kiaer.ts

I wasn't really addressing Firelfly. The point was that it is incoherent to say that belief in an objective morality is objectively immoral. Even if a person wouldn't use this formulation, he can understand and approve of the sense. If the question is between someone you can count on, and someone who mouths the words, they are two different things, and of course the former is what counts. But having the idea reinforces the habit. And those who deny the sense of the idea, (everyone can understand the sense) no matter how they state it, are trying to destroy the habit.

Is it or is it not objectively immoral to pretend that there is such a thing as an objective morality? The explicit identification of the stolen concept, and the hierarchical theory of concept formation which Rand put forth, is the essence of her philosophy, and her greatest achievement. Michael, I sanctioned your last post. Robert, thanks for your, as always, interesting comments.

"'Cosmology' has to be thrown out of philosophy" Rand's Journals, p698, emphasis original. Further: "...the Thales-Plato school was merely a case of "arrested empiricists," that is, men who "rationalized" on the ground of taking partial knowledge as omniscience." p699 "[Aristotle] destroyed his metaphysics by his cosmology..." ibid. "Existence exists is all there is to metaphysics. All the rest is epistemology." ibid. Rand obviously knew the dangers of armchair physics. These statements were from 1958. Perhaps Peikoff hadn't heard them then, but you'd think he'd have read her journals since publication. As a matter of fact, I do believe that some cosmology is necessary, in the sense of Lucretius, in order to remove worries. But this minimal Epicurean need for cosmology (to understand our place in the universe, and its know ability) need not be based on a priori rationalization. Given Peikoff's ravings about creationism, it seems that, as with Ominous Parallels and his 'he that is not with me is against me' pontifications his hysteria is based more on a fear of the hidden motivations of others than an understanding of the issues involved. As for Hook, I myself only learned of Rand in 1984, and have only attended one lecture by HB. After that, I stayed away until I heard of Kelley's apostasy through the internet in the 90's.

This is simply embarassing. One has to understand the mathematics and the actual claims being made by cosmologists in order to oppose them as invalid. There is no such thing as a "veto." Science, unlike the in-house manoeuvering of the ARI crowd, is not politics. To speak of a veto, rather than of an objection or disproof, is the height of social metaphysics. Scientisists do not make the naive claim that the big bang amounts to something coming out of nothing. There was no nothing. There was no time, and hence no time in which something could "come out of" nothing. The problem is that we do not imagine spacetime as curved, but as flat. We can make the conventional mistake of thinking that as with a flat earth, there would have to be an infitie amount of space in any direction, or an edge. But one can't go south forever. Not because there is an edge, but because, like spacetime in higher dimensions, the surface of the earth is not flat, but is curved in three dimensions. We don't deal with higher dimensions at our scale. This does not mean that the way we think at our local "flat" scale can be generalized to the planet or to the universe. Peikoff is in effect saying that the surface of the earth must continue forever, because he knows that it can't have an edge. He's mistakenly smuggling in the fully understandable but false assumption that there's something before time, as if claiming that there must always be something further to the south, since in our daily experience there's alwasy more room to the south. But there isn't anything south of the south pole - not because there is a reified nothing - but because the world is a spehre, not flat, and the idea of south of the south pole is incoherent. Likewise, there is no "before" the beinning of spacetime, and hence no time or space before the big bang in which to fear that there was a reified nothing existing. The failure here is not in the scientific theories, but in Peikoff's misunderstanding of them. The only religious faith is Peikoff's in his own omniscience and infallibility. He really should have had the confidence to remain silent, rather than to open mouth and remove all doubt.

Certainly. But I am concerned with the countenancing of forgery - win at any cost - not the likelihood that his mother was not a citizen. Here I differ. One can (possibly) hold bad ideas honestly. One can just be an ignorant socialist. But that one might countenance forgery as an honest mistake is too big a pill for me to swallow. I find willful dishonesty in a man who'd be sworn to uphold the Constitution (and the press's pooh-poohing of the issue) a lot more problematic than commonly held bad ideas that might have been arrived at with innocent motives. I am not even close to being a fan of McCain. But I am an active opponent of casual liars.

Indeed, why should it be important whether Obama will countenance forgeries? It's only about sex, after all. The law? Fraud? Felonies? The Constitution? Those are old fashioned pre-occupations. Now, McCain wasn't born in any US state, and Democrats made a big stink about that. But, after all, McCain is a Republican, so the same standard doesn't apply, does it?

Mike, I have no problem with cheerleading, I just wanted to put the issue in perspective given my interest in and my knowledge of biology. I figured that my comments would give the post some context which non-scientists would appreciate. The stumbling block before those of us living is, if we do not already have the right genes ourselves, how do we take advantage of the knowledge? Gene therapy is about as advanced right now as our ability to colonize Mars. Even if we can identify the good genes, we have no way to insert them into the right cells and no certainty that doing so won't cause worse problems, like cancer, than the proposed therapy. The answer to the conundrum is, ask again in a decade or so, if we are still around to ask. And don't lose hope either. Look at what has been done with AIDS and certain cancers recently. If you really wish to speculate, check out Ray Kurtzweil's The Singularity is Near. He's the same Kurtzweil of keyboard fame, but is also a fascinating speculative genius. His theories on artificial intellingence are unfortunately based on false premises (reductive materialism, mixed with the fallacious theory of mind as a floating abstraction run on a computer, known as "strong AI") but he is still a genius and he's looking for some interesting fruit, just not always up the right tree. Ted Keer, 23 November, 2006, USA

Press Releases and Supermarket Shelves While I wouldn't want to minimize the meaning of the underlying facts here, this announcement has all the trappings of a press release, as opposed to that of a truly fundamental breakthrough. Most people have at least two copies of any gene, one from each parent. The genes specify the exact version of a certain protein molecule, which will either, like keratin in skin, be used directly to build our structure, or will, like a hormone, regulate the production of other proteins and biologically active substances in the body. Many genetic diseases like dwarfism are caused by having one good copy and one non-functional copy of a specific gene. Dwarfism is caused by having only half the normal amount of a growth regulator gene. Having two bad copies of that particular gene is always 100% fatal. Similarly, sickle-cell anemia is caused when a person has two copies of a mutant gene that effects the structure of red blood cells. Having only one copy of this gene actually has benefits for those who live in malarial areas, because they are less susceptible to the effects of that disease. But if two people with one copy have children, one quarter of their children will inherit a bad copy from each parent on average (1/2 X 1/2= 1/4) and they will suffer the crippling effects of the sickle-cell anemia. The gene does not disappear, however, because it is so beneficial to those who have one copy in tropical areas that it is "worth the chance" evolutionarily speaking for the gene to stay in the gene pool. Other genes, such as those for melanin, have long been known to exist not only in various versions, but also with varying numbers of copies of the gene. One can have dark skin from having a few "black" copies or a bunch of "brown" copies of that gene. The same sort of thing applies for genes that specify eye-color and many other traits that are able to vary without making their carriers unhealthy or sterile. And keep in mind, of course, that a "white" person with a tan can be darker than a "black" person who avoids the sun. But having too many copies of a gene or genes can be just as bad. Some cases of chromosomal genetic mutation (such as in Down's syndrome and various XXX or XXY syndromes of the sex-determining chromosomes) result in the triplication, rather than the normal duplication of the copies of many genes. The extra chromosome in these cases can be deleterious or fatal, or can lead to the failure to reproduce or help raise children, which so far as genetics is concerned, is no different from fatality. What is being trumpeted here is not a totally new discovery, but the results of what is in essence a statistical study. It confirms and emphasizes what has long been known and points research toward what the layperson can best understand as the benefits of having redundancies and back-up copies. The immediate effects will be negligible - except perhaps for where research grant monies get channeled. What the layman needs to keep in mind are two things. First, there are no genes "for" anything except genes for proteins. The proteins can be broadly classed into structural and regulatory categories. (Keep in mid that this is quite an oversimplification.) Proteins can be analogized to the structural and design elements of a very complicated building or transportation network. Some proteins, like stoplights and front doors are vital, and some, like lane width and light fixtures are quite variable. Some cannot be done without, some can be bypassed or detoured in an emergency, and some might never even be missed. Whether we classify humans as being 99.44% or just 90% genetically identical, genes are like blueprints and recipes, not brick-layers or baking batter. Having just one single gene out of many thousands that malfunctions or confers advantage can mean anything from a zero to a one-hundred percent difference in life outcome. The second thing to remember is that there is a long and complicated chain of causes and events between press releases and supermarket shelves. Michael's hopes are not at all misguided; but this announcement is a trial ballon, not a declaration of victory. Ted Keer, 23 November, 2006, USA

My thanks to Mike in getting the original post listed for me, I am travelling and having connection problems. I suggest that all check out some of the amazing images of the 82nd Airborne that are available on line. Below is a picture posted at http://www.marquette.edu/rotc/army/trainin...s/airborne3.jpg

To SFC Cheryl Dupris 82nd Airborne, and her Comrades in Arms, my Thanks May God & she forgive me for the lateness of this post, but I would like to thank SFC Cheryl Dupris, proud American Sioux Indian and Paratrooper for the 82nd Airborne Division of the U.S. Army, and all her comrades in arms, and all our allies who are fighting and risking everything for us now in Afghanistan and in Iraq and around the world. I have had the pleasure of knowing Ms. Dupris who has voluntarily served tours of duty in Afghanistan, Iraq, in the Federal clean-up effort after Hurricane Katrina, and again in Afghanistan all while my acquaintance. She herself has also served in Korea, and as with the All Americans of the 82nd Airborne, in many other locales at her nation's request. Sergeant Dupris, when she is not actively serving the military, works mere feet from the WTC. I cannot claim to speak directly on her behalf, but know that Sergeant First Class Dupris and those serving with her wish us to know that they are not only ready but also quite willing to do what is necessary to defend our freedoms, in so far as we will let them. I cannot give out any specific details regarding Ms. Dupris' current service, but would like any who wish to do so to post their gratitude here. This link will be provided to her for her and her fellow soldiers' viewing. Please show the respect that is due them. The image is from www.paratrooper.org. I encourage all to visit that site which celebrates the accomplishments of our 82nd Aiborne from their origins to the present. Sincerely, Ted Keer, Thanksgiving, 23 November, 2006 Image copyright © 2003 Paratrooper.org. All rights reserved.

For what it's worth, I immediately came up with "cognitation" upon hearing the request. But even if the original term has too many syllables to use repeatedly in one essay, I never had a problem grasping its referents or its connotations. My term suffers from being no more obvious to those who have not heard the definition. But it is shorter, and not implausible. My personal favorite rhetorical dislike of the moment is the "metaphysical versus the man-made." I get the intention of the concept. But once created, human artifacts are, well, facts. And animals do have some element of will, (if not-self reflective) or we would not punish them and expect improvement. We do indeed blame animals, and even put them to death, but we just don't keep (I hope) haranguing them long after the fact. I feel the issue is fundamentally an ethical one, not a cosmological or ontological one. The underlying point is that raging at brute nature or forgiving everything human, no matter how heinous, under, to use Simpson's terminology "a writ of boys will be boys" is an ethical mistake, not a scientific or a metaphyisical one. Ted Keer, 21 November, 2006, NYC

Yes, Rangel has been my Congressman (I've moved around) and Schumer & Clinton are my Senators. As I work for a unionized Corporation we get to hear Rangel rant regularly. He's obscene. The Republicans did not put up a serious fight against her in 2000, the Republican candidate was backstabbed and undercut at every turn by the party. At one point, when I called campaign headquarters to point out that two days after an alleged true on "attack adds" the Clinton campaign was still running them, the Republican staffer said that it didn't matter. Then to whom did it matter? The question at that point was really a protest. Dole had done everything he could to keep two minor challengers, Buchanan and another, off the ballot in the Primary. I already intended to vote Perot in the General election, as I had always despised Dole. Buchanan was poling at 10% support, so I knew that by voting for him I would not be electing him. And, in any case, Perot or Clinton would have beaten him in the general election. Nonetheless, I was still registeresd "independent" and so could not vote at all. That seems like an unconstitutional establishment of party to me. I am surprised closed elections at taxpayer expense are even allowed. I don't mind being in the city, where I work on Vesey & West at the N/W edge of the WTC pit. But when I drive past in NJ at the point on the turnpike where I would normally see the Towers, I shake with rage. (Usually I am the passenger.) But I wanted to bring up the voting irregularities, given the fact that it is Democrtaic volunteers that run the polling at most precincts, with perhaps one GOP token observer, If anyone is going to engage in third-party politics, they should look at poll fraud (and the need for a paper trail over this electronic nonsense) as very important issues. I expect that my vote was discarded twice leading to my choice not to bother to cast a provisional ballot the third time. I will probably register Dem or GOP for 2008 depending on which primary candidate I most want not to win. Ted Keer, NYC

I have a few comments on party registration that some posters may not be aware of, depending especially upon their locality of registration. During the first Clinton campaign, while I was living in New York City (where I still reside) my employer wished to have us all register and vote for Bill Clinton because, get this, he had promissed, as his first act as president, to sign an exceutive order ending the prohibition against homosexuals in the U.S. military. I registered as independent, and voted for Ross Perot, who was almost kept off the ballot in NY by Dem & GOP machinations. My district then was nearly 95% Spanish speaking, all the ballot workers spoke Spanish, few English. No problem. In 1996 I went to vote in the primary for Buchanan, who was expected to lose, but for the mere reason that Dole had done all he could to keep Buchanan off the ballot. I was surprised, when I showed up to vote, that since I was registered as independent I was not entitled to vote in any primary. NY State has closed primaries. This means that only people registered as a member of a party can vote in that party's elections, even though those elections are held at State expense. I was shocked. I had learned in high school in New Jersey (which has open primaries) that this practice had ended in the Dark Ages with the progressive reforms of the end of the 1800's. Evidently New York had never left the dark ages. After the machinations of the 1996 election, it was decided that the putative Republican and Democrat candidates for primaries would not face such stringent petition requirements, and candidates for statewide office would not have to seek separate ballot access in each disctrict. And, generously, it was decided that "alternative" parties would automatically get a place on the ballot if they drew at least 5% of the vote in a state wide race. (That is, we do have an establishment of party in this country, if not of religion.) Perot did well enough in each election to keep the Independence party (which, confusingly, was different from being registered as an independent) on the ballot for the 2000 election. I considered registering as a Democrat, so as to vote for that Bill Bradley the ex-basketball player ex-senator over Algor, as I enjoyed hearing Rush Limbaugh call him. I registered Independence to help keep the party on the ballot state wide. I knew I would not vote for McCain or Bush or any of the Democrats. By this time I was in an Irish-Jewish-Puerto Rican district and when I showed up to vote, even though I had received my voter-registration card, found out that my "name was not on the rolls" and that I would have to vote provisional ballot. I did so, filling out a #2 pencilled questionaire, which was not able to be sealed. I asked a creature out of Starnesville where the ballo box was to place my votes. The creature stretched out and seized my ballot, and threw it on a folding chair in the corner - that time honored "folding chair of provisional ballots." I asked when the vote would be submitted, would it be sealed. I was told by Jabba the Hut that the poll wrkers knew "how to handle things." No doubt they did, becasue in 2004 when I went to vote for Bush who would lose the state anyway (and I should have been registered given my 2000 ballot) it turned out I was not on the ballot again. In otherwords my prior ballot had been "suppressed" - no doubt by Bush's cronies in that 99% Democratic district. I did not bother to vote provisionally that time. I did not vote in this last midterm. I vote by merit. I might vote for Ed Koch or Ronald Reagan or Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I had no one to vote for in this election. I am happy for the most part about the results. The Repblicans have shed some dead weight and vice and the Democrats will now have to show themselves for what they are. The 2008 election will be something indeed, if Manhattan still stands. Ted Keer, 19 November, 2006, NYC

Andrew, I'm not sure if you read the edited version of my next-to-last post, but I did say that I realized I might be caricaturizing your view. Hope to have next response up Weds night. Ted

Mike, I only started posting when Princess Diana died, the Summer of '97, I believe. A lot of people were saying how great it was that the "parasite" was gone, I expressed my disgust at their self-congratulatory Schadenfreude. As to the pricipals, no, Lindsay Perigo was not posting there on Korgan's list. But Cathcart, Elliot, Mertz, and Reed, as well as Dwyer, and others now on RoR and many here were posting on the Cornell list. As they would say on the Simpsons, my only response now would be "Meh." Ted

While ontology should not become a never-never-land of celestial speculation about "angels dancing on the heads of pins," it is not disposable. Most of the nonsense of our modern culture results from what you might call epistemological-ontological co-dependence. Think about the Christian notion of “grace” which is treated as a substance (primary existent) that can be transferred from God to a priest to holy-water and then to congregant as if it were some sort of contagion or artificial sweetener. The absurdity of this is obvious if one realizes that virtue is not an entity nor a quality is but properly a relation – a proper orientation between a man’s chosen actions and reality. Likewise, think of the reaction of drug warriors toward marijuana joints, or of puritans to porn-magazines, or of gun-control advocates toward weapons. They act as if dry crumbled leaves wrapped in paper or glossy photographs are not only misguided – but literally untouchable. Think of Dana Carvey’s "Church Lady" putting on gloves to pick up a playboy and you’ll get my point. Gun-control advocates often speak about "addressing the root causes of aggression" when the criminals are the root causes of the aggression. They act as if "we only had a law" to proscribe the proper list of arms – like a list of toxins that pregnant women shouldn’t consume – that somehow these evil weapons would stop being a scourge on society. They act as if evil were a physical substance that could be kept locked away, could be embargoed, or could be destroyed forever with the right type of disinfectant. If you have ever watched the children’s fantasy movie Time Bandits you may recall how, at the end, the child-hero Kevin blew up the Devil into smoky bits of charcoal. His parents, whose house had burnt down, found a chunk in the microwave. Kevin vainly warned, "Don’t touch it! It’s Pure Evil!" They did so nonetheless, and vanished in a puff of smoke. And if this last example seems to be grasping for straws, then think about how the throat-slitters held in Gitmo think about their "holy" texts. They see them not as mere pieces of parchment teaching some supposed virtue, with the paper being just a physical medium to carry a conceptual message. They see the paper and the ink itself as holy and not to come into physical contact with the bodies of infidels. Ontology may not be the most concrete of sciences, but it is undeniably the most vital. I won't go into detail now, but consider what the ontological misconceptions or outright deceptions arethat lie behind the following phrases, and the reasons why they are used: "Comes with available four wheel drive." "My truth is that I am a Gay-American." "Bush lied, people died." "It depends what the meaning of is is." Ted Keer, 16 October, 2006, NYC (end part 1)

Andrew, I've condensed your last response and am working on my reply. I just wanted to let you know I haven't passed through a time warp, my current avatar notwithstanding. I am going to post my responses in parts, and I may place emphasis on things which you didn't consider central. So please be forgiving if I seem to be putting up straw men. I intend to cover stipulation and connotation in later posts. My first one will address why the entire issue itself is important, and I don't mean to imply by using you as a foil that you yourself don't. Ted

Congratulations Roger. It seems like just yesterday you were doing the Seinfeld Gig. Good to see you in fine fettle. Ted

I'm glad that's settled. Victor, you can just call me Ted, but the original is Kjær, which is okay too. Mike, I meant the good old days on Kirez Korgan's list when everybody but ARI was posting. I only found Rand after she had passed, in 1984. It took until 1989 for someone at ARI to insult me to my face gratuitously. But still, this is gossip. Good night all. Ted

Michael, I only just learned of your being banned on SOLOP. Angie, My opinion of the artistic merit of Victor's "caricature" was merely that, an evaluation of that "caricature" and nothing else. I happen to have lived in the Bronx, and Washington Heights, and have seen a lot of graffiti. I have seen a lot better artistic skill in some very intricate murals (as in skill in rendering likenesses, chosen themes, etc.) in my 15 years in NYC, and so I stand by my aesthetic assertion on that one piece. As for insults, not considering one piece of "caricature" above the juvenile level is not the same as calling the artist names, or saying that he works in the "cesspool" of "Objectivist Lying." I stand by my "beneath those who have reached puberty," my "second-handed" and my "wasted effort" comments as well. They certainly were implied moral judgments, but not name-calling. Judgments of etiquette and insults are two different things. My comments were addressed to all parties on both lists who, rather than moving on to address exoteric, intellectual issues, continue endlessly addressing personalities that they can now ignore. Frankly, since I have not been posting on-line for a very long time, I am happy to remain blissfully ignorant of the nature of the personal fallings out that have occurred between various "factions" now existing in what used to be one community back in the late Nineties. I will judge the actions of those with whom I interact as I observe them. I am not going to go looking up old posts and choosing sides. In the meantime, neither you, nor Victor, nor Mike nor anyone else needs defending from me. And as a friendly aside, if you want to see how I actually do insult those who really do insult me, Google my name on RoR with the added key words of "pink tutu." But be prepared, and don't take the remarks out of context. Or, you might query Messrs. Kelly, Bidinotto, and Bissell if you want to know if I'm just some kook here to drop bombs. I owe Andrew Durham a response on our exchange on his Existence article. I won't respond further on this topic. This is yet another 90 minutes spent just to show I'm acting in good faith. My thanks to Ms. Branden for her considerate and considered response to my previous post. Mr. Pross, my last name is Keer, not Kerr. It's a rare name, and so a common mistake. Ted Keer, 15 October, 2006, NYC

I have just spent the better part of two days worth of posting on SOLO Passion [see text below] objecting to (and defending myself for having objected to) what I saw as the needless reference on that list to "Wading over to the cesspool of Objectivist Lying." The post listed there could have addressed the topic with which it dealt on its own merits, without the gratuitous abuse. Now I find this "caricature" and so much effort and so many words expended on it posted here. I have my own disagreements with the principals pictured in this juvenile picture. I will gladly challenge Diana Hsieh, but don't see the point of mocking her looks. I understand philosophical disagreement, and even personal animosity, although I find the latter tragic (when no coercion is involved) and not in itself a sign of virtue. Since I would be a hypocrite to witness this wasted effort here, and not object in the same way that I did on SOLO, I am making this post. I must ask, is not this cliquish behavior and this "caricature" (which has none of redeeming values of the graffiti one finds in urban ghettos) not beneath people who have reached puberty? So the posters to these two lists have reason to despise each other. I wasn't here, and so do not have basis upon which to take sides. But wasting one's time attacking those who are supposedly below one's contempt seems a bit second-handed to me. So long as I am welcome, I will post my own original ideas wherever they find an audience. I must say that I do not sanction so much effort spent attacking someone whom one can simply ignore. And I happen to love mole-rats, and think they're cute. Ted Keer, 12 October, 2006, NYC FROM SOLO: What a Difference a Decade makes... Submitted by Ted Keer on Tue, 2006-10-10 23:29. Less than years ten ago many of the people posting on this list, or Rebirth of Reason, or Objectivist Living were all posting on Kirez Korgan's Objectivism list out of Cornell University. The list was moderated yet still very animated. I do understand that certain people have fallings out, and that having more than one list up on the internet is not only understandable, but to be expected. But posting criticisms here about comments made there, and vice versa, seems so much like the cattish behavior of 12 year olds. Merely signing up on another list is not the same as donating money to that list, or to al q*ida. One need not agree with anything on that list in order to be allowed to post there, just be civil. So-called objectivists refusing to walk on the same side of the street as other so-called objectivists reminds me of the behavior of middle-school cliques, trotskites vs leninist marxists, and certain messianic Jewish sects found in Brooklyn. I belong to all three lists, and annoy and am annoyed by, and enjoy and am enjoyed by just as many on each. Ted

Andrew, Our disagreement is a little deeper than I first thought. I have a lot on my plate, so just wanted to let you know I am working on a response, but this may take some time. Ted

Rich, You said: "I am convinced that everyone always acts in what they believe to be their own self interest, all the time." How would you characterize this? One night while waiting for the subway around midnight, I sat listening to a guitarist playing songs for tips. I didn't make any requests, but he played "Knockin' on Heaven's Door," "Stairway to Heaven," and "Wish You Were Here." (It was a long wait.) Although I did have smaller change, I tossed a $50 in his guitar case, and boarded the train. He waived at me through the window. I did not expect to see him again, could have tipped him less, or not at all. How would this fit in with your analysis? Ted

Before I specifically addressed Andrew's proposed revision, I wanted to put forth my thought on the topic without direct reference to his essay. That being done, (pun intended,) let me add: Andrew is quite correct that "Being is" is a preferable formulation, as it inherently covers the equivocal meanings of the copula. Otherwise one can fall into the mistake of confusing "Existence" for some smaller existent, such as "the universe at this moment." The Anglo-Saxon formulation is broader than the Latinate connotation. Nevertheless, Rand and her students should be able to work out this possible confusion, in the same way that Andrew himself has done. His formulation is more economic, hers is not, per se, incorrect. I would also restate the necessity to look at this issue, and all philosophical issues, from the widest possible context, and this may mean linguistic and historical as well as academic and contemporary. Look, for instance, at what one may derive from a knowledge of "gay" sexuality, as opposed to an examination of homosexuality in different species and throughout history and world culture. What might appear as likely a sign of deviance, when one considers the contemporary and public "gay" spectacle of leather-clad fetishists cavorting in a politicized event in certain urban centers of the West over the last five decades, will have a different appearance if we consider the actions of the Bonobo, the cultural-historical significance of Patroclus, Antinoös, Aeolus, and Hephaestion, the phenomenon of the Shaman and the Berdache, and so on. Philosophy used to be done in Latin and Greek as well as in the native language of the speaker, his vernacular. Given the current devaluation of those languages, our outlooks can be limited. Today we have to contend not only with a contracted horizon that omits the classical past, but also with a degraded vernacular, and an academia that is more interested in neologisms such as "Womyn's Studies" and "Ebonics," and the pseudo-sophisticate cant of the post-modernists, than in coherent and rigorous thought. Limiting ourselves to what English speakers have said or thought (or translated) in the last five or ten decades on any topic can be extremely misleading, if not dangerous to the integrity of our thought. Ted Keer, 27 September, 2006, NYC

Being and Equivocation Andrew’s essay raises the question of whether Rand was correct to use the terms being and existence to refer to the same actualities. Andrew points out that being is a more simple term etymologically than is existence, which derives from the Latin, to stand out. I would have certain comments: First, Rand is stipulating her definitions, rather than necessarily accepting the traditional meanings of the words. Her stipulations are valid, in so far as she remains explicit and consistent, criteria which she herself acknowledges. In my readings of her works, I have not come across any faults in the ways that she uses the terms being, existent or existence. Second, while her stipulations are hers, she does obviously make the distinction between Existence – everything that has existed, does exist, or will exist as a unity (basically the universe, whatever that may be, throughout all time, whatever that may be) and the existence (or the being) of a certain object at a certain time. She clearly understands the difference between Existence as the being of everything and the existence of specific entities such as the Twin Towers, which can be said no longer to be in existence, themselves, as of this moment. Furthermore, she uses the term existent to refer to any thing of which we can conceive, such as even a property or a relation, which, while not having its own being separate from those entities exhibiting the said property or relation, can still be apprehended by the mind as having being in some sense. Third, this multiplicity of meanings and connotations is a real phenomenon, one which will most certainly lead to misunderstanding unless we are very careful. These distinctions have been evident to any careful thinker since the Greeks, and can benefit from further exposition within an Objectivist framework. Aristotle addresses the equivocal ways in which we use the term to be, and puts forth his framework of the categories, which Rand accepts. Thus we distinguish between entities (also, called substances) which are the primary existents, and such secondary and tertiary existents as qualities (which exist of entities) relationships, (which exist between entities) and so on. The copula can be used (1) substantively, (2) qualitatively, and (3) relatively. We can say: (1) John is a man. (2) John is tall. (3) John is bigger than Joe. While we can expect to see “a man” walking down the street (a substance, here an entity) we do not expect to see “tall” walking down the street (an attribute) or “bigger than Joe” walking down the street (a relation.) There are more things, more existents that exist than can walk down the street. Some philosophers would distinguish between the existence of entities and the subsistence of the qualities which inhere in them, a distinction which Rand did not explicitly address, but a distinction with which we can assume she would have had no problem, so long as we again define our terms and use them consistently. Fourth, there is (or was) a disagreement between the Aristotelians and the Stoics as to whether being was the highest genus. While Aristotle referred to being as the widest genus, the Stoics countered that “ho ti” literally “the something” was the most general term applicable. The Stoics claimed that being was too narrow, since it excluded the non-existent, and Aristotelians viewed “the something” as invalid, since the term implicitly depends upon the use of “to be” at some point. In other words, “the something” will always be “the something that is" (or is not) something else. Fifth, We should keep in mind that many languages such as Russian and Arabic in most cases simply omit the copula. Where in English we would say “John is good;” they simply say “John good.” Likewise, other languages such as Spanish, use different terms for what would be translated in English simply as “to be.” The Spanish ser means “to be” in an inherent or eternal sense, while estár means “to be” in a relative or temporary sense. “Juan está enfermo” [estár] means that John is sick [happens to be sick] for now. “Juan es enfermo” [ser] means that John is sickly, or infirm, and isn’t expected to get better. Even English derives is and be from different Proto-Indo-European roots. Some philosophers thus reject metaphysics itself as mere linguistic manipulation. Such a radical dismissal is unwarranted. If we make the metaphysical assertion that metaphysics is meaningless then we have refuted ourselves. Nevertheless, the questions raised are best addressed by those who have studied comparative linguistics and who have read the arguments of other philosophical schools, in order to fully apprehend the nature of the issues involved. To summarize, Rand was stipulating her definitions for the context of the issues she was addressing. She did use the same terms with other meanings in other circumstances. And she did not fully expound a handbook of ontology. Although she did not put forth every possible meaning or connotation of the terms she used, it is clear that her grounding in Aristotle made her aware of the broader issues to be considered. One may ask whether cosmologically, "Existence" or some other term might be the best with which to refer to the universe, and one may be aware of the many equivocal ways (ways with different meanings, substantive, quailtative, relative) in which we use the term “to be.” Likewise, any attempt to tackle this meaning of “to be” in all its multiple senses should take into account not only modern physics and modern philosophy as expressed in the modern English tongue, one should also have a grounding in comparative linguistics and the history of philosophy in order not to exclude any part of "being" from one’s ontological considerations. Ted Keer, 25 September, 2006, NYC BTW, Howdy folks, this is my first post on this list. Editing for style & clarity Weds 27, 1am EDT