psychoanaleesis

Selene, was that last post for me? I'm David. I'm assuming because of that ad hominem there that you disprove of Clinton? sexual predator is a slang, am I correct? On his playing solitaire where he does his best thinking: I do not consider that as multi-tasking, but it's entertainment. Pin-balling also - whether with sounds or none - is a task which provides entertainment, to divert your conscious awareness from the problem at hand but with such sensory overload still from following the ball, how do you create time for your subconscious to process anything else? Sweeping meanwhile is a domestic chore, what you're doing could be done as a form of meditation as in Zen but this provides little value since you'll tend to do this every so often. I cannot say that any of the abovementioned is recreation. In the sense that it does not allow one complete freedom of time and allow him to selectively focus on certain subjects i.e. style. Yes, I think Clinton's right in what he said by implication (I don't know whether he's conscious of it) that all men, cannot appreciate a piece of work while it's being made, you'd have to take a step back and see the progress and eventually its completed form. Similarly, you cannot look at fine details without the aid of lenses (relative to one's acuteness of vision) the product would be blurred out. In psychology, the phenomenon which you and Clinton experienced is known as the Incubation effect where one usually leaves a problem to be digested - usually a complex issue - from conscious thought, replacing it with a recreational activity and letting the subconscious "take a crack at it" but relative to the extent of one's learning of course. I think this is best illustrated when you drink a glass of water when you attempt to chew on tough food because it makes it easier to swallow. (The link is in the context of creativity, but as I understood it in school, this is the same thing). Meanwhile, focus is to allocate a significant amount of your consciousness into the completion of a task insomuch as whatever else that task requires. It does not mean you tune out other senses. Multi-tasking is the attempt to do many different tasks within a limited span of time usually by mechanical speed and intuit. I have extracted filing as only one task but the point there being if you multiply this with other clerical tasks without having a period to take a step back and examine your output. In practice, it is also not advisable to invest too much thought in something especially when you're stuck. To think, one must focus his mind on a singular subject and let it "exist". On a side note, I read in the area of metaphysics, some guy came with this idea of etymological difference between "being" and "existing". Precisely the point, once you perceive it is almost simultaneous for that body/being to exist. A is A. Existence exists. This axiom I believe Aristotle has been summed up in his Analytics and Rand reiterated in her magnum opus: Atlas Shrugged. However, in my last paragraph, I sense there is something still amiss in my explanation, kindly point that out if you find it. I have digressed as well. Again, the point is: Take time to introspect, look back and see how far have you gone and if possible, find a hobby. Recreation is the key to the moments i.e. A summation I'm pertaining to not necessarily just entertainment. Thanks. P.S. In playing solitaire, Bill Clinton did his best thinking. It would depend on what he meant by best. It could be when he hatched the plan on how to seduce Monica Lewinski. But in having an affair with her, I see nothing wrong provided my assumptions are right.

I think that Dr. Ellis is an objectivist himself though not by name. He is a man of reason, one who does not shun facts and that is enough for one to live by. I just recently read this post. I think I may be closer to his theories than Freud's. Dr. Albert Ellis - may he live forever.

Peter, On playing doctor: Oh, that? Yeah, I still long to lose that habit. It's part of me being stubbornly persuasive- dare I say optimistic as well?- that I occasionally fall into the enemy's trap of actively consenting to their arguments. On a positive note, I learn. As a student of psychology, I, of course do want the full knowledge and consent of people before I give them advice or help. Wait! What specific set of words where I was playing doctor? I relied on my understanding. In my response (in whole), I was pointing to the basic concretes to refute his statement of the gulch being implicitly a utopia. If it was implied, I was thinking: then let it be expressed! Sadly, but not regrettably, reason and facts as - I said as Rand said as an Objectivist will agree - will not work on the irrational. I did say I am not working for a zero-sum nor will I ever will, I addressed... Me for my own sake and for those who will listen/look. That is, I just re-affirmed my stand and my self. On anarchism: Distinguish themselves? They are embodiments of contradictions through and through! Anarchists are a disorganized lump much like malignant tumor; All mutated/different variants of the same bs. Don't dwell on it. Good point. Maybe because I rarely encounter that kind of Toohey before. Ah! I would like to correct myself since I have not made it clear or rather, an errata in paragraph placement: the trend in this country to which I speak of is both Anarchy and Libertarianism. Anarchy for the zombified masses, Libertarianism for those obnoxious elitist bastards. I would not take part in their charade. Here, you are not free to choose your -isms, your parents or society does it for you. Thanks to certain men of reason who raised me, I retained my reason and most of my integrity and am now here in OL. ;) ;) On the Philippines: Yes, this is a great place - geographically speaking. Much to build upon but dry in opportunity. Hand to hand combat? Gee, that could refer to a lot. I'll give you a few that existed at that time and the sport that it closely resembles for reference: "Bak-bakan" (Boxing/Street Fighting), "Sikaran" (Taekwondo), "Arnis-sinawali" (Fencing). I see the glaring error in both the Phillie and the Samoans story. Sure, he avoided being bullied but he made a fool of himself in the process. That's a common behavior and a predominant mentality here. Kill yourself before you get killed by others. Morons.

I did. Yes, it's murky. I know. At first I was afraid of what came out. I wrote this back in my college days. Which was a couple of years ago when I was beginning to -and still trying to- understand Rand or her philosophy. It shocked me to learn where I am and to what I'm being constantly presented by my society. It's also a popular saying here especially in politics to: Choose between lesser evils. I had the notion of it being genuinely rotten but after reading Rand who gave me the words to what I've been practicing but not fully knowing... I said something of the sort (after reading my work): "How disgusting the 'values' that this society hold!" I've always felt disdain for this place and its people and now I can confidently state one of my convictions: If these are the choices you give me, I choose none -- except my own. At that time, as you can see, it's close to my profile, I was Pete. An allusion to Keating from The Fountainhead. At least, to the extent that he was primarily confused but as you can also infer, Pete was saved and overcame or won the struggle in this story - through sound reasoning I might add. That's what happened.

Very interesting. Would you clarify, as best you can, the term "essence" as you mean to use it please. Adam Post Script: The anarchist threads became so, you know, crazy and uncontrolled...so chaotic...so anarchistic, lol. So I will have to look for one that was not hijacked into the great anarchistic swirling void... Ooh, touche, rather difficult to explain even for me... I was referring to the purpose of an activity, the intent for which you did it. Take as an example: the task of filing is considered by some to be monotonous and boring but they consciously forgot its essence or purpose which is: To make searches easier to perform - increasing production rate and (as far I can go) ultimately "freeing" time. For who? Primarily her. Since it would lighten other tasks and she gets compensated for it! I made this an example because I think clerks are the ones who are prone to resent these sort of duties and they (at least in theory) opt to switch to "auto-pilot" in doing so. As far as I see it, one cannot multi-task unless they implement a system i.e. the auto-pilot or intuition where one does not perceive reality but rather continually dispenses their energies. This is of course, acceptable to a degree, but it trends to every other endeavor they pursue since the job requires it. Think of this: They auto-pilot at least 44 hours of the week where instead of living life consciously and selectively therefore evaluating and creating valuable moments. In my case, after a week's worth of work (rest day) a person would think, "What have I done thus far?" and they who were auto-piloting these seemingly menial tasks, become frustrated since they cannot remember the moment where they have achieved success in the littlest pursuit and turn out exhausted in doing so. May these people be helped should they often engage in this kind of system so much that it eats away their personalities and I believe it already has taken victims e.g. Office Zombies. In another point of view, I could also be referring to a product of man's knowledge, not rote memory but something greater- an infinity of first hand information. An example of this is Atlas Shrugged or the books of Ayn Rand where she could have presented, loads upon loads of detail but did not. According to her, she does not want to make a textbook. I understood that as because it would lose its "essence" OR better yet! it gives the book its essence! as one cannot delve too deeply in a textbook or manual. It would be "meaning-less" to do so unless one can make it his own without rigidly or just following what is said and therefore making it first-hand already. P.S. I just realized...By goodness! How we could pursue this to its highest principle! About the anarchist thread, in light of what you said, I don't think I can find one... They are so DISORGANIZED that they can never organize as a group, only in a lynch mob.

Okay, I think we're drifting off the main thread here but I should like to pursue to this... can MSK move this or someone else to another thread where this thing falls? I'm thinking somewhere in Politics? but I don't know yet if this was discussed before. Thanks! Ha ha ha. Peter, thank you, for that compliment and also to that description i.e. I had some vague notion of what you meant by 'Playing Doctor' but I had to look it up. Well, taken from its origins, yes, I do admit to still having (and I'm quite not sure of giving it up) a "child-like" curiosity and in this sense, I have not yet matured. As you may have noticed, I'm still a rookie here (OL) but in this - what I perceive to be- a battle not of men but of philosophies i.e. The classic Aristotle v. Plato, I had my share of experience. You were indeed correct in surmising that I was playing doctor but I am also biased to place high regard for Rand's words (at least in that quote) for as far I've known her works, she has stated her principle of (objectivist-rationalist man) so blatantly clearly and consistently that I cannot ignore her movement. Suffice to say, I did not take it out of context, I placed the emphasis merely to refute and again I did the idea that Rand was creating social and political perfection or a perfectly homogeneous and harmonious society. No, she did have opinions but I cannot say that she is off creating schematics, she discusses principles which encompasses everything else in human activity or relations. After where I emphasized, she stated that she is against the initiation of the use of force where in of course, private individuals are free to - but ideally not experts in. We seek to mind our own business and not worry about extraneous threats to our well-being and thus, the need for a government with objective laws. This is, as opposed to Anarchism where laws and government is overthrown exactly through the use thereof (Frankly, I've never seen or heard of anarchy that was done without bloodshed or looting of private property) or Libertarianism where anyone is yes, free to express anything even if it is slander or outright lies, essentially howling lunatics. Since laissez-faire does not harbor equality but trade (in every sense of the word), Rand is correct in what she said about not building utopias. In a rational state which I think is ideal and achievable, you are still free to pursue whatever -ism you want to subscribe in and practice it to the best or worst that you can for that matter. On a more personal note, should anyone like to take at least a glimpse of this trend, come (intellectually) to this country. Seriously, revolting. P.S. Again, the term Rational Anarchists is a contradiction. Reason would entail logic and anarchy to disorder. How could anyone be logical and disorganized at the same time? Either - or my friends.

I read something of the sort in a newspaper article about a year ago. Turns out, multi-taskers produce less output than those who focus on singular tasks. Based also on my observations, those who multi-task on activities forget more the main idea of the said activities. Consequently, this begs a grave philosophical question: If people forget the essence of what they have done, then would it mean that they have not lived at that time? I say this because I see the life of man, cannot be expressed in quantities upon quantities of detail but rather in higher concepts such as "moments".

If it ever crossed your mind that the Lady in Red is the embodiment of the word 'Appealing', you're wrong… I was young, curious about the world, a student of Psychology, a scientist by choice and a philosopher by virtue. At the time this story took place, I stayed in an apartment which was near the home of the mentally ill and those diseases with lost causes which was exactly the place I’ve been looking for my studies. Everyday or so, I see this girl who walks by my apartment. Always wore white clothes which were spotless and starched. I thought at first that she must be a senior of some health course from a school just across mine. One time, I saw her up-close and she was wearing an impeccable white dress. ‘There goes your theory’ I thought to myself. To describe her features, this girl was pale skinned, long straight hair having the color of ebony, carmine lips, eyes that seemed to well-up with tears and has a smooth, innocent expression on her face (not a tinge of wrinkles) which was accompanied by a wide grin that would make you think she was smiling at you, everyone and no one. The following day, I was with one of my classmate and my friend, right outside my place, enjoying an afternoon cup of coffee from the canteen downstairs. We were talking about plans of making our own marks in our profession. As usual, I saw this girl walking past again, all merry and cheerful that you’ll think she’s skipping and gliding on air. I noticed that my friend was staring at her, all googly eyed… I asked him with a low tone of voice, close to a whisper “Who is she?” and he replied “My dream girl…” “Her name, dumb ass.” I said while frowning. “Oh, her name’s Charity… if that’s what you’re asking.” After she was way past us and he was back to reality, he started telling me about her and her life which he expressed with great eagerness and heartfelt awe. According to him, Charity is the only daughter from a well-off family. Her father works for the government in the Department of Social Works and her mother works in a large church organization. She was always passing by place, (much to the envy of my friend) since she often visits the homes of the hill people a few blocks away. He said that she goes there to take care of them, giving them handouts and helping the staff on chores all for free. “Really now?” I said with that usual sarcasm in my voice and he looked, as one looks at others when they are offended and said “Yeah, expecting nothing in return. That’s why I like her – love her even because she has the looks and the heart to match!” He said boasting “She really lives up to her name… Charity.” He said with a sigh. As the days went on, I began to hear and eventually ask about her. Everybody seemed to adore her and she’s everyone’s friend on the internet but I have rarely really seen her with a group of friends especially when I see her going to the homes. When I inquired about this, I got “Ohs…” and “Uhms…” and those kinds of expression when you ask people something and seems like they got a surprise but failed to get the point when they saw what it was. Also, there is the occasional “It’s her that wants to be like that. I’d go with her but I do—can’t!” After which they start hurrying away. I decided to check her profile out on those social networking sites. Her profiles are always with the background of religious images and filled with a lot of links to organizations that are always requests for one’s donations. One says: “A few pesos from you can keep a child from dying in Ethiopia.” If you click on the link, an image of a child who was eating a cow’s feces would pop-up. Her comments are usually from people who tell compliments on how good she is, asking her on how to help her, donations and sometimes words of pity for those children you’d see on those links. I always see Charity outside her campus, near booths and stalls and she was with those people who ask for donations of every kind from others. I found the ‘mystery’ lying behind that name piquing my curiosity. Right that minute, I decided to meet her… I walked up to her booth. There was a table and on it a red box with a message in front asking for donations for people who have cancer but could not afford treatment. I was standing there for a couple of seconds and then a drawling feminine voice said to me, “Hi. Would you like to make a donation?” I looked up from the box to her face, seeing those eyes which are full of what men would call ‘pity’ and which I felt drawn into. I found myself putting my hand inside my pocket, searching for change, clutched them, took it out and dropped it in the box. The coins clattered once they hit the bottom pile. Dropped with finality and with the amount I have never seen and would never know. I saw my left hand clutched to fist, my mouth shut tight as if I’m not breathing the air she was. My other hand extended towards her direction, it was met by a pale hand and shook it. “Hi, I’m Pete.” I said “I’m Charity. You must be the one who lives down a few blocks, near the homes right? You know, I see you sometimes from the window of your room.” I was surprised by this statement because I have never seen her look up when she walks by. I replied, flushed, “Yeah, I see you too passing down my street.” And she said in a slow drawl, “Oh, nice to meet you. Thank you for making a donation. It helps so much!” One could notice the sparkle from her eyes, like when a ray of sun has hit a puddle. Then I sat beside her on the fence while she waited for people to stop by and give contributions. We talked and talked until the day was nearing its end. She said that she was going to turn over the collections to the organization and she would go home. I offered to take her there, she obliged. While walking, I got to know more about her. I inquired about her life to which she answered with glee. She was a very open person, I gathered. She talked about helping so many different people with various problems and how it never seems to end. She talked at length about how it is the duty of the well-off, the healthy and the able to help those who are in need. “Need comes first.” She was saying in a tone that would convey a didactic passion of a well memorized lesson. “It is our duty,” she was saying, “to cater to who those who are unable to lift their bodies. We should carry them on our shoulder if need be, without asking and expecting anything in return. This is what God has taught us, to give the excesses of our wealth to those who cannot make it on their own.” When we got to Charity’s house, she looked at me and asked what I felt. I told her that she was really passionate about all of those but she said “It’s not passion. This is sacrifice. Isn’t love all about sacrifice?” she waited, I didn’t answer. “Mom and dad always tell me that we should never be greedy and distribute our money back to society.” “Dad works for the government who gives me checks to deliver to different organizations. He always says that those who have stable jobs don’t really need the money that the government collects from taxes. It’s better for everybody to be cut down to size when they’re too big and be stretched some more when their not – in terms of wealth of course.” I did not know at that time what exactly happened in the period while she was talking but I suddenly felt nauseated and weakened. She was asking “Don’t you think so? Don’t you?” It was if a baby who was extending its arms to be carried by me were implied by her tone and her words. I merely said, the last word dropping off “I do not know… yet.” A year has passed by and I was understood more about the field of Psychology. I was doing my practicum at the Home for the mentally ill. Sure enough, Charity went there more often than I did. One afternoon, she was entertaining the patients with a mini-program where they got to dance and have ‘fun’. Charity danced to the tune of a novelty song while the psychotics clapped their hands, mimicking what the other non-psychotic patients were doing. Their faces were blank with schizophrenic stupor. I looked at Charity; she was all smiles and seems to be having a genuinely good time. After the program was done, I asked for a pass to get out of the building for a smoke. I didn’t notice Charity was right behind me. I can still hear her panting and I noticed when she came close that something sweet – like jam who has been left open for days and what beginning to decompose – was coming from her when she asked “Did you see their faces? Did you?” I said, “Yeah, did you have fun?” I couldn’t point out what I said but she had this sudden severe, confused look as if you caught a wild animal with a cage. Involuntarily she shrieked, “I told you it’s not about getting anything! It’s their happiness that matters not yours or mine we’re just here to serve them!” Then, her voice suddenly calmed down “I was asking you if you saw the look on their faces not inquire about mine. Don’t you see them suffering? Can’t you feel their pain?” “No.” I said, and then asked, “What are you getting out of this Charity?” She smiled; with that wide toothy grin she answered “Nothing… nothing at all. I just love to see them smiling, just there, sitting on their chairs and lying on their beds, unable to lift a finger… helpless.” I remembered a patient’s face. Clapping and screaming, drool coming out of his mouth and tears from his eyes. I felt revulsion. Then she coughed without covering her face. That time, I smelled that ester-like smell, only stronger now. Then I knew what it odor, it was the funk, like rotting smell of pus coming from her… from her sweat, her breath. She coughed once more, this time, she had her head down. When she faced me again, I saw her lower lip – it cracked and is now bleeding. She didn’t wipe off the blood… she did not seem to mind it at all. At that moment, I realized the full meaning of her words and the horror that came with it. Surprised and sickened, I replied: “You’re awful Charity. You live through the suffering of others while begging for alms from those who are not -- to support your cause!” “You’re like a leech with a man's body.” She lowered her head, as if to cry. Her shoulders shuddered but instead of the sound of sobs, what I heard from her was a boisterous laugh like an imp who was caught red-handed on its mischief. When her laughter trailed off, she said “Well then, I guess I won’t have to worry about running out of food. Besides, it's better to have friends than enemies, I guess you can call me 'everybody's whore'." She went on to say: “It’s people Pete, who has made it all possible what I am today. They were handing away their wealth with such vigor. We just made them guilty of the fact that they have wealth by showing them people who are terminally ill. By showing that those who are able to think sanely, should be the one to carry the burden of the insane and make them pay for it. They may be the cause of all good but look at what have they have achieved when they put their money into those donation boxes, thinking it will be for their own good. Saving souls? No, never because we have taught them all that by nature, we are sinful! They flock to us so blindly; they put in their money so eagerly. Hastily turning away their backs, not inquiring what has happened to their wealth.” She chuckled, “It went down the drain! The fools! It is too late to stop us now. Like my father, whom they chose to represent them, has taken measures to loot them more efficiently! Like my mother, who they adore just extends her offertory basket and it becomes instant cash!” She snapped her fingers. “Those people had the power to produce but we turned it against them through guilt. They fulfilled our wishes, without us having to lift a finger. Just by showing them some distraught and dying figures… They’re all pathetic. I did tell you that my father says that extremes should be snipped off right? It was us who planned this since time immemorial. We never liked achievement. We despise it as a burglar who hates the shine of a flashlight on his face. We looked forward to the day when man, will lower his guards and open his heart – thereby opening up his pocket and wallets too and then we take over their souls!” The maniacal laugh started again “They were too blinded by the goods they have created, that they thought it was safe to share it with us… the incompetent, the ill, the indolent. They thought that somehow, it could change us and it could, in fact… but they have overlooked the fact that there will be people like us, who never wants to change and instead, continue living on their blood -- the blood of the wealthy. We told them that each of our existence depends on each other while we posed like the sad little sin they have failed to see. In fact, in their mind, in their very soul – they abhorred it. But because they had hearts, we knew that it would creep up sooner or later. They eagerly dropped their tool for survival which was their mind and we were free to pick it up, to use and when those men passed away, we handed those back, worn out… we wrapped it in second-hand lead and cleverly named it Faith. We preached that they should be content with their lot but still give it away to those who need it more and the cycle repeats itself. It might be poison but who cares? It’s the need of the need of moment that matters. We knew that we we’re going to hell but we’re making sure that we drag everything down with us. We found the magic formula...” The last two words sounded like it came from a pervert who stole someone’s undergarments and displaying it proudly in a busy street for everyone to see. “They should have known better than to avoid looking into our activities and it’s the one thing we fear too… people like you… people who has the arrogance to question us and point out our schemes. However, we also found the greatest defense against it.” I asked calmly, “What is it?” She laughed “Nothing. Absolutely nothing.” A chill ran down my spine when I heard it. It seemed like my question has suddenly become impotent. As if it stopped all train of thought and order in this world. It felt again like when I dropped my coins into that donation box. Feeling contempt, I took one step back and turned to walk away. I realized now something more chilling. It was me as well. I’m the guilty one. I made it possible for them to have this world, my money and consequently my life as an extension to theirs. It was people like me who tolerated their system. ‘She’s living on my life like a parasite. She doesn’t have her own life. They don’t.’ I thought. ‘What if I decide not to permit this any longer?’ I took one step in the other direction and she screamed “Pete! Where are you going? Face me right now, goddammit! I demand it!” I responded, my back still turned to her, “No.” I heard a “Huh?” uttered from her direction and then the sound of sobs came through. I turned back, she smiled like the devil and spoke with an accent of a sweet child “Please, Pete, don’t go… I didn’t mean anything I said… I … I was only… oh it’s nothing! It was just a joke!” I stared in her eyes, and then said, indifferently. “No, I do not care to see what will become of you.” And I walked away. “Please! I can’t live without you! I’ll kill myself! Oh… I’m going through hell… Please… I need you…” There’s true pain and misery from her voice now. I never saw Charity since that day. Some said that her father became an ambassador of some sort and her family traveled to places like Iraq, Ethiopia, Nigeria and other countries that you’ll hear in the news where there’s war, plague, hunger and death. I made conclusions out of my encounter with Charity. That wherever there is suffering, there she’ll always be. Along with her looting father and her mooching mother, they defraud, cheat and rob other people out of their hard-earned money and eventually their lives.

Such veracity! Funny? Yes. However, it seems that at least for the mother, he has forgotten to return her investment. Unless of course, she neglected him and he survived on his own which I prefer to think. Self-sufficiency and courageousness.

Galt's gulch or simply the gulch was not a utopia, it was a haven for the heroes from the havoc wreaking collectivists that were out to victimize those who still kept the flame of man burning. Sure, it was great but then, why did the heroes did come out of there in the end of the story? It is because a mere isolated place would not suffice for man. They sought to create a state where reason is the standard. Not purely good but rather a place where man is free to do anything within the bounds of his rights. Furthermore in detail, they even have Judge Naragansett on call to settle disputes - which because of rational standards has not yet happened.

Well done! Too bad the experimental subject had just a fairly defined set of standards. However, the scientists may have overlooked exceptions such as a man with stringent set of principles. A rational man, an objective man for that matter would have asked for a ruler or at least tried to overlap the lines. I'm not sure how I would fare since I'm myopic and I could choose wrongly but certainly not on the account of the crowd. That is why, I attempt to question every premise that is presented even if it came from someone who supposedly knows better. Moral of the experiment: Better off alone and right than belong and wrong.

Those are just two sides of the same damned coin. The principle is: they create reality instead of perceiving it. They reverse the law of causality.

You should join one of the threads on anarchism. I think your assertion above is challengeable. Adam Of course it's open to challenge but I know exactly where that endeavor will be going. In anarchy - total anarchy, who's to say who owns what? Who's to stop a gang from taking what is mine? My gun? Is that what everything will be reduced to? I do not want to obliterate others as I do not want them to obliterate me. Gives me the creeps. I don't want to live in lawlessness where even the laws of nature are brushed aside. Join the thread? I'm just going to have a look instead. Oh, wait, where is that? Could you please place link to that?

Of course, the potential is always there but we should always keep that "bad" in place. That is, never use force unless in self-defense. There can be no private property for an anarchist since they'll always be the one to initiate the use of force once it becomes clear that their claims are denied. You never engage anyone anyway (unless perhaps there is a pragmatic reward) If that is your kind of Utopia, then you are an agent of chaos. To quote Ms. Rand on her interview with Playboy magazine, 1964 (emphasis mine): PLAYBOY: Would you create any new government departments or agencies? RAND: No, and I truly cannot discuss things that way. I am not a government planner nor do I spend my time inventing Utopias. I'm talking about principles whose practical applications are clear. If I have said that I am opposed to the initiation of force, what else has to be discussed?

Christopher, Thank you for sharing that with me. I did not mean to imply that man's mind is an entirely separate entity from his body but rather ideally, it should always be consistent with the body and vice-versa. However, I am thinking along the lines of 'to the degree where he knows himself' instead of which he does not know. Of course, I take into consideration the fact that one may not be acutely aware of everything but that he must choose which among his values are in question. One's emotions is still a product of one's mind -his only faculty of knowing. Emotions are subject to perception regardless of whether one can make full sense of it or not. Like for example, the levels of serotonin in the body is related to feelings of being elated or 'happy' but it does not actually describe how 'happy' a person is, as it is only correlated to it. If what you have been saying is in or somewhere along this line, then I'd agree. Where does the Self actually lie? Isn't it possible that a man could either be just wrong or right with his decisions as long as he's happy about it? Who should care about it if not his selfish self? Wise words I've read somewhere before (taken in the context of martial arts) says that a strong man does not doubt before he makes a choice. There's good intuition for you. I'd like to think of it as man's ability to be consistent in everything and not to imply that he move recklessly and regret his choice afterward but that he weigh his options confidently and courageously and as honestly as he can. I should like to read NB's books or ideas for that matter although currently, I think I do not have the means of acquiring one (although I can actually avail of the means but personal biases in mind prevent me from intending or doing so) and since its value for now (among my literary choices) is below par. I know that he is popular here and in other subject matters but by nature as man, we have to choose or actually choose to choose. OL truly is a great place to learn because one can present his ideas and be able to spar equally with others without reservations.

Peter, True, but it's actually not that they have empathy but rather they should have developed it - as professionals. I and my colleagues actually did a bit of research towards delineating empathy and sympathy where I think you confused the two. Empathy being defined by characteristics of being able to take a similar perspective with another person but is able to see other points of view to which he (as therapist) could help the patient understand and resolve an issue. Sympathy meanwhile states that one person has the same feeling and perspective which in a way, diminishes the effectiveness of a therapy since there will be a phenomenon called as counter-transference where both therapists and clients become emotionally entangled where objectivity is blurred. Basically, you are feeling for the patient instead of feeling with him. Nonetheless, the effectiveness and methods are determined by which kind of therapy the practitioner subscribes to. In summation, most people have sympathy but empathy is an acquired skill. For people with "mixed up minds", as a student of psychology, I don't recommend this approach since one may very well be dragged into another person's delusions a.k.a a potential Folie a'deux (Shared psychosis) although the chances of this happening is quite rare as far as the case studies I've read show. As far as I know, if a patient/client asks for their professional services then, the shrink and the patient would have at least a verbal agreement between him and his patients or his legal guardians in cases of incapacity. There has to be a "therapeutic alliance", an understanding between doctor and patient as to where the sessions might or should lead and what areas can the practitioner delve into with him. If the therapy involves "writing off" someone as in an active-directive approach like in Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy of Albert Ellis where the practitioner questions and teaches the clients on taking a rational perspective of dealing with clients. A mentor of mine once even shared that when he witnessed this technique done by an expert, the therapist even shouts at his client for upholding irrational beliefs in the way he sees his adversities thereby warping his behavior. (If I have misunderstood the whole process of REBT, kindly enlighten me.) As for Dr. Phil, I cannot say, try asking his patients if they do feel insulted and whether the good doctor asked their consent to perform it in front of millions. If his methods work in line with scientific findings or facts, then my hypothesis is that he was being objective. You may be able to ask him and he should be able to point out which variables he was able to identify and reasoned with. As long as a psychologist/psychiatrist or any professional is giving his personally biased -non professional- opinions, and as long as he does not invoke the words, "As a 'pro'..." then I do see nothing (legally) wrong in writing other people off or even writing other people off in general to prevent irrational or aberrant influences from entering one's mind. What I mean to say is in the lines of: evil triumphs if the good does nothing at all to defeat it or stay away from it.

Brant: That gave me goosebumps. You left me with more questions than what I asked for when you quoted me. Meanwhile, here is a fatal flaw in your thinking:"...I never engage George on the issue of his anarchy for you can't actually get there from here. At least that's my opinion. "

So that all men here may know this much: I, am not replying nor do I ever intentionally go for a zero-sum. I can never accept the premise that man is doomed to failure in grasping the reality around him or in any endeavor which he might pursue. If you cannot understand implications yet, I'll state it: I pointed that out to reiterate the fact that we always have choice and the best choices come first hand and by mean hand, your senses through perception. As to what I think of people eating garbage deliberately... I do not know. I hope not but it is his choice. Ask them, ask them all at the same time and get all their replies at the same time. Tell me how that works out. You go to the masses for support and you believe that there is a common good. Meanwhile, I can only answer for myself which is... No. I'd never sacrifice my bodily integrity. Consuming cheese products?yes. Plastic? no. A Mcd's burger? yes, sometimes. bottle of bleach? no. Cigs? rarely, a good stick will be wasted on me though. It's that simple. However, because biologically speaking, the human body in its carbonized form is decomposing as s and to live is to take a reasonable amount of risk, then, I will do so indeed live. Take for example, breathing - yes even that can go down to a choice, I'd rather breathe with what I have now than say, don't breathe at all - because the air is full of various gasses some of which is or potentially is bad for you but of course the lack of the same gasses will kill you and faster. By the way, Here's the composition of air based on scientific sudy. "People are unaware of the health risks in many cases." Did you mean to say unaware of every possible factual data or not aware at all? If what you are talking about is the latter, then how would you make him aware if he was not to begin with? You don't believe..? What power does your belief hold over others? Answer: nil.

Peter, I do not see a problem with having ideas similar to another person - except when you plagiarize someone else's work! especially if you deprive that of its true nature like some postmodernists do! Yes, exactly my point. The only one capable of rights is an individual that is why I take offense in what GS said. I shall point out (emphasis mine) "Our senses might easily be fooled into thinking something we are eating has good food value, like most of the stuff in a grocery store , but upon investigation we find that highly processed food is not good for us. (my favorite is a label that says Cheese Food Product, if it has to say it's food then it probably isn't)..." He did not take note of individual differences and even though "collective knowledge" says it's bad, if I found it beneficial to me regardless of whether it destroys my health. Much like smoking, it is a person's have the right to it since it's his body and the sticks hold more value than my lungs, then it's not a sacrifice. However, as it is his right to smoke, it is another person's right to breath clean air. That's why, given civility and propriety (basically just sound reasoning) he asks, "mind if I smoke?" but if he enters a smoker's lounge or if that other person enters his home, then the need to ask is nullified. So I say, there is no such thing as "us" since we are not of the same kind. That is to say we do not have anything in common that we can benefit from each other by prolonging an argument that clearly cannot be won since it's a zero-sum. My consent to argue will just fill a void where I gain nothing in return. That is to say, I seek trade not sacrifice. Even with my "unaided" senses (pun because I wear glasses), ultimately only I know what's good and bad for me. Even my physician knows that he can only offer his best opinion but it's up to me to decide. I responded this strongly because I love life and incidentally, cheese food products.

Brant, why in the world would someone here try to "vaporize" another? I'm a bit confused, who vaporizes who? If by the victim, you meant me. I should not want to argue with Mr. Contradiction for my rational mind cannot win over his Zero sum mentality. If he was to be "vaporized" by me, I would choose not to because he'll probably do it to himself.

Peter, I should like to thank you for quoting/bringing to light words of greatness from admirable people. I do not have the time to read all of them but this is what I can surmise: Live consciously and consistently. I was moved by the paragraphs where the rift between Rand and Nietzsche became acutely clear. He saw man qua man, inconsistently. he equated Reason with Will which is much more closer to Force. While, I commend Nietzsche for some of his visions, man should not resort to anarchy or lawlessness. For the reason that they are not objective, maybe smart but not intelligent nor objective. For if the facts/evidence defeats them, they resort to force and nothing can be built through a brute. Ayn Rand on the other hand which is the right hand, presents man qua man as what he might be and ought to be i.e. the highest and greatest in terms of competence and value. She also stated in her writings that man should not seek to rule other men (as what FN's Superman implies) but rather rule over Nature by obeying its laws which he could only grasp through reason. On other stuff re-posted here are quite laughable. Anarchists cannot even begin to build a quasi department of defense because they are/will be trying to cut each others throat out since who knows what could set them off. As far as they go, they could only make tribes. The Mafia is an example of this or your common thugs. Sure, they cooperate but wait till their victims run out, they'll be killing each other off too. A rational anarchist is a contradiction in terms. Reason is logical while anarchy is chaos. The solution to anarchists and irrationalists and mystics and the Toohey bunch is simple: Take away the victims and they die. That is, do not give them your consent. In your choices, do not make too much of them. If they initiate the use of force (which they always will), you have the right to retaliate through the use of force but you have an advantage that they will never attain - reason.

I'll be attempting to number my arguments here. if this was a question of foundations, then what better way of looking at it than through simplicity? Have you heard of the principle of parsimony? You are complicating the issue. Whether one person defines something or the general population (consisting of individuals), it does not matter - abstract ideas are man's perception pertaining to concretes. Let at least two men demonstrate by what he means of sacrifice and descriptively (although does not necessarily require quantitatively) they will be alike provided that one of them does not abdicate sound reasoning and facts. But, yes, it could be one's definition is different from another, if that is, they are no speaking of the same thing. When you define, you break down a concrete object through its characteristics. As Ayn Rand defines definition and which I assent to since nothing else could sum it better: "A definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept...The purpose of a definition is to distinguish a concept from all other concepts and thus to keep its units differentiated from all other existents... With certain significant exceptions, every concept can be defined and communicated in terms of other concepts. The exceptions are concepts referring to sensations, and metaphysical axioms." - Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 52. Since sacrifice involves pain and pain is a perception, not a sense, therefore it should follow that it denotes a concrete =loss. If what you say exists, my challenge is this: Please present a case where there is a sacrifice but it does not even come close to the Objectivism/Rand's (although this should be the only) definition of sacrifice where "'Sacrifice' is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue." - “The Ethics of Emergencies,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 44. I see that you missed the point or twisted it in your earlier example because that guy gave up marriage/companionship for a career where being a husband/family man holds a higher value than that high-paying job. If he postpones marriage to build a foundation for his future happiness, then it had not been for naught. Do you now see where the error lies? You confused the word of sacrifice for trade. The repression is what caused this monstrosity in the first place, why does one have to evade/escape their desires when in fact, blanking these out would mean misery and death. Instead, one should own up and move towards it ethically. You said, "The processes we label in our heads does not necessarily represent the processes that actually occur in our heads. Just because I apprehend that my actions are self-sacrificial to my self-concept, in fact those actions may very well be asserting my self-concept." My response: What goes on in who's head? Are you sure that head is still yours?... If I should dare restate this: The processes we label are representatives of the actual processes. Through the best of my knowledge and competence if I surmised that the action is self-abasement then so it is. If I see that it is beneficial and good, so it is as well. I should not accept and no one could tell me otherwise. I hold that my definition, through my reasoning, is correct and will be similar to those who are of my kind but should I stand corrected by the facts/axioms that are presented (and I cannot argue with for these are self-evident), I should revise my definition for my own selfish benefit. As for repression, I am aware of it, but not yet extremely. I still stand by some of Freud's definition of repression (since he came up with it) that it is a defense mechanism of excluding one's desires from one's consciousness into the unconscious. If we take these apart, first, it is a defense mechanism i.e. a psychological response to a threat - where in fact, desires are not threatening to us and its other characteristic - that it excludes our desires from being processed by the conscious mind which is to say, the process of repression is a method of sacrifice in itself since you strike out desires which are valuable, hence, you would not have that feeling or thought of desiring it in the first place. For the choice of literature, I do not fall within your expectations. I am not familiar with that author's work We have been acquainted through Wikipedia just now! I can surmise some merit for those subjects he had who held a belief even if it was false one. While current science demonstrates that no infallible awareness exists it does not express that one is wrong all the time nor a person does not have the faculty, capacity and process to know his surroundings i.e. reason, mind/brain and logic. It also indicates that one will be able to improve his awareness through the said. Ideally, one should know himself through and through. I did not assume that one's knowledge/awareness is infallible that is why I stated that there are some persons who might be more capable of helping you in that kind of endeavor - of better grasping reality. NB is correct, that actual things may not be what we perceive them to be but how else could we know about it if not to use the faculties we already have? I disagree in this point: there is no such thing as an internal reality - for a psychologically sound person. Whatever he is introspecting about is only in relation to the external reality. And as a student of psychology, I do not deal with people, only persons and certainly do not pander to the mysticism that some of its prominent figures dictate even if it was someone I look up to e.g. Freud. Also, please do not generalize an entire field because the lack of proof e.g. infallible awareness, does not indicate it is actually absent for if it was, it could never exist in the mind. When evaluating something think: "I have the right to whatever makes me happy." but implying that it does not infringe on the rights of others. That's about it gentlemen, go float your boats

Very true, Brant, and my point is that what is available "directly" is very little and of the least importance to us. Our senses might easily be fooled into thinking something we are eating has good food value, like most of the stuff in a grocery store , but upon investigation we find that highly processed food is not good for us. (my favorite is a label that says Cheese Food Product, if it has to say it's food then it probably isn't). In short, our collective knowledge gleaned through science is far more important than what we as individuals can know with our unaided senses. GS, I shudder about the way you think. Good for us? There is no such thing as "us". Oh crap, just read your last sentence. I refuse to argue with a Toohey.