BruceJ

That this even needs to be stated is a sad commentary on discourse in general. I have not found a standard formalization for defining the default scopes and definitions of terms and statements, so I am creating my own. This is all in an effort to thwart misunderstanding or intentional disruption. I'll modify the list over time. - The primary general rule is to assume the best and ask for clarification. Jumping to some conclusion will make you look silly. Getting me to clarify something dubious will make you look smart. - The default scope and/or context for any statement (or part thereof) will be one or more of "generally", "normally", "relatively", etc. For instance, the statement "I like cats" should be interpreted as "I [generally and normally] like cats [relative to, and not to the exclusion of non-cats]. - Words can have multiple meanings. If some meanings weakens my statement while some others strengthens it (in the best possible context), then assume I meant the best of the others. - Its quite possible I misused or misspelled a word. It is quite possible I wrote something not that reflective of what I meant. It is quite possible there is some connotation or implication which was not apparent to me. Assume the best and ask for clarification. Thats enough for now.

As I write my first blog entry (ever!), I am reminded of the scene in "The Jerk" where Navin (played by Steve Martin) finds his name in the phone book: "Page 73 - Johnson, Navin R.! I'm somebody now!". This is not meant to disparage or diminish the postings of others, but to provide context for my own. That context is that I try not to take myself too seriously. If I manage to say something truly unique or insightful, I'll be as surprised as anyone. The purpose of making postings here is similar to that of writing essays. It causes one to refine, review, and formalizing their thoughts about relevant topics and views. I don't really care if my postings are read. I'd probably not refer anyone to them given the likelihood of better alternatives. The systemic motivation is that they might be read.

Hi all: First, I would like to thank Michael and Kat for sponsoring and maintaining this site. I will endeavor to foster its intended benefits. I won't reiterate the “About Me” portion of my user profile. I will provide some additional context relevant to an introduction. [unless otherwise provided, the default scope and/or context for any statement or appropriate part will be “generally and/or relatively”. For instance, the statement “I like cats” should be interpreted as “I (generally) like cats (relative to, and not to the exclusion of non-cats). I will grant others the same consideration to the best of my abilities.] First, my admiration for Ayn Rand accomplishments is very high. Her effective contributions to the promotion of the inherent individual rights of life, liberty and property are arguably unmatched in many contexts. While my world view is mostly aligned with those of (post-)objectivism, I am not “all in”. I will attempt to clarify this over time. Hopefully, I will be afforded the opportunity to contribute and learn from others on this forums; as I revisit, refine, and reconstruct my own views and assertions. Cheers, ~ Bruce