Alfonso Jones

It's a sad time. I'm awake at 5 a.m. (in Shanghai) and have been watching the live feed on the house floor (while tracking the vote counts) for several hours. It doesn't look good for freedom, or for the budget (either of the Federal government, or of individual citizens). Bill P

I'm here temporarily assigned to another branch of my company and I'm going back to the main office in 3 days in Manila where connection is restricted only to server on our floor (WTF?!) and in the place where I usually stay, I have no PC nor net connection so I have to go to a computer rental shop to browse if I ever want it. Happy to report that though I'm going to miss OL and the good fellows that are in here, I'm not going to go haywire without the internet anytime soon (although I can buy the equipment anytime LOL). I just don't see a dire need for it. Heck, when I start my masters degree, I'd probably do it though not for now. David - Enjoy your stay in Manila. Bill P

Screamingly funny. THanks for posting this one. Bill P

About that fun to read, also. I scan the thread periodically to see if there is progress. To no avail. Bill P

Robert - Good to hear. Bill P (watching my mailbox in Shanghai)

Left wing "Mediamatters.org" reports the survey as being false: http://mediamatters....og/201003170036 I tried the first link above. It doesn't look credible. It certainly didn't lead back to any New England Journal of Medicine citation. Nor any way to know what specific methodology or frame was used for the survey. Bill P

Thanks for posting this. The current row over the pseudo-problem is disgraceful. I was discussing the situation with a senior representative of ANOTHER car company (not US-based) yesterday. Although they expect to benefit in a short-term way from the damage to Toyota's reputation, he acknowledged that he also saw no validity to the claim that Toyota has done anything wrong. Since this is on OL, here's the quasi-obligatory Rand content: Seems vaguely reminiscent of the passage in Atlas Shrugged where the State Science Institute releases the statement about Rearden Metal which says nothing (and hence can't really be argued against!), but is extremely damaging nonetheless. The most telling difference - the current media releases says something, without foundation or documented failures. And the nature of discourse has been so debased that Toyota can't speak the open and obvious fact - - - this is almost surely a case of operator error in most cases, and possibly (in some cases) fraud. Bill P

Well put, Brant. Bill P

Robert Campbell wrote: Robert - Do you know whether anyone has attempted to chronicle some sort of a "History of Objectivist Philosophy?" (I can see some potent obstacles which would probably preclude it's even being considered in ARI-land!) Such work would be interesting. I know you wrote in some detail about the history of the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion in your JARS paper which appeared fairly recently. Do you know of other similar work on other threads of Objectivist thought? Bill P

With regard to existence: This won't work. I've read PARC. It's clear to me that there MUST be a restraining order forbidding James Valliant from wandering within 100 miles of existence. Bill P

Exactly. Rand didn't stay there, in the same state she had to be when she wrote the portion of her journals re Hickman. This is the same lady who in her maturity consistently and eloquently maintained that there should be no initiation of force - something which condemns Hickman. Bill P

I wasn't familiar with the anthonyflood.com site before I located the Blanshard article mentioned above. Many other articles by Blanshard are available on this site as well. See: http://www.anthonyfl...m/blanshard.htm You should also take a look at the main page. Articles by many authors, such as Rothbard and Barnes, are available. http://www.anthonyfl...exofauthors.htm Lastly, two book reviews by yours truly might interest some readers on OL. One is a review I wrote in 1977 (and had completely forgotten about) of Blanshard's book The Uses of a Liberal Education: http://www.anthonyfl...rdeducation.htm The other is a review I wrote in 1990: Nathaniel Branden's Judgment Day: Reviewing the Reviewers. http://www.anthonyfl...mithbranden.htm Ghs George - Thanks for sharing the meta-review (review of the reviewers of Judgment Day). I missed that the first time. I'm glad I've read it. NB did a lot of things which he now regrets, and he has said so, in print. How many of his critics have engaged in similar behavior? Bill P

Well put, Reidy. Bill P

Good post, Adam. Scroll on down to the commentary - it's not at all obvious that many of those writing have any understanding of the cause of the economic difficulties. Bill P

I suspect it's the second quote I posted which you will find most on target. Bill P

Here's another passage, from the seminars portion (second portion) of the book: Prof. D: "Nothing." AR: That is strictly a relative concept. It pertains to the absence of some kind of concrete. The concept "nothing" is not possible except in relation to "something." Therefore, to have the concept "nothing," you mentally specify—in parenthesis, in effect—the absence of a something, and you conceive of "nothing" only in relation to concretes which no longer exist or which do not exist at present. You can say "I have nothing in my pocket." That doesn't mean you have an entity called "nothing" in your pocket. You do not have any of the objects that could conceivably be there, such as handkerchiefs, money, gloves, or whatever. "Nothing" is strictly a concept relative to some existent concretes whose absence you denote in this form. It is very important to grasp that "nothing" cannot be a primary concept. You cannot start with it in the absence of, or prior to, the existence of some object. That is the great trouble with Existentialism, as I discuss in the book [page 60]. There is no such concept as "nothing," except as a relational concept denoting the absence of some things. The measurements omitted are the measurements of those things. Prof. A: Does the concept of "non-existence" refer only to an absence? Is there no valid concept of sheer non-being, of something that never was and never will be? AR: That's right. Non-existence as such—particularly in the same generalized sense in which I use the term "existence" in saying "existence exists," that is, as the widest abstraction without yet specifying any content, or applying to all content—you cannot have the concept "non-existence" in that same fundamental way. In other words, you can't say: this is something pertaining to the whole universe, to everything I know, and I don't say what. In other words, without specifying content. You see, the concept of "existence" integrates all of the <ioe2_150> existents that you have perceived, without knowing all their characteristics. Whereas the concept of "non-existence" in that same psycho-epistemological position would be literally a blank. Non-existence—apart from what it is that doesn't exist—is an impossible concept. It's a hole—a literal blank, a zero. It is precisely on the fundamental level of equating existence and non-existence as some kind of opposites that the greatest mistakes occur, as in Existentialism. Bill P

You may be thinking of the following passage from ITOE regarding Reification of the Zero: One of the consequences (a vulgar variant of concept stealing, prevalent among avowed mystics and irrationalists) is a fallacy I call the Reification of the Zero. It consists of regarding "nothing" as a thing, as a special, different kind of existent. (For example, see Existentialism.) This fallacy breeds such symptoms as the notion that presence and absence, or being and non-being, are metaphysical forces of equal power, and that being is the absence of non-being. E.g., "Nothingness is prior to being." (Sartre)—"Human finitude is the presence of the not in the being of man." (William Barrett)—"Nothing is more real than nothing." (Samuel Beckett)—"Das Nichts nichtet" or "Nothing noughts." (Heidegger). "Consciousness, then, is not a stuff, but a negation. The subject is not a thing, but a non-thing. The subject carves its own world out of Being by means of <ioe2_61> negative determinations. Sartre describes consciousness as a 'noughting nought' (néant néantisant). It is a form of being other than its own: a mode 'which has yet to be what it is, that is to say, which is what it is, that is to say, which is what it is not and which is not what it is.' "(Hector Hawton, The Feast of Unreason, London: Watts & Co., 1952, p. 162.) (The motive? "Genuine utterances about the nothing must always remain unusual. It cannot be made common. It dissolves when it is placed in the cheap acid of mere logical acumen." Heidegger.) Is that the passage? Bill P

Good to hear of this. I'll be looking forward to hopefully seeing the text of the speech on OL. Bill P

Posts that long, and so poorly organized, should be skipped. Imagine delivering that post while standing on one foot! Bill P

David - Welcome to OL. Browse around, there's a lot of good content up here. Did you do graduate work in psychology? You will find a few academics on OL. Bill P

Best wishes, Chris. Bill P

I've met some anarchists and Objectivists who are devoid of any contact with reality, but I wouldn't say that about their ideas. Ghs Still another reason I'm glad you're posting on OL, George. Bill P

George: Try Snopes to clarify that it is an urban legend. http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/kissballs.asp Bill P

Golf is a mental disorder - - Edgar Rice Burroughs. Bill P

Just checking - anyone frequenting OL who is very familiar with Barcelona? It turns out I'll be spending about 8 days in Barcelona in early March this year, and am looking for sightseeing or dining recommendations for a first-time visitor. I'll probably be staying very near IESE. Bill P