made, and for the mistakes we continue to make. We *must* forgive ourselves, or else we focus on negatives and lose hope for the future. These kinds of forgiveness don't come easily, particularly the latter one. I think that, for most folks, they end up hurting themselves ( to feel, paradoxically, more *in control* of their own hurts, which means their "destinies") far more than they are hurt by others. At least as adults. This is not to say that racial or religious discrimination don't exist. It's just that in a society such as ours, where so many wonderful strides have been made in those areas in the last 60 years, most of the time the prisons people experience are the ones they place themselves in every day of their lives. best wishes always, Mike Rael
  8. Hi:) Could you give an example of an "objective approach" where the idea of "tolerance" might come into play? "Tolerance", to me, implies a lack of agreement and a sense that it's OK for there to be that difference;i.e., that one feels no need to proselytize the "Objectivist" truth to the unenlightened. In the sense given, it's not really a philosophical issue, but rather a maturational one. No matter what one's philosophy, if one talks with enough people and tries to have good vibes when talking, then one develops tolerance for others' opinions. In much of life one can bypass stupidity or irrationality, so "tolerance" would be quite acceptable in Objectivism within that context. Sometimes one literally *must* have certain responses from people in order to live. In such cases, Objectivism would advocate "intolerance". best wishes always, Mike Rael