Stryder

Ok, so... Abstract is the objective form of a concept and Concept is the subjective form of concept? So the proper way to precieve, use, attribute the concept/abstract Abstract is as an ambiguity open to interpretation with Concept as an absolute closed to interpretation? When approaching a concept for personal use and not communication or a blur of the two, doesn't it seem that identifying wether or not it is objective or subjective detrimental since a concept is only a concept? Granted you can take the concept and make it objective but only by mirroring its actual existence and then adding to it...sorry, only by abstracting it from its original form... only by conceiving it using its actual form? ...wish there where better building blocks. Thats pretty much the issue here, building blocks. If you make a concept objective, a 'plug' for acting upon, you are using building blocks that only look like the actual one but have the needed notches to function as intended.. an ambiguous base, a lie. The reasoning to do so seems to be based on a premice like, "everything one does must be objective". So.. one must restructure their preception so that all subjectivity is seen as objectivity and vice-versa. Don't forget to include the plausable mind sets or surcumstances that could allow for such a thing. Thus all subjective objectivities are seen as objective subjectivities? lol what a mess I see I came to the wrong place in search of help, no wonder I never get ideas through to most of you guys, u cant see them for what they actually are.. lol thats so sad..I've never felt more lonely.. Love u guys, good luck and don't stay lost too long, PS: Don't you go checkin my premice with me, check it with you. Bitch me out if you really need to, stolenflying at yahoo. Don't be yellow like mike.

LOL

It was the Purple Test. U turned red, blue then yellow. Turn purple aready and lets do something worth our time. Ninth, To what end does a troll troll? How about to find true friends? Like minded or not.

Cristopher-- "...The act of isolation involved is a process of abstraction.." I'm not sure it's that simple. The act of isolation seems to be of the process of abstraction as the pre-abstraction process for the calculation of the potential of an entity as usable, non-usable or unknown relative to the base inqury. Come to think of it, the concept 'abstraction' seems more like a supposition for conception. To abstract something is to actually pull it out of something but in the realm of epistemology, one can only use and add to their knowledge. This makes 'abstraction' a metaphore, analogy, or supposition when used episemologically as nothing is actually removed. An passable example, and to touch on a personal qualm, is how the word "objective" is used as a supposition for the concept 'being-of-reason' when its actual form is a subjective stance. (..an intentioned basis to guide activities, a goal or one's 'personal drive' so to speak..) If one didn't know or understand the actual integral basis of the concept 'objective' then the supposition is seen as the definition which in turn distorts all creations relative. The word "subjective" is also used as a term with similar suppositional complications. Mary and Christopher, It seems like you two are bouncing around known aspects of the concept in your posts about the radio show without getting to the heart of the matter. The reason I came to the conclusion above was because I formed a question that I think you could ask, "When is an abstract no-longer abstract?". The answer is that it can't because it is actually a 'concept', nothing changes its episemological structure once it is, it can only be added to. What can change is your judgment of what it is and how it should be used which is outside the context that abstraction is "mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition"(<--Christopher) because that judgement doesn't change it's original form, it adds to it by using it. Discarded or integrated, the orginal form is still in memory and usually has something like a time stamp. Concept formation is a natural process of the brain than that of consciously imposed principals like Focus, Payment of Attention, and various other misunderstood suppositions. To use forced processes to do what the mind naturally does dictates that there are bromides within the basis for the acts and that use of those forced processes prior to finding out how it actually works and mastering it leaves one's integrity fragle. I don't know about you but it sounds funny to me that such a thing hasn't been mastered and that most people go on as if it really doesn't matter when it is the fundamental basis of most people's epistemological problems and possably much of the seemingly biological ones too. The problem about abused suppositions that I stated above applies as suppositions and other plausabilities are used as the basis of concept formation thus distorting the tree of knowledge that grows from such seed. As far as I can tell this is the purest form if an ideological bromide's structure. Did you ask you parents or teachers what that their basis for "Pay Attention!" was? I always got a half-assed, ambiguous or an indeciferable (when asked to explain they also didn't know how) 'just' answer. Thus I was forced like everyone else to use my best guess... wish I could remember what it was.. I think it was along the lines of "Just do your best sweety."... shit. Xray--"My question to poster Stryder: How can an entity which is unknown be defined? Could you illustrate with a brief example?" I'll just do my best sweety. An entity which is unknown is defigned by attributing aspects of relatively comparable existents. Mistakes abound but relevent perfection will always be had. For instance, a child sees the table's physical representation but has no way to communicate it in words and needs to convey that a parent is sleeping on it to its grandparent on the phone. The unknown word of identity is found and that child can now search for it. She tells her grandma, "Dady is sleeping on.. the..". Grandma picks up on the hesitation, "Bed? Couch? Floor?" and to each the grandchild replies, "Noo...". "Then tell me what it looks like dear." said grandma. "Wellll.. it has legs and...and a top.. and a bottom.. and we eat on it!" "Thats called a table dear. Now go wake up you father and put him on the phone." Both the grandma and the grandchild have thus defigned the grandchild's unknown entity. Was that enough? Why did you ask?

Stryder, Of all the intellectually foggy pretentious crap I have read on this forum, that comes in the top 10. I did not offer for you to fail. And many times in life, the human being does not choose it. Michael Then I ask what did you offer, based on what premise? "I just read your chewing." What I wrote was after the process of "chewing". A foggy start? Even, dare I say, a bit pretentious? "I can't speak for anyone but me,..." Not pretentious here? Is there something in my post that lead you to believe I would assume you would speek for anyone other than yourself less you stated so? Been on a high-seat so long you forgot you place? "...but there is a core idea in what you discussed that I would like to mention." Thus the offer.. "I offer this comment as a suggestion of approach, not as any intimidation or anything like that. It is the approach I use." ...and well defigned. "When I was younger, I was an enormous Randroid. A jerk." Spoken as you would to a child. Still not pretentious? "Then life happened and I learned many things about myself." No definition on what constitutes your 'the happening of life'? Bit foggy no? "Probably the most important was the inestimable value of observing as much first-hand as possible and doing my own thinking regardless of what anyone said, including Rand and including Rand critics." When, where, and why did you decide on that technique and how, what quality, and why is it of inestimably valuable? Or did you want this part of your offer to stay foggy? "Then after I got involved with an online Objectivist community a few years ago, I went through a small phase of trying to fix Objectivism. Thank goodness that part did not last long." This is the closest thing I could find in your words of wisdom to an offer that you had defigned would be, your invitation at the end of the post is not of your defigned offer. You tried to fix it, the trying didn't last long and it was a good thing, "Thank goodness ...". Do you really think its a good thing to write like this? Misinformation is one thing, bate-n-switch is a con-man's game. "Nowadays, I prefer the approach of high-end achievers. I take from Rand her many positive and powerful ideas and apply them to the evolving life of me. Although I acknowledge the shortcomings and limitations in some of her thinking and behavior, I don't dwell on them. They don't advance my goals one whit. When I focus on them, I am more concerned with avoiding traps for Michael's life, not bashing or defending Rand." I'd love to learn, help, and teach you here, there and anywhere. You have yet to show me anything of real value outside of your oppinions of your life of which I have no reference. Do you think you have really made the best choises to get where you are? If so, show me and will show you where I see I stand. From there we can build on the knowledge of eachother, mutually. No more free lunch BBS crap. I know you want it like I do, earn it like I want to. "I invite you to share your corner with us—your achievements and dreams and ponderings about life and stuff—as we share ours with you." your like a hopeless guru, that bit just ticked me off. Truth is relative to the individual and like every human on this earth you have to earn the proper integral connections for critical thinking. Fight me, lets win-win this. "Some people make an intellectual career out of focusing on what she did wrong or refusing to admit that her shortcomings exist at all." Thats just silly, why do you see it that way? "I find both sides a huge waste of time. Garbage, really." Sounds like its a bit one sided. Didn't know there where sides inside, do tell.. "A crusade for me has to have an important specific productive goal." Curious, are you assuming I have a "crusade" and that it is lacking a "important specific goal"? What is it and what is it's goal? Whould you like me to tell you first so you can be accuate? "Taking sides in that issue is about as far from productive as I can imagine." Again, what sides are those? Your talking to a guy who hopped off the Rand-Wagon almost as soon as I got on. What happened? "What is the goal? Basically it is to shove an image of Rand (positive or negative) down the throats of everyone else, lying when needed to advance the image. This always happens, too. I speak from several years of dealing with these folks." Tell me the details and maybe I can shed some light. I'd rather that than allow this windy post blow me away without some nice keepsakes. "This used to irritate me a lot, especially since the poor souls caught up in that game are quite passionate about it. They constantly try to shove you into their neurosis. Since I used to be an addict and I grew up in the South among racial bigotry, I know first-hand quite a lot about destructive values. Frankly, I find the Rand love-hate game to be a cousin of addiction and bigotry." Poor souls? U never had a chance.. did you? Sounds like you gave up before you started. "There's a big world out here. It is a beautiful place. We can all do wonderful things in it if we wish. I invite you to share your corner with us—your achievements and dreams and ponderings about life and stuff—as we share ours with you. From the tone of your post (especially a serious "thinking for yourself" note I detected), I am pretty sure you have a really good mind. So I can think of no approach more win-win for all." This last bit did-me-in the most... Was I pretentious in my responce, guess so. Was I foggy in my responce, definately. Am I full of it, try me or boot me. Only one thing will kill my drive for success, proof of my inevitable failure. This weak shit you throw in my face, in everyone's face, what is your goal? "Basically it is to shove an image of Rand (positive or negative) down the throats of everyone else, lying when needed to advance the image." -(Michael Stuart Kelly) Truth is proven by the preceiver, one can only ever offer evidence. End Of Line.

Chris Grieb, -I hope you don't judge books by their covers. -TYVM -I agree there is quite the Piekoff Affect. Hi. Selene, -I wouldn't mind a discussion about defencive driving. I personally hold that the best defence is a good offence unless you have nowhere to go. I'm also a fan of Rally Sport Racing and dream of racing in it one day. -Inspirational Sci-Fi like ones that opens doors to new ideas rather than reopening the same door or locking doors before they can be opened.(depending on your point of view) -Not exactly. -TYVM Hello. Michael, -I have no intention to choose to fail, thank you for the offer. I think I could only choose death as an option. Nice to meet you. Bill P, -I hope you send your toe lickings to him directly. -Thanks for the hello and yes, the Black Adder is a great roll model. Why are you here?

I don't like the current difinitions so I'll show you what I've deduced. Abstraction is the process of defigning an unknown entity for use as a concept. As such, all concepts are epistemological representations of abstracts based on the relative knowledge base used to create it. The creation of the Abstraction process is by the natural biological function of the brain as it traverses its own existence. Through life, without a completed definition, this process can be distorted by many influences. I believe autism is a product of some of these distortions as well as various learning deficiencies, like dyslexia, and many sensory interperetation issues. Another word for abstraction is "conception" since to conceive something is to create a concept with the same process. An abstract is an identified entity's potential for the process of abstraction.

From my current point of view, the content of thought is originally founded on the 6 sences, the 6th being intelligibilia. This is based on the idea that intelligibilia itself can be both independent and dependant on the experiences of sensibilia, depending, because it can create virtual sensibilia (intelligiblilia sensibilia? sensibilia intelligibilia?) that is just as real though limited to the confines of the knowledge base that was used in its construction which in turn can be created by any number of available virtual and/or non-virtual sources. If true, we are aware of cause and effect by the innate operation of our mind because Reason is proven by its own math as Man's only absolute by defalt with anything and everything done by a conscious entity as being unequivocably predictable. Makes the nature of Art and Logic seem as one in the same...

Nice to meet you. Big fan of Rand. This site is a bit overwelming so I didn't find the intro thread till just now. I did post an intro in "Chewing on Ideas" if your interested.. Stryder