Michelle

Love at first sight does exist. It is a combination of sight, smell and first impression. (Of course you may fall in love with someone at first sight and quickly fall out if they don't live up to the first impression. I have done that a couple times.) But I have had three such loves, the first ending with physical separation but continued friendship and the second only when my love was murdered. I still remember the exact moment I set eyes on my third, still my love today. I didn't have my first love until I was 20. I wouldn't be so certain that you won't. My advicce, just don't push it, and don't pooh-pooh it either when it comes. That sounds like initial infatuation turning into love. Is a love that can be created and fall apart in the space of a day really love? Then again, I've not experienced it, so I wouldn't know. My idea is based only on conjecture, but yours on actual experience. (As to your second love: I'm sorry. I've had a friend who was murdered. The whole aftermath of the murder felt very unreal, except for the unexpected bursts of emotion I had. I don't cry too often, but when I start, I'll be damned if I can stop. I can't imagine how much worse it is to lose a love.) Oh, I'm sure it'll come some time. I'm just not actively seeking it out. I have my hands full enough dealing with my own life at the moment, anyhow.

Good, sparked a discussion! Invincibility? How do you mean? I'm a tough girl but I'm certainly not superwoman I like your analysis of cognitive-normative inversion. It makes a lot of sense. In fact, thinking about it, it quite helps me to understand the behavior of many people I've known. Heh, well, a belief in love at first sight is rubbish any way you look at it. How can you love somebody you don't know? Ayn Rand's characters may be psychic, and able to know everything about oneanother from just looking at eachother briefly, but this is not how humans relate to oneanother. I am sure it is hard for people to acknowledge that they were wrong about it, because love at first sight isn't falling love with a person. When you think about it, it is falling in love with an idea. I think many people cannot differentiate between the two: loving another, and loving the idea of love. I wouldn't know how love feels, as I've never felt love before, in a romantic sense. You've been through quite a slice of Hell, haven't you? And yet you're back on your feet after all that. I'm not the inspirational one, friend. You are. And, before it crosses your mind, that isn't modesty. That is merely the truth as I perceive it. I have no tolerance for modesty or arrogance. Both are mere airs people put on for others. You know what I've never been able to understand? Identifying with any sort of group. Even were I to agree with Rand on everything, I could never call myself an Objectivist. I am not anything other than me. Never have been and never will be. Of course, this might explain the weird reaction to groups I have. I can't talk to groups of people. The moment a third person appears, intimacy vanishes, and people start changing how they appear to accommodate the additional person. Of course, considering this, was the face they were showing to me in intimacy their real face?

The really gruesome thing is that I think most of these 9/11 conspiracy theorists actually wish our government had done it.

Not surprised they converted to Christianity. Watch them become fanatical Christians. I don't know that people, once their manner of being is firmly established, ever change that much. It seems like fanatics are always fanatics, switching between different faiths. The point isn't the faith. The point is submerging one's identity in the sweep of a collective movement.

It is interesting to me how people keep putting him in the same league as Hitchens, Dennett, and Dawkins. The man is clearly not an atheist. He believes in reincarnation, for goodness' sake!

I don't mind it. It is just an interesting thing to think about, because your mind never latches onto anything. A living thing cannot comprehend its own nonexistence.

Well, Diogenes lived in a barrel, but he still managed to meet all sorts of interesting people in the forum. I guarantee you that the people of Athens are more interesting than the people who live here.

This gives me an opportunity to try and articulate something that I have never been able to articulate. I would say that calling it 'precious' is an excellent choice of words, only, I have never felt that it was precious. I think that it is because one must have some degree of distance between "I" and a thing to call a thing precious. "This is precious to me" presupposes that the thing which is precious is not synonymous with the self. "My individuality is precious to me." Same thing: some distance there. I cannot even say that it is an aspect of my personality. In a sense it is. But I am also synonymous with that. I could say "I am precious," but, again, that tiny wedge of distance. So all I can say about this is that "I am." "I am." This cannot change, because it is I, and my essential self cannot be altered. So, no, I won't change, because I can't change. One day, I will be annihilated, and it will be as when I was before I was born. That is, I will not Be. One cannot convey non-Being in language. Even saying "I will not Be," presupposes the I which will not Be. But I will never be a creature divided in essence. I am, now. I am not, after death. But no in-between. I cannot feel joy or sorrow or pride in this, because it is too primal to be touched by anything - by judgments, feelings, beliefs, anything. I have only just recently turned twenty-one. I would like to say this is all presumption, and that I might change, who knows, anything is possible. But I don't lie to myself, so lies to anyone else come with only the greatest of effort, and when they do come out, they're not very good. I cannot convey what I mean without sounding like some kind of Zen mystic who sits in a temple staring at a wall all day long. But that is the best I can do within the context of the English language. And considering how individualistic a language English is, probably any language.

Thom, You obviously took much care in composing your post. I'll listen to those podcasts you've linked to before giving a reply. Good point. Subjective = Of, or relating to the activity of thinking mind, the "I," the self. Objective = That which relates to the world of 'objects.' Nature outside of the "self." All volitional creatures are both subjects and objects. Instinct = Innate pattern of response (reactional behavior) that is responsive to certain environmental stimuli

Not actively looking, but I'm not against the idea either. Pretty sure I won't be running into anyone interesting where I live now.

My view on homosexuality is the same as my view on transsexualism: don't worry about what other people think, just live the way you need to live. Don't be a victim. Fight for your right to be as happy as anybody else. That said, I hate gay pride parades. You're a man who likes sleeping with other men? Good. Great. Fabulous. Love it. So what part of that translates to wearing feathers in provocative leather garb, sprinkling glitter on yourself, and then parading out into the middle of the street like a goddamned idiot? Call these people "faggots" if you like, but I prefer to keep to essentials. They're 'attention whores.' Nothing more. Nothing less.

OK. I'm done. Have fun.

So, Michelle, how do you really feel about the ARI? I don't much participate in such threads, but there will be plenty here expressing an anti-ARI point of view. I find it better to criticize specific people's actions and writings when theyt come up, rather than to attack the institution, which seems to have some reasonable adherents and to do some beneficial work. You might enjoy my essay here and the thread that follows: The Sin against Objectivism (Peikoff as Pontifex) I don't really have any feelings about the ARI as an institution. It isn't worth thinking about in too much depth. I just can't comprehend some of the people who treat Objectivism like a cult, is all, and by and large these types of people seem to be associated with the ARI. I'd criticize specific figures, but they, too, aren't worth paying so much attention to that I go out of my way to learn anything about them. This thread was merely an admission of weakness. The weakness I exhibit when I still find myself shocked.

1. The Galt strike was only reasonable in the novel because the USA had turned a parody of the Soviet Union. People are treating this Obama-mania thing too seriously. We have reality on our side. He'll do quite a bit to discredit himself anyhow. The only reason people are gunning for him in the first place is because the democrats have positioned him as the right man to clean up the mess made by the conservatives during Bush's two terms. I'm pretty sure by the end of his four years liberals will be dropping him as fast as conservatives have dropped Bush in the last few years. 2. A few people dropping out won't have any effect. The only reason it even worked in the novel is because Galt got almost everybody of talent to join him.

If this post angers anyone here, be sure to check your premises. It has to be said: Objectivism can be, and should be, a liberating philosophy of life. I have always loved ATLAS SHRUGGED and THE FOUNTAINHEAD for their ability to make people question the most basic social values and many times choose to stop living with the guilt society likes to put on their shoulders for their virtue and ability to attain what they want in life (I love THE FOUNTAINHEAD as literature as well, but ATLAS SHRUGGED is great storytelling crushed by Rand's ideology). But for people who are purportedly individualists, there sure are a lot of them who are real brownnoses and don't seem to have an original thought in their brains. Particularly people associated with the ARI. They quote Rand's words like they're holy scripture, and any rational criticism of what Rand says is treated like treason. Independent thought that disagrees with Rand is demonized beyond belief. They treat Rand more like a God than anything. How can these people call themselves individualists when their every thought is borrowed second-hand from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff?

Congratulations on your achievement! It sounds interesting. I will order it when I have the money to spare.

Le sigh. Two things 1) 'Subjective opinion' is redundant. Moreover, it conveys no meaning. Of course it is my opinion. That doesn't make it rational or irrational, right or wrong in itself. So what's the point of stating 'it's just your subjective opinion?' 2) Parasites, by and large, aren't Toohey-esque monsters, but are people who desire happiness, and do not know how to pursue it correctly. And they're largely unhappy people. The only way a parasite will regard their 'virtues' as rational is by not fully understanding the nature of what they are saying. When they do, they either stop accepting parasitic 'virtues' or they abdicate the responsibility of consciousness. And, moreover, even if they did regard them as 'rational,' this would mean nothing. Just because one holds an opinion does not make that opinion right or good.

I actually liked the changes in Silk-Spectre II's costume. I didn't mind the change in Ozy's costume. In both the film and GN, he looked like something out of Superman. I can see this in terms of the psychologist's character, but they didn't need to make the changes with Rorshach. They could have added, say, four or five minutes to the running time and presented Rorshach's philosophy correctly. That one is pretty inexcusable. But it is obvious why they excluded it: Americans, by and large, still aren't responsive to atheism. And Rorshach is very explicitly atheistic in his philosophy. Moreover, the way they changed Rorschach's handling of the child killer was more of the 'ADD GORE' sentiment that the moviemakers seemed to be following. Because the movie was supposed to be "edgy." Honestly, though, including the atheism would have been much "edgier" than including a bunch of gore effects. It didn't bother me. He looked like the comedian, and in the book, he's there for...what...five panels? That reminds me. Making the fight scene so long was completely unnecessary. Maybe they'd have had more time to include vital plot elements if they hadn't opened the film with a long fight scene. In the book, Ozy just tosses him through the window after a minute. He doesn't batter the comedian to a bloody pulp like he does in the movie. It's totally against Ozy's personality. He didn't take joy in senseless violence.

Those values may aid human survival for some persons, but not for all. Parasitism and dishonesty can also aid human survival, and people who rely on such behavior can be quite as rational as the independent, honest persons and they may be no less successful in their endeavors. That we may not like such behavior does not imply that it cannot be efficient and that such people cannot flourish, that would be merely wishful thinking. No. Rational self-interest is not opportunistic whim-worship (I've never liked the phrase, but best to use Rand's terminology when discussing her ideas). Parasitism is ultimately self-destructive and inefficient. A parasite will not survive without the blood of others. Put him on an island to fend for himself, and unless he adopts the virtues (honesty, rationality, etc.) which lead to survival, he will not last. Parasitism never aids in survival directly, because it never creates value. It perverts the good of others. Objectively, in terms of man's survival and in terms of his capacity for happiness on Earth, honesty and independence are superior to dishonesty and dependence. The Objectivist virtues are rational and objectively superior to the parasite's "virtues." And don't recall Kant's thought experiment about lying to a murderer. All action takes place in context. Objectivist ethics are objective, not absolutist. Honesty is oriented toward reality, but this does not mean you have to be honest with those who are not oriented toward reality. Respecting reality does not mean respecting the non-adherence of others, especially when it will be detrimental to your rational self-interest.

I think that when Objectivists talk about 'objective values', an automatic physiological process like 'breathing' is not really the thing they have in mind. That would be bringing back the notion of 'value' to something that is necessary for mere survival, not specifically for survival 'as man qua man' and it is of course with respect to the latter that the notion of 'objective value' becomes problematic. I'm just trying to blow a hole thru Xray's semantical concrete. I don't plan on continuing the discussion, but the problematicalness of "objective value" is the same problematicalness of human knowledge generally--not reality per se. --Brant I reject the terminology of 'objective value.' No value exists in nature. Valuation is a property of subjectivity. An objective morality still places subjective value on the goal of 'survival.' But, as I said before, certain values (independence, rationality, honesty, etc.) will objectively aid human survival, and others will not. The only leap of faith is choosing to survive and not to die. But once we make that leap, we can speak of objectivity in morality. I would say that morality only concerns those who wish to survive anyhow. It is a guide to living.

This is a good discussion. I think we're still in the realm of setting definitions. Specifically, I define innate achievement as the act of doing for the sake of doing (not for the end-goal). A baby that learns to crawl, then walk, isn't necessarily adapting to the environment. All babies do this naturally. It just happens, the desire to do, the desire to learn, curiosity, the desire to make noise (as NBranden discussed about babies hitting spoons against things, making noise, and laughing at their newfound ability). These actions are innate, this is the innate motivation to "achieve." So, here's my logic: 1. Man has a brain in order to further his evolutionary advantage (survive). 2. Man's brain has needs in order to operate successfully in supporting his survival. 3. Man is aware of and motivated to fulfill these "psychological needs" through positive/negative phenomenal experiences (just like man is motivated physically to satisfy hunger, etc.) 4. Man's perceptions are automated to be aware of environmental signals relevant to his needs, both physical and psychological (as one psychologist put it, a snake sees a human baby very differently -as food- than the mother of the baby sees it) 5. Man's conceptions are partially a function of his perceptions. 6. Man's awareness and conceptualization of the universe (metaphysics) is therefore founded on man's needs, on his organismic motivations to survive. 7. Man is not always aware of all his needs simultaneously. In fact, some needs often dominate over others. For example, some men are motivated to achieve, forsaking (being disintegrated from) experiences of attachment. NBranden discusses dis-integration quite frequently, asserting that a disintegrated man cannot fulfill all his needs/values. Certain practices are required to become fully aware of one's needs if one has disintegrated any part of oneself. People who integrate further often claim to feel more whole and satisfied. 8. Children have a sense of mysticism. Adults who practice meditation, have an awakening, etc. also claim to feel more whole, more integrated and being more satisfied. Therefore, "mysticism" as we so name it might be based on phenomenal experiences that are rooted in a human need (whatever that need might be). 9. "Mysticism" elicits certain perceptions that lead to reconceptualizations of certain aspects of reality. 10. Therefore, "mystical perceptions" and related conceptualization of the metaphysical universe might be on equal footing of consideration with metaphysical conceptualizations founded in other needs. (Note: all metaphysical conceptualizations of the universe necessarily implicate man's needs within those conceptualizations as per #6) This is my logic. I didn't bring in morals or ethics since we're talking about metaphysics, but I'm sure there are grounds to do so if/when we establish between ourselves the possibility that "mysticism" relates to man's needs. You do talk a lot about schizophrenia/drugs/etc., but this is overgeneralization as Rich stated. These arguments could be used equivalently for all (including very very normal) phenomena such as seeing a tree in a forest. To discuss internal phenomena, it is necessary not to be overly-dismissive... otherwise, everybody becomes crazy. Christopher I reject this argument that babies learn to walk for the simple fact that they have some inner compulsion to do so. The real thing to put this idea to the test is: left on its own devices, would it try to crawl and then to walk? Or put into some non-human environment? The answer to this can be seen in the behavior of 'feral' children. Consider that, when found, these children usually adapt to many of the behaviors found in most animals, such as walking on all fours and showing a general fear/indifference to humans. Where was the 'innate achievement' drive which should have caused these children to start walking upright? These children adapted to their environment, just as human children adapt to their own. It is outrageous to think that a child who has never set foot on land would not know how to crawl or walk once given the opportunity, at first, because they would have adapted to their aquatic environment? There is no empirical evidence to support that, of course, and it is pure conjecture, so take that with a grain of salt. I would say you are correct only insofar that children will naturally adapt to their environments. In primarily land-based human environments, the child will either first crawl and then walk or transition from scooting to walking. And even this tendency to adaptation I've eyed with skepticism. 1) Agreed 2) Agreed 3) Agreed 4) Agreed 5) Explain that 6) Explain that. 7) Agreed. 8) How exactly do children 'have a sense of mysticism?' 9) Elaborate. 10) I would agree that some experiences which have been called 'mystical' represent certain human needs. But the problem is that you're both lumping 'mystical' experiences together without distinction and presupposing the 'mystical' nature of these needs. Reverence, worshipfulness, awe, and other feelings commonly associated with religion also have more proper earthly expressions. How exactly does any of this, moreover, add up to a consideration of the metaphysical nature of mystical ideas? And also, define "mysticism" for me in your own words. You've ignored the distinction I made. There are very clear distinctions between mystical experiences which operate under normal cognitive conditions and mystical experiences which only seem to appear when the brain is off-balance or damaged. My only point of speaking of schizophrenia/drugs/etc. was to show that the brain can easily be tricked. This is not overgeneralization. This is a fully accurate statement.

I asked, "Can you give me an example of "rational selfishness" that does not contain a subjective value judgement?" I do not see your answer as responsive to my question. Perhaps, some elaboration may better present my question and the why of it. The issue is whether "rational self interest" can be objectively differentiated from "non rational self interest." If it can, by what objective criteria is this done? If by objective criteria, "rational self interest" stands as independent of any value judgement. If not, "rational self interest", or "irrational self interest" is simply a matter of personal preference, i.e., subjective value judgment. That is why I asked the question. I await your answer. TIA. I couldn't respond to your question as it was, because it contradicted itself. You did not say "How can rational and irrational self-interest be objectively differentiated?" You said: "Can you give me an example of 'rational selfishness' that does not contain a subjective value judgment?" As judgments are things made by subjects and not objects (a rock, tree, or flower cannot judge by the very nature of their Being), there is no such thing as a 'non-subjective judgment.' You seem to think the terms relative and subjective are interchangeable, which I rejected. A relative judgment is a judgment which has no authoritative epistemic basis, and holds only for the person holding that judgment. There is no objective ground on which a person might base that judgment. Subjectivity relates to the conditions of consciousness, the subject thinking, the "I." As there must be a mind to generate a thought, again, a "non-subjective judgment" is a contradiction in terms. From this, we will see that the phrase "subjective judgment," while correct, is redundant. If this use of terminology is peculiar to me, then I will apologize for presumptiousness. This is how I have always understood the meanings of these words. Now, according to Rand (as we ARE discussing Rand's view on this), selfishness can be judged as rational or irrational depending upon how it relates to the conditions and qualities necessary for man's survival and flourishing on Earth, the 'objective' aspect of this. Because independence, self-esteem, honesty, etc. etc. all objectively aid man's life on Earth, a selfishness in tune with these qualities is rational. Keating, however, does not know either how to survive or to thrive on his own--he is a parasite who leeches off of Roark's creative genius--without Roark, Keating would never have gotten as far as he had--thus, Roark's selfishness is rational, and Keating's irrational. Roark's selfishness is in tune with the specific conditions of subjective existence which objectively benefit him and indirectly moves the world. You might put it to the desert island test. If stranded on a desert island, Roark, if he had the necessary materials, could survive. Keating, a man without rationality, independence, honesty, or intelligence, would die, even with the raw tools all around him.

A few questions: 1) Why should it be marriage for heterosexual couples, but only "shacking up" for homosexual couples? 2) Why should heterosexual and homosexual couples be treated differently when it comes to a legal recognition of their marriages? 3) On what grounds should homosexual couples be denied the same adoption opportunities that are available to heterosexual couples? 4) Gender reassignment surgery (which, if properly understood, should be called "gender correction surgery" anyhow) falls under the same category as any other medical procedure. Why bring it up here when the topic has nothing to do with it? And one comment: "If gay people want to get married they are free to do so, just like Jim Mcgreevy. No law forbids a gay man from marrying a woman or fathering a child on her." This is a cowardly evasion and you damn well know it. The issue is homosexuals being unable to marry other people of their own sex. 1) Marriage has one objective non-religious legal meaning of which I am aware. A woman who lives with a man and bares his children is in a state of common-law marriage regardless of religious ceremony and has legal protections from that state of being. When homosexual couples start producing children, then... 2) They shouldn't. That was the whole point of the article, I thought. But, of course, you are simply asserting that two homosexuals living together and having sex is a marriage, and that's the point of debate. I would simply say that a married heterosexual like Donald Trump and a married homosexual like Jim Mcgreevy should be treated equally before the law. 3) On the grounds that a biological couple is preferable for a child, just as a biolgical couple is preferable to a single parent. I am not an expert, and so long as single people can adopt I see no reason why single homosexuals should not adopt. The important thing is the welfare of the child, not the vanity of the couple. 4) Then why call it marriage, and not adoption? Or some other term? I am not in favor of abusing language in order to get legal force used to pay for people's surgeries, elective or otherwise. "This is a cowardly evasion and you damn well know it. The issue is homosexuals being unable to marry other people of their own sex." Heterosexuals are also denied the legal recognition of their same sex couplings as marriages. Where's the inequality? I don't care what private religious ceremonies people want to engage in. But since it is a biological fact that it takes one male and one female to produce one offspring, I see an obvious objective reason for singling out that central fact of our existence with a special name. The fact that I cannot marry myself, a fish, an underage child, a dead person, or someone of my own sex is no cosmic injustice. I can still masturbate, maintain a fishtank, be a foster or godparent, visit a cemetary or enjoy all the sodomy I like. You would have just as much a right to call your relationship with anther woman a marriage as I would to say that your language makes me laugh. BTW, nice to meet you. I write this without rancor, and hope you do have a romantic love. 1. Then, yes, we fall back to the old problem of non-fertility in this case. Why should men and women who are unable to conceive a child be allowed to get married? 2. A marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. Why should it include only opposite gender couples, in that case? Personally, I see no use for it, and have no idea why homosexuals would want to. But they do, and I see no logical reason why we should deny them that. 3. This is simply a statement I cannot agree with. Are you saying that it is a preferable situation for a child to live with his biological parents when the biological parents are unfit to act as parents, rather than with, say, a gay man or a gay couple who could love the child and raise it properly? Of course, until they relinquish their right to the child to the state, the biological parents should have full hold of the child. But the disparity of living standards and parental readiness is so great for so many categories of people seeking to adopt children that you cannot say that a male and female would furnish a better home for the child than two men or two women or a single parent. Does it often happen that the heterosexual couple would make a better home for the child than any potential homosexual couples? Many times, I'm sure. But many times it will be the reverse. The same standards should be applied to all potential applicants in order to find the home where the child would receive the most love and care. As you said, it's about the child's welfare. 4. As far as I'm aware, nobody confuses the words "marriage" and "adoption." They have quite distinct meanings. So I am unsure what you are saying here. I suppose I should have asked earlier... define for me "marriage" in your own words "Heterosexuals are also denied the legal recognition of their same sex couplings as marriages. Where's the inequality?" Again, you're evading the issue. There is no reason heterosexuals would want to marry people of their own gender, and every reason for homosexuals to want to marry people of their own gender. It's absurd, like saying abortion applies equally to men and to women as abortion laws would allow men to get abortions too. But men are unable to get pregnant, and heterosexuals have no same-sex orientation. Thus, the issue is not about them. The issue is about women and homosexuals and their rights to pursue their own happiness and live in the manner they desire. There is no necessary logical connection between marriage and childbearing. Again, you'd also have to deny marriage opportunities to infertile heterosexual couples as well. Plenty of married couples make the decision to not bear children, but if you apply your logic toward the law in this regard consistently, these marriages would be forced to either rear and raise a child or dissolve their marriage. Also, as a marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults, it is quite a bit different for a man to marry another man than a fish, a cadaver, himself, a child, and whatever else it was you mentioned. I will never have any desire to marry or sleep with another woman. I'm not a lesbian. But if I was, I would say only one thing to you in this regard, and anybody else who would wish to prevent my marriage to the other hypothetical female: "Get the hell out of my way!" It's nice to meet you too. And thanks. I disagree with you profoundly, but I have no desire to be unfriendly with you.

Michelle R, You sound rather rational to me. It is hard to believe that you are still busily "constructing a world view." I wonder what you find is the hard part in that? If you are unwilling to accept other's beliefs that is a good thing. I have always found it hard to believe that other people believe the things they profess to believe. What I am worried about these days which should be evident from my post on the chances of a repeat of the Weimar hyperinflation is just that. If all of a sudden whatever funds you have in your possession will not buy anything and there is nothing on the shelves to buy anyway that is quite a nightmare to find yourself in while wide awake. How do you even get to work if the gas stations are empty or the gas costs more than you have? I gather one does have to become a survivalist by hoarding food in advance and staying home with plenty of ammunition to defend yourself and your stuff. Small comfort if Bernanke confesses that he was wrong to believe no harm would come from his printing however much paper currency was necessary to get us out of the recession. What good would hard currency be if you run out of tuna fish and cereal and the whole economy has ground to a halt for months with no end in sight. Sorry if this is scary to contemplate but I do fear it is coming any day now within the next year or two when the hyperinflation does manifest itself. It is embarrassing to post this as I feel I have bared my intimidated soul. Nothing mystical about it. Sheer terror! gulch Well, I didn't mean to imply that I was still in the process of creating major portions of my worldview. But my worldview does grow every day as I learn more. On occasion, I discover that I am mistaken, and I correct this mistake. Not often, but on occasion. My point was that ignorance is no excuse for not taking responsibility for the direction of one's existence. And, as far as I know, in order to direct one's life, one needs a worldview and a set of values. Michelle R, Curious that you have nothing to say about my comments about the possible coming of a catastrophic hyperinflation. I agree with you that "ignorance is no excuse" so here is a link to the article which got me worried as it discusses the real risk of the dreaded hyperinflation which you cannot afford to be unaware of: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13673 I know it is off topic. Perhaps Bernanke is deluding himself with some Keynesian mystical belief that he can print all the paper currency he wants and that it will mystically not result in a hyperinflation. www.campaignforliberty.com 25May 4AM 154,238, 8AM 154,248 gulch Thanks for the link. I've read a bit about it, but I never speak on something unless I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about. I'll need to do a bit more digging on this.

Michelle R, You sound rather rational to me. It is hard to believe that you are still busily "constructing a world view." I wonder what you find is the hard part in that? If you are unwilling to accept other's beliefs that is a good thing. I have always found it hard to believe that other people believe the things they profess to believe. What I am worried about these days which should be evident from my post on the chances of a repeat of the Weimar hyperinflation is just that. If all of a sudden whatever funds you have in your possession will not buy anything and there is nothing on the shelves to buy anyway that is quite a nightmare to find yourself in while wide awake. How do you even get to work if the gas stations are empty or the gas costs more than you have? I gather one does have to become a survivalist by hoarding food in advance and staying home with plenty of ammunition to defend yourself and your stuff. Small comfort if Bernanke confesses that he was wrong to believe no harm would come from his printing however much paper currency was necessary to get us out of the recession. What good would hard currency be if you run out of tuna fish and cereal and the whole economy has ground to a halt for months with no end in sight. Sorry if this is scary to contemplate but I do fear it is coming any day now within the next year or two when the hyperinflation does manifest itself. It is embarrassing to post this as I feel I have bared my intimidated soul. Nothing mystical about it. Sheer terror! gulch Well, I didn't mean to imply that I was still in the process of creating major portions of my worldview. But my worldview does grow every day as I learn more. On occasion, I discover that I am mistaken, and I correct this mistake. Not often, but on occasion. My point was that ignorance is no excuse for not taking responsibility for the direction of one's existence. And, as far as I know, in order to direct one's life, one needs a worldview and a set of values.