anonrobt
-
Posts
558 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by anonrobt
-
-
Matt Ruff's book is Sewer, Gas and Electric , Warner paperback, 1998 [tho it list 1997 as copyright, so maybe a hardback also exists]...
-
And there is a difference between the collective - and the aggregate...
-
We're almost there, folks.
We can spit out 2010 and make 2011 a year to turn the corner.
Much happiness and health and prosperity in 2011 for all OL members and readers.
And much love from,
Kat & Michael
Where is There? What is There?
Ba'al Chatzaf
There is the new now...
[and a Happy New Year to y'all, too - may it be one with much joy, productiveness, and prosperity...]
-
But I would also say that actually being right is even more important than engagement.
Of course; and us objectivists are always about Truth - it's how we got here in the first place, isn't it?
But such considerations don't seem to stop the Leftists, do they? They barely have half a truth between the lot of them, yet it hasn't stopped them from making a complete mess of the world.
Before I get off completely on the wrong foot, I have to say I loved the video; although it's a bit emblematic of the situation here in general, isn't it? (And I don't mean the actual video's content.) I'm trying to push you all into this uncomfortable discussion about engagement... and you provide me with a lovely, scholarly video about the pyschological mechanics behind peer pressure. And, back we are in the armchairs... more brandy, anyone?
Here's a great video about the Science of Kissing:
Awesome! But what really did you learn? Now, if you didn't know anything about kissing, you know everything you need to know, right? But at some point, it must occur to any of us, that to really know anything... we simply need to jump in and do it. To really get out and experience the world and truly learn anything, you have to leave the armchairs behind.
And there's the rub when it comes to Rand's Objectivism. She was wrong on important matters, both in her emphasis and in her principles.
And this is the rub I have with you. You see, I don't think she was wrong. I don't think she was done - she was refining her views right up until the end - but she was by no means wrong; her experience was always evolving. "Errors in knowledge are not breaches of morality. No valid moral code can demand infallibility."
I finished Atlas Shrugged three years ago (it was my doin the laundry book, and it took a year), and since then I've been listening to pieces of that and other works on mp3. I leave it on shuffle in the background while I code. I have Galt's speech from Atlas, Philosophy - who needs it?, The Virtue of Selfishness, her Donahue interview, etc. Then there's also movies like Sense of Life, and a History channel doc who's name escapes me at the moment. I even grabbed all the youTube videos pairing Galt's speech with visuals.
The one thing I've been impressed with throughout all of it though, is how right she is. It's virtually timeless - the things she talks about in Atlas make so much sense in light of the current Obama worldview, she's virtually a prophet. (Metaphysicians are everywhere; some of them are even called community organizers.
) I constantly hear phrases while I work that make me stop and shake my head about how right she STILL is.Socialism IS a quest for unearned value. Half the American southwest is a national monument right now, thanks to our newest Monument Builders. The Cult of Moral Grayness is still alive... they REALLY do hate black and white simply to preserve the advantages of both. You really can't love that which you don't value... and you have to value yourself before you can really love at all. The argument from intimidation was used on me just two days ago... and Ayn's recommended solutions worked. There really are people that only seem to know how to trade Need for Value - I just worked on a project with a guy who seemingly never had anything but Need to trade. (And I eventually explained it to him in those terms.)
We can sit around and argue the finer points - that's most of the conversation here, apparently - but it's precisely the fundamentals in which she was correct. I am reminded constantly in my daily life that this is so. The only part I even think she was a little wrong about has to do with the spiritual/metaphysical... but only because she was a product of her time. (And we now have quantum physics to help!)
But... if you don't think she was right in principles or emphasis... then why are you here? What you're saying, pretty much, is that she was only occasionally accidentally right. (Wow, go easy on the praise, there!) And... that you don't want to engage on her behalf because she's mostly wrong?
Are you just a troll, shaking up the silly Randians? Or, maybe, you are secretly hoping someone will smack you and wake you from your stupor? Why not go to DailyKos and talk Ayn Rand there - you're sure to get more agreement.
And even if you harbor some suspicion that it may not be "all right", do you honestly prefer the "political morality" we're living under today? There's nothing right about what's going on right now. Nothing. Tell me you haven't thought of Stanley Mooch at least once in the past year, when you heard of some new Obama edict handed down from on high. If you did, well that was Ayn being right; the proof being reality.
Further, anyone who has read her Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, and The Ayn Rand Letter know full well she never adversed to politics - indeed, it was by and large what she talked about, putting into practice the fundamentals of the philosophy - so I myself never understood where those claiming she was adversed to politics got the idea... true, she said she'd rather not have to be involved in politics, but she sure never shirked being involved, as it was so important a field that affected everyone...
ps - good to read your writing, GeekGirl
-
Hello Mr. Burkowski,
Thanks for showing up. Your comments on 100 Voices have been excellent.
Another example is Leonard Peikoff's interview in Objectively Speaking.
Many people were hurt by something she'd say to them in anger, usually a blunt statement about some immoral behavior of theirs which she had seen. I regarded her anger at me . . . as trivial. I was extremely devoted to her and intended to stay until the end, even if she was (in my opinion) too indignent about some error of mine.Peikoff goes on to say that he became Rand's heir by default, everyone else having left her.
As related evidence, I believe Heller and Burns have said that Rand required her interviewers to sign a statement that they would not mention her critics. We also have her comments in her Marginalia, which convinced me more than anything of the basic correctness of the Branden reports.
It was good to see Burns say that the archvists were unhappy with much of the material published, such as the Journals. It looks like, however, that things are going backwards with 100 Voices, although it is probably more a question of ommissions than changing what was said.
-Neil Parille
am surprised, actually he admitted he 'won' by being 'the last man standing'... of course that only means he was the most sycophantic of them...
-
Actually I have two sources for Joan's recollections of Rand's use of the term "libertarianism."
BTW I do recall a radio interview with Rand where she speaks of "the so-called libertarians" in a positive way. It must have been from the sixties, she uses the term as though it should be unfamiliar to listeners. I don't remember the name of the program, I probably have it on tape somewhere. She used the term to refer to Mises, Hazlitt etc.
BTW, it's a minor point, but I think I recall reading Schwartz's execrable article while I was still working for the Libertarian Review in San Francisco, which means it couldn't have been any later than sometime in 1980. The magazine moved to Washington, DC at the beginning of 1981.
I don't think so, I feel sure that it came after Rand's death. 1985 is the right year, I believe. It's included in The Voice of Reason, it probably gives the original date there.
1985 or later in the 80s. The only things "independently" published, I recall, before Rand's death, were the Objectivist Calender, no issue of which I've ever seen, and The Objectivist Forum.
--Brant
May-June and December, 1985, The Intellectual Activist...
-
Although this is restricted to California, it looks like it is worth following.
"During this past week, with the news so focused on the Congressional tax debate and the "wikileaks" controversy, you may have missed reports of a very impressive school choice victory.
The parents of students at McKinley Elementary School in Compton, California have risen up and taken control of their children's education.
The parents are making use of a new California law, called the Parent Trigger, which gives them the power to impose sweeping changes on failing schools."
"For the Parent Trigger law to be invoked, a school must fail to meet federal academic standards for three consecutive years; have a score of less than 800 on the state's Academic Performance Index, which is based on student test scores; and be among the lowest performing five percent of schools in the state.
There are many California schools that would qualify for parental action under the Parent Trigger law, according to the Los Angeles Daily News.
In the Los Angeles United School District alone, 250 schools have failed to meet academic standards for more than three years, the newspaper said.
Under this law, if the majority of a school's parents agree, they can choose to close down the school, replace the entire staff, or convert it to a charter school. All that is required is a petition signed by 50 percent of the parents.
On December 7, accompanied by a horde of news cameras, a McKinley Elementary parent representative made history when she delivered a petition (signed by 62 percent of parents) to the district's superintendent demanding that that school become a charter school.
"This is the beginning of a new future of our kids," parent leader Ismenia Guzman was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying.
As a result, a charter school operator will be given control of the school. Like any charter school, the operators will have to meet agreed-upon goals in order to have their contract renewed.
What makes this story so encouraging is the fact that parents were given power over their child's education. No longer will parents be forced to watch helplessly from the sidelines as their child becomes trapped in a failing school, at least in California.
"Giving power to the parents — this is what this is all about," said Gov. Schwarzenegger, according to the Times.
But last Tuesday signaled more than an isolated victory for California parents. Other states are paying careful attention to the Golden State's new Parent Trigger law. Support for similar legislation is already gaining traction in New Jersey and Connecticut. It's likely that more states will take up the cause as it gains national attention.
Giving parents the power to choose the best option for their child's education – that must be the future of education in the United States. Together we can create a new future for all children, one that prepares them for a successful future and a better quality of life. America's children deserve nothing less.
Hooray! Power to the Parents and the bill to the Taxpayers! Why am I underwhelmed by all of this?
Ba'al Chatzaf
The taxpayers might even save on this - it frees the school from having to deal with the teacher's union as such...
-
There's been no public comment on it so far, except over at SOLOP:
Wow, caught with both hands in the cookie jar.
Neil Parille has gone through a number of the points in the critique and shown that Locke scarcely bothered to read Goddess of the Market.
Looks like he read it alright, but with an industrial strength Valliantquoter in hand measuring where he could trim, ellipse, and twist to produce his rebuttal.
You may want to skip past the customary chorus of abuse from the Perigonian remnant, including Ellen Stuttle.
What kind of a rebuttal is it to claim an opponent lives with their mother and downloads porn all day? It's like being in 6th grade.
It's sad to see a man who has been a major contributor to applied psychology (particularly the industrial-organizational variety) writing like a middle-grade apparatchik who wouldn't know scholarship if it jumped up and bit him.
I brought him as a speaker, he’s really well known in the management departments at business schools. I don’t remember how many, but I let professors come to the pre and post get togethers (come to think of it, they may have picked up the dinner tab), there were maybe 10, all eager to meet him in person.
A funny story: I picked him up at the airport, and the instructions were that I was supposed to carry a copy of Atlas Shrugged. My copy of that one was a paperback that I'd lent out a couple times, so it was a little ratty and old, but I had a new, perfect reproduction of the first edition hardcover of The Fountainhead, so I took that instead. His first words to me were: You're supposed to be carrying Atlas Shrugged.
THAT should have given you the measure of him right there...
-
There should be a recognition of the distinction between imaginating and fantasizing - one is speculative relatings within reality, the other is not [with only the aspect which do relate to reality being of any 'value' at least to the extent of falsely 'tying' them together and leading to a presumption the fantasy has value to reality]....
-
I am glad to read that you are making this available via download. The course is excellent, and in fact bears repeated listening.
Bill P
Bill:
Can you state the 3 best reasons to buy this? I am considering it.
It is efficient, it is thoughtful - and I'll leave the third for you to figure out...
[it really IS good - have had the cassettes for many years, and worth reviewing from time to time]
-
We have a rule-of-thumb in psychotherapy: you can question whether a given emotion is approprate, but never attempt to tell people what they feel.
Very very true...
-
But resurrecting her from ashes would really be a neat trick, however advance the science might be...
-
An Open Soros for the Open Society
George Soros, the Puppet Master
I mentioned the following on another thread:
Beck's series (starting today and going all this week) on George Soros (the "spooky dude" and "puppetmaster") promises to be something very important.I will watch it today, and if it comes off anywhere near close to the hype, I will post the videos here in this corner. I have no doubt Beck's facts will be in order and they will not be mainstream up to that point. Like he says, he will not be able to take on one of the most powerful men in the world and still stay on the air if his facts are wrong
He operates on a principle, that we neuter evil by exposing it to the light of day in a manner most folks (including and especially non-intellectual ones) can understand. In other words, people are predominantly good. They can become fooled or afraid because of culture, traditions, etc., and not care much about the big picture from being busy making a living and trying to get by, but when faced with alternatives in terms that they can relate to, they generally choose the good.
I sympathize with this view.
Beck also hammers home the message--day after day--that people should check their own facts, find out things for themselves, and not take his word, nor the word of anyone, at face value for anything.
I sympathize strongly with this view.
I watched it and it was a GREAT everyman's introduction to the influence Soros has been exerting on the world, and what he intends for the USA.
Here is the show:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF08PUaQgp4?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF08PUaQgp4?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF08PUaQgp4?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y4Na8mIU9I?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y4Na8mIU9I?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y4Na8mIU9I?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQUIvtUhJew?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQUIvtUhJew?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQUIvtUhJew?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
I will be adding more on George Soros as we go along.
I know it sounds weird, but this guy looks like he is a villain who crawled out of a James Bond movie.
Michael
without Gert's charisma...
-
My husband and I just just got back from our fall trip to Utah. Thanks for this post, I wasn't aware of this show. My favorite cowboy artist is James Bama. Years ago I worked for an Ayn Rand fan, told her about Bama and she filled her office with his work. I just loved getting called into her office.
I will keep this show in mind for our trip next year.
Yes - Jim Bama long has been one of my faves, from the time first saw one of his covers - the Doc Savage one as recall - his detailism is simply astonishing, and his turning years ago to doing western themed works added much to the individualism he portrays...
Indeed, as far as Rand and western is concerned, one of her favorite poems was Badger Clark's -
The Westerner
My fathers sleep on the sunrise plains,
And each one sleeps alone.
Their trails may dim to the grass and rains,
For I choose to make my own.
I lay proud claim to their blood and name,
But I lean on no dead kin;
My name is mine, for the praise or scorn,
And the world began when I was born
And the world is mine to win.
They built high towns on their old log sills,
Where the great, slow rivers gleamed,
But with new, live rock from the savage hills
I'll build as they only dreamed.
The smoke scarce dies where the trail camp
lies,
Till the rails glint down the pass;
The desert springs into fruit and wheat
And I lay the stones of a solid street
Over yesterday's untrod grass.
I waste no thought on my neighbor's birth
Or the way he makes his prayer.
I grant him a white man's room on earth
If his game is only square.
While he plays it straight I'll call him mate;
If he cheats I drop him flat.
Old class and rank are a wornout lie,
For all clean men are as good as I,
And a king is only that.
I dream no dreams of a nurse-maid state
That will spoon me out my food.
A stout heart sings in the fray with fate
And the shock and sweat are good.
From noon to noon all the earthly boon
That I ask my God to spare
Is a little daily bread in store,
With the room to fight the strong for more,
And the weak shall get their share.
The sunrise plains are a tender haze
And the sunset seas are gray,
But I stand here, where the bright skies blaze
Over me and the big today.
What good to me is a vague "maybe"
Or a mournful "might have been,"
For the sun wheels swift from morn to morn
And the world began when I was born
And the world is mine to win.
-
-
If homosexuality is a 'chosen', how is it explained in the non-human population, where a percentage is there across a number of higher species?
[which means it must serve some biological function, even if not perhaps at present known or understood]
-
Why collars need to be buttoned down is beyond me.
It goes with the button-down mind...
-
the right to an education which is not a federal right, but a state and/or individual right.
If that is so, what gives with the Department of Education?
-
"What we have heare is a fay-ur to comunicate..."
-
Agree or disagree, I really like this one from Christine O'Donnell:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5aJAyBp_S8?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5aJAyBp_S8?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5aJAyBp_S8?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Good one - VERY good one!
-
Ads do not deliver votes, field organizations with local messages linked to national issues does.
The only time I saw these ads was at a campaign stop Harry Browne made in Miami. There were 30, maybe 50 people there. They asked for donations so they could show the ads, I don't think they got enough. I'd say the perennial problem of the Libertarians is how to get support when you have no favors to bestow, and are pledging to work against the favors so many institutions/individuals are relying on.
ND:
That critique has validity. One of the essential "problems" Goldwater allegedly had was that he told powerful interest groups the truth. For example, when he spoke in the farm belt, he zealously advocated ending farm subsidies for 1) growing crops folks did not want; and 2) not growing crops folks did want. When he spoke to senior organizations, he specifically argued for a radical change in social security because it was unsustainable.
I think the first step is to get elected locally and change a local "tax" or agency and prove, clearly, that the local community can understand that 1) the government service was not needed; or 2) the government service was replaceable by private firms which employed folks profitably to meet the "need" that folks felt needed to be met.
Then, INDUCTIVELY, it will probably work on the county level, and then on the state level and then on the national level.
It is the trickle up power of individual citizens that will change this national nightmare.
The Libertarian Party, from its inception, refused to listen to those of us who established it with grass roots, tea party like efforts, and voluntarily chose to make the Libertarian Party a national party. They wanted the Penthouse without laying any of the cornerstones to support it.
Adam
Agree... and I, too, was there - in the beginning...
-
Was the event you saw in Milan also projected to music?
It wasn’t a show, there was just a piazza near La Scala where all the buildings had these projections. No music. No theme even, far as I recall.
If one can project a still, one can project motion - especially using computers formatting the sequences...
-
Kimmler,
Let's be clear about something. People on OL admire and love what Rand did, but there is no religion thing going on here. The attitude here (and one I consciously foster) is that Objectivism is a starting point for thinking for yourself, not an end point of revealed wisdom like in sacred texts.
If you are interested in Rand's ideas--or people who like Rand's ideas--and want to discuss them here, please understand that we have all responded to Rand because she resonated deep within us--and it called to the very best parts of us. (I don't really speak for anyone but me, but I have observed many people on OL express this sentiment in a variety of ways.) Just because her work did not get to you on that level and does not resonate with you, that does not mean you should come here and mock us to our faces or spit on Rand all the time to get a rise out of the ignorant savages.
We share a common experience--a good common experience that happened before we knew each other. We did not get together and create one out of cult procedures or anything like that. We were attracted here because we all reacted in roughly the same manner to something similar.
So why mock that?
Do you want anyone to do that with you?
But that's all you did in your first 50 posts of obnoxious one-liners. And 50 posts is quite enough to get an idea of what you were about.
In your last few posts, though, you seem to be more interested in the ideas. I sincerely hope that is true. If this is your intention, please let me know. I welcome objections to Objectivism--the stronger the better--and hope you can give it your very best shots. Hell, almost everyone on OL disagrees with Rand over something. I hate restricting people and would love to remove the one I just put you on. But this is a discussion board for philosophy, not a kindergarten for a playground bully.
If you want to look down your nose at the people here, do it from afar. There's the entire Internet available to you just waiting for you to express your innate superiority and superhuman intellect.
Or if you want to discuss ideas, even disagree with ideas, OK. I'm find with that intent. Like I said, let me know.
Now that that's off my chest, about the idea you raised. For the record, I can appreciate art in the manner Rand proposed (I love heroic stuff), but I have a vaster level of reaction to art than the ideas she came up with.
I most certainly can appreciate Dracula and horror tales. And with relish. Rather than watch a horror movie because my soul became a stinking swamp of irrational viciousness and death wish, I am more like the little kid in the theater, chomping on popcorn, laughing at the zombies and mugging the scary stuff.
I like to be scared at times, too. But only up to a certain point. And I like the sense of relief of realizing that there was no real danger after all (either in the story if that is what happens, or after the end of the story and I return to real life).
I believe this appeal is universal. With horror stuff, that's why there's always a make-believe element, though. And you can't really take it seriously. Imagine if you did. I don't know about you, but I would not want to give myself aesthetically over to total raw panic and blind terror where I crapped my pants. And I don't find pleasure in a heart attack.
Michael
I am certainly not here to mock you, in fact I think you are all kinda cute the community you have build here. A happy circle of prime movers.
As for horror films...I tend to favour old over new. Loving the old Universal horror films, with my favourite film from that stable being The Bride of Frankenstein.
"...I am more like the little kid in the theater, chomping on popcorn, laughing at the zombies and mugging the scary stuff."
Indeed. But aren't we all squire?
"But this is a discussion board for philosophy, not a kindergarten for a playground bully."
I am glad to hear it.
"If you want to look down your nose at the people here, do it from afar. There's the entire Internet available to you just waiting for you to express your innate superiority and superhuman intellect."
By Jove! That is not me, you are the prime movers and I an but a humble second-hander.
LOL - out of the mouth of babes.... even in sarcasm, truth can emerge...
-
No - we did not evolve thru 'chance' - that is almost always the strawdog used apposing 'being created', neither of which is true... chance is not the alternative - we evolved thru consequence, cause and effect relationships... and the difference between us and dinosaurs is that we can be pro-active, while all the other animals are reactive, which is why they did not survive - now, does that mean an inevitability of surviving? no, for so true, circumstances may come in which NO survivability is possible [in which case life goes on elsewhere in the universe, again as consequence]...We evolved through chance because our nature currently is congruent to the universe.
) I constantly hear phrases while I work that make me stop and shake my head about how right she STILL is.
THE DIRTY LITTLE SECRET
in About Objectivism
Posted · Edited by anonrobt
Hmmm... sometimes being a Scot, with Randolph English background not seem so bad...
