mvir9

Chris -- Every time I see you post "can we all just get along" -- I smile Thank you for that!

LOL -- I am a bit wordy, aren't I?! (There are worse things for a writer to be, I suppose).

Jonathan, I'm sorry that the nose-picking analogy came off worse than I had intended. My analogy was intended as an emphasis upon the posts where you bait Michael. For example, stating that he was, essentially, a gallery whore. This (as you did admit later -- and I was very happy to see this) was a false insinuation. You essentially reversed yourself in the next paragraph, though . . . by stating that what he does is really no different. I find this type of debate disingenuous. I agree that it is not petty to inquire further about Michael's aesthetic opinions . . . or to question what his essential values are regarding his work. I may sound like a damned tape-recording at this point (for which I apologize), but it really is a matter of how these questions and criticisms are posed. You have repeatedly asked for my opinion regarding Michael's response. I have avoided doing so, because my sole intent behind the first post was to answer the question you asked regarding yourself and your posts. Other than the fact that Michael was the recipient of those posts, your question had nothing to do with Michael. However, I will clearly state (for the record) that I have no problem with Michael's posts. Although Michael can be brutally honest, sarcastic, and even irritable at times, I have found that these rare situations arise when he is attacked (read as such . . . not "criticized," but "attacked"). For example, Michael had some fun with you during this thread, did he not? Now, let's look at the very first post. Michael posted a piece of art that he appreciates. One would think that this topic would be fairly innocuous. Not so! You responded not so nicely, then the ball kept rolling downhill from there. For the rest of Michael's posts -- I find them to be intelligent, mature, and well worth reading. I'm sure that it does help that I happen to largely agree with Michael's views, but I also enjoy reading Nietzsche, Dante, and Dostoevsky (all of whom I deplore philosophically). To clarify: I didn't state that you were laughing at Michael. Rather, as you stated, I simply said that you were laughing while criticizing him. Therefore, you found enjoyment in this activity. And, I will reiterate: his credentials were questioned, which is why he gave a quick (definitely not thorough) background of himself. I leave the "pity" comment for Michael to respond to if he wishes. . .although I have a sneaky suspicion that that is exactly why you put it there (bait, perhaps?). Regarding your current theory of Michael: first, thank you for presenting it as simply your own opinion. Secondly, you have dismissed (putting it politely) the intellectual integrity of anyone who happens to enjoy Michael's work. As a fan of his work, I am utterly disappointed that you would generalize me into such a category. Contrary to what you may think, Michael's fans (at least the one's I know personally) are extraordinarily independent-minded -- and intelligent. Yes, I do place myself in this category, for I pride myself on questioning everything before I accept anything. Again, if Michael chooses, I will leave it for him to respond to your idea that he surrounds himself with intellectually blind zombies. Big bad meanie weenie? I confess, I laughed You stated that I am uninformed about your history with Michael . . . and, yes, I understood that it wasn't meant as an insult. As I mentioned in my previous post, I definitely do not know the history between the two of you, and, at this point, I would rather not. I don't watch soap operas for a reason . . . ! Besides, I couldn't imagine the time-investment that an investigation into this history would entail. I do find it sad that you two men, who obviously both hold a great love for art, can't find a way to agree to disagree. I'm glad that you find my posts essentially positive -- and I look forward to reading positive posts from you. As I mentioned before, you come across as an intelligent man, and one of my favorite things in this world is to interact with intelligent people (which is why I am on this site).

Michael: Although I'm not Mr. Trump's biggest fan, he states the truth here. Most bullies become quite confused when you fight fire with fire (intelligently, though, of course). I only dealt with bullies as a grade-schooler. Since reaching black belt at the age of 13, girls and guys (even ones who didn't like me) treated me as if I would drop kick them if they said something against me (amusing, really, since I abhor fighting). However, I have had a number of friends (in high school, mostly) request that I intercede with a bully (keep in mind that I'm 5'4 and weigh around 114 lbs). Never did one of these instances come to violence. By confronting the issue (and the bully) head-on, they always backed down.

I am seventy one and I do 20 miles a day on my bike (about 1.5 hours) weather permitting or five thousand steps in place, weather not permitting or 90 minutes on a treadmill at a four percent incline. In addition I park my car twice as far from where I need to go, just to force some walking. Since I have been exercising for the last 45 years, I do not need a medical check up just for this. HOWEVER, for people who have not been exercising regularly and wish to start up two pieces of advice: 1. Get a thorough medical checkup to see if there is any "stealth" cardiovascular condition lurking. 2. Start slow and work up to a reasonable level. Rome wasn't built in a day, but you can get a "Charley horse" in thirty seconds. Steady does it and most important do it regularly. And eat plenty of fruit and vegetables. Roughage means regularity and regularity is a necessary condition for joy. Ba'al Chatzaf I am duly impressed! And, your points were excellent.

Perhaps what the author is missing is that even though Ron Paul is running as a Republican, he has drawn the support of many non-republican citizens -- since Mr. Paul's stances on many issues are explicitly non-Republican in orientation. Therefore, many of Mr. Paul's supporters don't support the Republican party per se. This seems to be one of the author's primary contentions -- Ron Paul supporters are bashing the Republican party. Well, you don't have to support the party to support the candidate (they are individuals too, after all). *I should note that I don't like any of the candidates this election year (or the last one, for that matter). It is discouraging to be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils . . .

Elizabeth, We've never met . . . so, hello! I think it is wonderful that you have focused on your life and goals rather than on any group, regardless of what that group may be. Michael stated the benefits of this site nicely, but I will give you my take on it: the beauty of this site is that it consists of a variety of individuals who hold many different beliefs, but who also hold some commonalities. These commonalities (i.e. an interest in Rand's works -- for whatever reason, ambition, intelligence, etc.) give us all a starting point for interacting with (or debating) others, and it provides us with an opportunity to find friendships with people we likely would never have met otherwise. Like many on this board, I can't stand the "bible-thumping" of some Objectivist groups, so I find sanctuary here I wish you the best, and hope you stick around for a while. Virginia

BMI (body mass index) is garbage. There is too much natural human variability. Percentage of body fat is a much better reference. If I am 200# and diet to 150 a great deal of that loss is muscle, not fat. Then I go back to 200 most of which is fat the BMI is about the same, but now I'm weaker and body damaged. --Brant Fitness is very dependent on getting enough physical exercise. Sumo wrestler's are very fit but they are hardly light weights. Exercise, stress reduction and keeping the LDL count down will go a long way to avoiding diabetes and heart disease. Also keeping the blood pressure reasonable will go a long way to reducing strokes. Exercise 30 min to an hour a day, eat reasonably and things will work out. Ba'al Chatzaf For the most part, I agree with you. I would warn, however, that some people should not work out for up to an hour without medical advice -- this is particularly true for older individuals, and individuals with medical problems, such as a heart condition. One of my black belts is a 63 year old woman who does 15 minutes of cardio and 15 minutes of weight training twice a week, and she attends class twice a week (yes, her training is somewhat modified according to her physical abilities). This lady has better abs than most twenty year olds I know, and biceps as well It is also important to note that the nutritional value of food is just as important to the human body as caloric intake. For example, protein bars are very high in calories, and can have as much fat as a candy bar. However, the fat is mostly unsaturated, non-trans-fatty, and the vitamins and minerals included in the protein bar would be more nutrition than most people get in one day. As with most things, though, even protein bars should be eaten in moderation -- the calories will add up, regardless of the nutritional value. I disagree that Sumo wrestlers are "fit." While training in Japan, I met several sumo wrestlers and was a witness to one of their "training" sessions. These men are very strong (mostly due to mass) and pretty flexible, given their sizes. However, they are exceedingly UNhealthy and, therefore, not "fit." Fitness requires overall physical health. Regretfully, these men abuse their bodies during training (pushing their overweight bodies to do things that they shouldn't be doing, thereby causing numerous injuries), and they eat an unhealthy amount of unhealthy foods in order to either maintain their obesity or to increase it. You mention stress reduction -- interestingly, exercise is a beautiful (and healthy) way to reduce stress. For me, I prefer knocking the crap out of a punching bag I am nearing my mid-thirties and I have two children -- I maintain my weight and health by not focusing on caloric intake, but by working out several times a week, teaching and taking karate (as mentioned by a previous poster, it is a great physical activity), and focusing on nutrition.

I suspect it's wherever they scent weakness. It's an animal instinct for finding any hint of a lack of self-confidence -- and I mean physical self-confidence, the kind that wins or loses fights, or at least the kind that projects fearlessness in terms of physical danger to one's self -- as well as uncertainty in any metaphysical sense about one's right to exist, etc. One counters it by learning the body language that projects confidence and assertiveness. One can learn it from watching animals -- because it really is an animal behavior. Judith Excellent point. I absolutely agree that body language is a key factor in self-defense (against any type of bully, including the criminal sort). I do think that each bully is seeking a different weakness, though -- or at least each is doing so to fulfill a very individual "hole". There is a great deal of self-hatred that must exist in bullies: whether they hate themselves for not being intelligent enough, not being lovable, not being "manly" enough, etc. (the possibilities are endless, I'm afraid) Bullying is such a tragic waste of potential . . .

Okay, you don't like the tone of my posts. Do you have any comments on the substance of any of my current or past disagreements with Michael? For example, when people say that a statue is technically masterful but they don't like it, do you think that it's fair to conclude that their judgments are cynical, angst-ridden products of the dark ages of American art? Or might that be a bit severe? Anger? Really? When I'm writing my posts I'm usually closer to laughter than anger. If someone said that the Zarathustra sculpture above was technically masterful but he didn't like it, would you encourage your child to go around saying that the person's artistic judgment was a cynical, angst-ridden product of the American dark age of art? Or would you expect your child to be a little more respectful of the fact that other people can have different tastes and opinions? Do you think that Michael's judgments of others based on their tastes in art are examples of "civility"? I don't know if you've been interested much in art and aesthetics discussions in the past, but there's a very long, complex history between Michael and me that you currently don't appear to understand. And, for some reason, you're not seeing his poor behavior. Perhaps your having been a student of Stephen Hicks and a fan of Michael's work has something to do with how you're perceiving the participants in this discussion? J Oh my . . . where to begin? First of all, I was merely answering the question you posed about why people would wonder at your "attachment" to Michael. I was honest in my assessment. Evidently, you don't like my answer. When your -- yes, tone -- persists in, as far as I can tell, virtually every post responding to Michael, it does send off signals (of the psychological sort). Even when you do happen to agree with him, you look for reasons to pick him apart (vaguely reminding me of paparazzi . . .will I catch him picking his nose today?). Regarding the substance of your responses, you come across as an intelligent guy with a bone to pick (which is no different than what I am stating about your tone). You obviously feel strongly about art, you have strong likes, and you have strong dislikes . . . and most of your philosophical backing for your theories are in absolute disgreement with Mr. Newberry. I say, "fine, disagree . . . but do it with civility." You are closer to laughter when you are criticizing a person's core beliefs than you are to anger? See, that is something that I find bothersome. It is a huge responsibility to question, let alone criticize, a person's core beliefs; it is certainly not a laughing matter. For instance, I am not laughing now, because although I disagree with you, I take you seriously as a human being. Regarding my daughter: I would encourage her to disagree with anyone she feels is wrong. Disagreement is something I truly have no problem with. I do care, however, how she speaks to the person she disagrees with, particularly when the disagreeing party is not respectful, and invites comments. I would want her to take the mature road of civil debate. If this didn't work, and the person besmirched her character, I would encourage her to walk away -- the person isn't worth her time. I have to wonder if you think that you are pointing out a "gotcha" when referencing the fact that I am a former student of Stephen Hicks and that I adore Michael's work? If so, it is infantile. However, I will respond happily -- and proudly. First of all, I have mentioned on a previous post here that I am familiar with Michael N. and that I adore his work. I fell in love with Denouement years ago, causing me to find out more about the artist. Since then, I have purchased a print of Icarus Landing, which adorns the wall directly above my desk. It is one of the most inspiring, uplifting pieces of work I have ever seen. Secondly, Regarding Stephen H.: he is, quite honestly, one of the most intelligent men that I have ever met. I was honored to work with him on the DVD Nietzsche and the Nazis, which was published in late 2006. You should watch the DVD -- it is quite good. So, do I think that either man is infallible? No. They do seek perfection, however. A rare characteristic, indeed. I am not blinding myself to either man's flaws, for intellectual and moral blindness are pet peeves of mine. My perceptions are clear. Yours? Do I feel a need to protect either man? (I honestly must chuckle here . . . just the thought of this is hilarious) -- Unequivocally not. These men are very well equipped, intellectually and emotionally, to handle their own battles. There was no amount of "protection" in my post to you. Instead, I was anwering a question that you had asked. One of my favorite phrases, often used for my children, is a phrase I now state to you: If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question. I am sorry that you didn't like my assessment of your posts. No, I am not familiar with your history with Michael, and I don't see how that applies. I don't need to taste every type of sushi to know that I detest it. Every one of your responses in this thread, taken together, is a sampling of your responses to Michael. And, a sample is adequate for the assessment that you were looking for. One thing that I will grant you -- you don't know me very well either. I am fairly new here, and am a bit too busy in my off-line life to participate here regularly. Mayhap over time you will come to realize that I am honest as well as thoughtful.

Well, I'm very late to the ball game, but here goes: Introductory Info -- I am a mother of two wonderful girls -- I gave birth to my first daughter at 19 years of age and my second daughter at 21 years of age. Not only am I still quite pleased that I had children, but I am very pleased that I had them at a young age. Regarding the Original Post -- Like most people on here, I firmly believe that having children is a profoundly individual decision that should not be taken lightly. I am thrilled to know that you have thought this through so thoroughly, rather than thoughtlessly having children . . . as too many people do. Thank you for thinking it through! Just to respond to a few previous comments -- Yes, children are expensive, emotionally draining at times, and childbirth can be quite painful. This doesn't tell the whole story, however. For me, childbirth was very painful (back labor . . . lucky me), but the pain disappeared the moment I laid eyes upon the child I had carried within me, nourishing her and loving her, for nine months. The pain mattered so little to me that I chose to do it again! I found pregnancy to be an amazing feat of the female body -- and I was thrilled to take advantage of one of my natural, physiological abilities. As well, my daughters are two of a very limited number of people that I can say I truly love -- for the people they've become; for the lives they proudly lead. Watching them grow and develop has brought a great deal of happiness to my life.

It is emotionally difficult to analyze a bully, because his/her world view directly opposes the ideals of happiness, individuality, independence, intelligence, productivity, and aspirations. Whom to bully . . . the smart kid, the "loser" kid, or the "different" kid? The answer is subjective based on the bullies' deficient self-esteem. There is certainly a common ground for all bullies, however, and this is the aforementioned parasitical world-view that they hold. So, yes, bullies are second-handers, parasitically feeding off of the pain and/or humiliation of others. As well, bullies tend to be feared, which is a good thing to them, since they view fear as respect. Unless there is a gene for parasitism that I am unaware of (and a gene that disables free will), bullying is not a product of evolution.

Michael (Newberry): It does seem that Jonathan gets his jollies from baiting you rather than de-bating with you. Regarding your view of art -- I am utterly intrigued and impressed by your ability to assess a painting on its technical merits, without imposing your moral stamp on technical ability. This is much more objective than I have yet been able to be! Like you, I adore Danae (Rembrandt), but I abhor the likes of Saville and Bacon. I cannot easily separate my world view from the technical ability of an artist. Granted, my technical knowledge is lacking (yes, the understatement is intended), so maybe the best I can do is to assess the works based on their world-views until I gain more knowledge. On the other hand, I know literature. Dante and Dostoevsky are two of my favorite authors -- and their world-views were horrendous, to say the least.

Yes, but from the scientific perspective all knowledge is tentative, albeit not subjective. I don't see why non-scientific knowledge can't also be labeled as tentative, albeit not subjective, just more tentative than scientific except for scientific grandstanding from this one poster here. --Brant Thank you, Brant.

It's interesting to me that that is sometimes the response that people, including Newberry, have when I argue with Newberry -- that I'm "attached to," "obsessed with," or "fixated on" him. I don't remember anyone ever having the same response when I've disagreed, just as vigorously, if not more so, with people like Pigero, Cresswell, Rowlands or Gores, or when I've been critical of the views of ARC's Fred Ross, or of artists associated with the Lack Atelier, or of Kamhi and Torres or Roger Bissell. What is it about my disagreeing with Newberry that makes people feel that I'm "attached" to him, but they don't think the same about my disagreeing with anyone else? J Jonathan, After reading through this entire post in one sitting, I can see why people may assume that you are "attached" to Michael. The tone of your rebuttals and retorts are quite severe . . . to the point of sarcastic name-calling. It comes across that Michael (Newberry, that is) has pushed some kind of a button with you that burns deeply. I do not know you, so maybe this is your usual form of "debate," but I give you more credit than that and assume that your anger is an isolated situation here. Your replies were bad enough that I began to cringe every time I encountered your name about half-way through the post -- wondering what attempt at belittling Mr. Newberry was up next. Honestly, I wouldn't let my 11 year old speak this way -- even to someone she hates. Disagreement can be a wonderful thing -- when it is treated with civility. As a side note -- You chided Mr. Newberry for "naming names" and citing "his resume," but his credentials (by you or someone else, I can't recall) had been questioned and criticized. He was simply responding. Do we now criticize people for answering questions?

First of all, I adore this work! It is such a rarity to come across a work that epitomizes the strength and beauty of the human body. It is, if nothing else, a work of reverence for the human form (yes, this includes the penis . . . as it is a beautiful part of the male form). I hold a great deal of appreciation for works that can manage this difficult feat. Earlier, several people mentioned the importance of the hand gesture in the work. I wish the subject wouldn't have been dropped, for the hand gesture is clearly important to the meaning of the work. As a martial artist, I am very familiar with the position of the sculpture's hands. Historically, the meaning of the hands -- put simplistically -- is harmony. The fist is "hard (or, the body)" while the palm is "soft (or, the mind)." The implication is that there is a complete integration of man's body and mind. This makes sense to me when applied to the bronze statue, as it applies to Zarathustra. It is also interesting to me that the hands are held toward the statue. Together (the hand and fist) are used as a sign of respect toward others -- but only when pointing down and away from the person making the gesture. The positioning of the hands in this circumstance implies respect for himself . . . Zarathustra, that is. Again, this makes sense to me in light of Nietzsche's work.

Somebody help me understand . . . Is the original poster stating that if something is not emphatically substantiated in physics, then it is not objective?

I was going to state something similar to this . . . but, why mess with perfection?

My mental response to this news: "Well, he did invent the internet, after all." (Yes, I'm silently sarcastic sometimes)

"... provided he acknowledge the being of a Supreme Existence?..." Michael To which I would respond: Of course! I am the Supreme Being! or Of course! Zeus is my God! And if you don't like that, Apollo is my God. Ba'al Chatzaf Thanks for the chuckle

I agree Chris . . . it is too bad. Like you, I had thought that there was some substance here. Frustrating, indeed!

Jannah, I enjoyed your post a great deal. Self-possession goes wonderfully with intellectual investigation. You are correct to say that collectivism is in fundamental disagreement with Objectivism. However, this goes both ways. It may be easy to lump all Objectivists into one category . . . but we, like everyone else, are individuals first. I like to think of my beliefs as Individualist Objectivism It took me years after finding Rand to discover that an Objectivist "community" existed. Once I did, I quickly discovered that every person, including myself, has his own take on Objectivist philosophy. I find this fact pleasing. What a boring, static world it would be if we all agreed on everything. Regarding your initial concern with Objectivist views of the Arabic world, let me say this: A horribly small number of Americans know anything about the Arabic world. And, of course, ignorance is not bliss -- for the Americans, or for the individuals living in the Arabic world who are judged based on ignorance. Ignorance is not an excuse for bad judgments, but it is a fact in too many cases. In my case, I never saw a reason to delve into Arabic history -- it had no impact on me or my family (or so I thought), and it held no interest for me. Instead, I obsessed over English history (which I still adore). After visiting ground zero, I was hit very hard with the fact that I was completely ignorant about the Arabic world (and I was not pleased with myself). I immediately started my research -- I read every possible thing I could get my hands on. To this day, I continue my research and enjoy learning about Arabic culture. One of the benefits of my research is that it created in me a great deal of respect for the Arabic culture. Prior to my research, I had no respect for it at all. What is my point? Please be patient. I am not alone in my desire to learn about your culture, and I am not alone in approaching the subject of your culture with an open mind. Most Objectivists will withhold judgment until they have enough facts to make a reasonable assessment. Granted, they may not always come to the same conclusion as you, but they will give you a fair hearing as long as you are interested in an honest, civil debate. From your initial post, it seems to me that you are interested in honesty and civility. Thank you for that. Likely, we will all learn a lot from this exchange. Virginia

Conclusion: mrogi likes unearned adjectives.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that one should literally hunt and clean all of one's own meat. I did, however, mean quite seriously that if one isn't willing to kill animals, one shouldn't benefit from their deaths. If one tells one's self pretty lies about where one's food comes from, and "blanks out", in Rand's phrase, the reality of what is actually happening, I have no patience with that kind of hypocrisy. Eating meat and wearing leather entails the death of living creatures. It's a high price. Judith Thanks for clarifying. I understand what you mean by the "blank out." Even though I believe that your evaluation of "the death of living creatures" is a bit more strict than my own, we are certainly on the same page when it comes to valuing the life of animals and acknowledging the reality of what our meat intake entails.

I agree with you, Michael. However, the "malevolent universe" is the ontological concept accepted by many religious folks (the world is bad, humans are sinful, death is good, etc.). I think when Rand referred to this concept, she meant it ontologically -- but only because it accurately represented the opposing position. On the other hand, a "benevolent universe" theory is a human-based view of life, which adheres to the notion that (as you said) "all living things can survive and run a normal life cycle in the universe." However, I would also add man's rational capacity as an important factor in a benevolent universe. This point of view allows humans to trust (here's the psychological part) that they can achieve a happy life in this world -- through their own volition. Please note that the "trust" is based on actuality rather than some netherworld assumptions.