psychoanaleesis

Aristotle had a rational basis alright. He correctly observed that some men are meant to be slaves (by nature) since they lack certain abilities or capacities that would enable them to live a full and free life such as intelligence that would not merely allow them to do hard labor but plan strategically and make decisions that would be most effective (one that can control nature by its fullest capacity).Here:"Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace." I believe that he was also rejecting the notion that some people are meant to be slaves because of the ability of other men to inflict harm and in this sense, slavery is indeed wrong. As I always tell my colleagues, "The boss knows how and can do our jobs but we, at present (or ever) can't perform her job as she does it."Aristotle did not cite concrete cases and I take this to be a hint that 'slaves' or his slaves back then are more like employees. He says, "The abuse of this authority is injurious to both; for the interests of part and whole, of body and soul, are the same, and the slave is a part of the master, a living but separated part of his bodily frame. Hence, where the relation of master and slave between them is natural they are friends and have a common interest, but where it rests merely on law and force the reverse is true." In our household, a woman comes in to do the dishes and almost anything else that we need her to do or assist us. I think that it is still noble to be employed (or in Aristotle's time: enslaved) since if no men found you to be of any worth, you could be a beggar or worse.Having your abilities be recognized and appreciated and praised by another fellow is one of the joys of being a man. Having someone pay you with gratitude and his productive ability is a goal one must strive for since it equalizes you both and in that sense, the relationship of master and slave is negated you are traders and at most: friends. I believe a true 'master' does not seek to enslave other men but calls out to those who are true with themselves enough to be a part of his whole goal and aid same as when companies post job ads. Rand recognized Aristotle's honesty and if by using the text you provided, so would I for The Philosopher yet again clearly defines the reason why we (or the men of his era) needed slaves: "For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet, "of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods" if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves." Hence, during Rand's time and more so ours, we already have non-living slaves such as appliances, computers and machines to do the hard labor for us. This extenuates the need for slaves or servants same as the necessity of employing people who only work for 8 hours a day/ 5 days a week and whom you pay because they have skills which cannot simply be accomplished by the machines (at least not in the same manner) which you, as the employer envision as a man who only another man can fathom. These robots free up man's mind and allow him to pursue greater personal achievements such that those who have a privation in mind and/or body can still engage in active and productive work - this state is what we call living. Around the world, there are still servants who live in or nearby their employers quarters such as butlers and maids who at their employer's beck and call come to aid. Notice that they would still call them 'master' or 'mistress' to indicate that they are wholly owned by them at a certain period or their attention is focused on another's interest. This is the same as when you are in your employers office, you are expected to accomplish the work given and in your spare time may still do what you wish such as taking a break or going to the johns - which I believe is similar to how The Philosopher treated his 'slaves'. In a related matter, most men have dropped the "I can only pay you with food and lodging…" act in order to acknowledge that they have their own lives to deal with and so as such you pay them with a standard of trade which is money albeit this may be a matter of discussion elsewhere. I advice those who read the text on the link to please put it in proper context and look for the possibility of how the language of Aristotle may persist today.

editing... jeez, this new format for OL looks good but is not user friendly eh?

Great video! I strive to "go to the truth" and be on the side of evidence whenever I discuss something and not merely rely on what my experience if I have the time to research about it. Using this method, I made a classmate who's a lay minister of the Augustinian order snarl, literally. My, my...

I suppose the only way to stop the bastards who torture animals is to let others know what they do and you could desist from any business interest with them. There are a lot of people who are disgusted by this kind of behavior since it is very irrational and inhuman especially given the present means of living we have. I'm opposed to animal rights and I think that only the torture should be stopped but if you're gonna eat it, at least do it in the quickest way possible as recognition and respect to life - man's (rational animal's) primary standard. Well, the most I could do if I saw someone being cruel to an animal is to call his attention and have a "chat" with him (if possible) at that moment. I could also record the act and show it to my community in a formal gathering so people could judge for themselves whether they would want to further transact with someone who enjoys making lower, defenseless life forms suffer. Hey, telling on someone publicly and formally is well within my rights too.

Is this one for me Adam? I don't really count my age and prefer to celebrate my birthdays quietly. I just remembered the reason why I behave that way. I just turned 7 then and I found a box of pizza on the dining table that my mother bought. No one greeted, no one else shared the pizza with me... and I was smiling. Happy. Ah, the life of an introvert. Since then, I never did want to throw big parties, just a few friends at most and I'm already jolly. Thank you Adam. Your greeting is what I had anticipated. Incidentally, I've read somewhere that the period of waiting for something good is more exciting and gratifying than random fortuitous events. Truly, this anecdote is applied to this post of yours since I expected just a few to greet me here at OL and in facebook and personally. First time hearing that song... It's groovy! Thanks again!

From an ethical standpoint, of course, the practice is immoral in the sense that the employer has committed injustice to his fellow man who has done honest work. Equal pay means that an employee receives what one has agreed to receive from the employer. The nature of the job, duration and terms are political and so is the comparison from worker to another worker as well as the inclusion of race or gender - so that these won't be discussed as the starter has requested. "Equal pay" is the recognition that both parties i.e. employer and employee are using the same standards, same currency and same morality without which, such transactions would not be called employment but fraud. Essentially, the employer and employee exchanges 'goods' which benefit them both e.g. lightening the load/task that a person would have had to spend more time if he had to work alone. There should be a trade. Now, the benefits derived from such transactions are not mutual because the employer usually gains more profit since he started the idea/task at hand such that the profit may be monetary, spiritual or mostly, both. What sanctions the equality between the two parties are two words in a concept: "Thank you." and "Gratitude" since these are noble recognition of the reality enclosed in any business. I wonder why I often feel greasy when I say or hear "Welcome" in an activity with others which I consider trade. Eudaimonist said: "I believe in equal pay for equal work... ...but not payment in terms of money, which should be set by the agreements employees and employers set in a free market. Rather, I believe that people should be payed equally in terms of respect for their earned accomplishments. It is spiritual payments that should be equal." You have a point there. Now, should there be any inconsistency in the mode and manner of payment? You give the agreed amount of money exactly because that is the material equivalent of "earned accomplishment". This is done in recognition and respect that the employee has the right to pursue whatever interest he has after the goals are attained in the set time or quality.

Yes.

Is it too late to greet you a happy birthday? In any case, Happy birthday Adam! godspeed!

Well, that settles it. As always, she delivers it straight. Thanks Xray.

Reidy: Right you are too but I'm simply curious how much she knew about her pen name before she chose it to be so. While I know I must do my due diligence, I merely want to pursue this up to well, the internet. I'm no scholar about names nor Rand since her biography is really not my area of interest. Like I said, I just happened to read it on VigilantCitizen while browsing and I thought the connections are intriguing... it rang bells in my mind but it wasn't exactly a eureka moment. To be more direct, my reason for asking is to find out if "Ayn" was chosen because of it's mystical origins which I find contrary to what she has lived for. When Michael posited an alternative, I find that more logical and convincing. If you're referring to the post Michael's, he said "flashing" not exactly "light" or light-colored eyes. Flashing... with intelligence? Because I do find her gaze enlivening and challenging. Looks at the picture at the top left corner*

I agree. That makes a whole lot more sense. It is rather interesting though for a person to take a nom de guerre that would ultimately represent an integration of facts about you but also, ties up with your subconscious. As for the greek gods and Rand, I buy the explanation that they were not gods in the sense that is widely known today but rather, heroes of lore or at least projections of what man aspires to become - the ideal.

Hmmm, I found this interesting enough to post here... quite absurd but hey, I found a connection of mystic origin to Rand's first name and her general attitude on this site while surfing the interwebs: VigilantCitizen and it quotes Aleister Crowley “[baphomet] is ‘The Devil’ of the Book of Thoth, and His emblem is Baphomet the Androgyne who is the hieroglyph of arcane perfection … He is therefore Life, and Love. But moreover his letter is ayin, the Eye, so that he is Light; and his Zodiacal image is Capricornus, that leaping goat whose attribute is Liberty.” - Aleister Crowley, Magick Book 4 (emphasis mine) Now, I read on wiki about the possible origin of Rand's first name Ayn is suggestive of the word "Ayin" as it is said there (since she was of Jewish descent) and well, this was an "Ah, that makes a bit of sense..." moment - in the mythos context of Rand's life.

There was an attempt to show it there? If so, why was it banned? Google it. --Brant Banned in Boston Boston was founded by Puritans in the early 17th century. Puritans held highly negative views regarding public exhibitions of sex. Boston's second major wave of immigrants, Irish Roman Catholics, also held conservative moral beliefs, particularly regarding sex. In the late 19th century, American "moral crusader" Anthony Comstock began a campaign to suppress vice. He found widespread support in Boston, particularly among socially prominent and influential officials. Comstock was also known as the proponent of the Comstock Law, which prevented "obscene" materials from being delivered by the U.S. mail. Some critics have claimed that if the list of banned words were strictly enforced, then even the King James Version of the Bible would be unmailable. Thanks.

Tell me sir, why does this topic interest you? What's your purpose for studying this? Do you plan to modify, alter, control or manipulate the "fabric" of reality on an atomic or subatomic level? If so, how will this benefit you and anyone else who would participate?

There was an attempt to show it there? If so, why was it banned?

A moment is just a moment. What makes it so is due to one who can perceive the events during such. The infinity that you refer to is only infinite so long as a sentient body continues to function or live and thus making such moments finite. Also, I believe "moments" would have to involved a heightened awareness of events which "stretches out" the sequence of events thus dragging it out and increases its intensity. Separation is not an illusion, it absolutely exists. It is a portion of reality perceived by an conscious entity. Illusion is a phenomenon in perception or rather, a misrepresentation of an existent to an observer. Therefore, it implies that something exists to perceive another thing and that being has a form which defines it or, delimits it to a certain nature which in turn, makes it possible for it to identify itself apart from the object which he perceives. What do you call this "one thing"? If it can be named, it cannot be therefore that it is only one thing because obviously, it would follow that other "one things" exist and those also have their names and properties and forms which have limits. You said: "Imagine there is one thing, and one thing only. What surrounds it? It is the only thing, and therefor nothing limits it. It is infinite." You must be a believer of solipsism if you think like this. One cannot fully and truly imagine only one thing existing as imagination involves conception and concepts could not be formed without a context or background. I must point out that you're trying to trip your audience by merely speaking of anything or everything in existence such that you can get away from the act of defining what the hell it is that you want to say. All things are infinite only to the point where they cease. Only to the point where a conscious being chooses a portion (measure) of it to suit his purpose or fill his need and capacity. The possibilities are infinite so long as you do not ask, "the possibilities of what?" and there you will see that the the only borders are the nature of an object and the capabilities and nature of the consciousness who beholds the object. You said: "Right away I have to say that this is not an argument..." Sir, you must know that reflections, when presented to others to be judged will eventually lead to a discourse on the subject and argumentation is an essential part of that. Hell, you can already make evaluations as you observe and reflect and what makes it so is the existence of contrast i.e. you always need two or more things plus a context or background to be able to perform any mental act. If you are not looking for an argument, then are you looking for agreement without judgment?

Wow... thanks for pointing that out. The work was a provocation and not merely a reflection. Reading what I posted again, I see that I wrote it correctly but just didn't care to look again. Thanks.

This is a bit of news about an artist here who goes by the name of Mideo Cruz. He chose to hold a mirror against the monster called society here in the Philippines. I don't like the way he organized and presented his artwork nor the medium that he chose but it is still one hell of a social commentary at the very least. I admire his quaint way of bitch slapping the Filipino people... almost satirical. Now, his exhibit was shut down because of the controversy that broke out. Hell, even the Mister-President Aquino reprimanded his artwork - as the president! i.e. as the representative of the nation and not as a personal quip. To quote him, “When you insult the beliefs of most of the people, I don’t see where that is of service…I think I made myself clear to them. You have rights but when you already trample on the rights of others, there’s already something wrong…There is no freedom that is absolute. I’m not after censorship. Art is supposed to be ennobling. When you stoke conflict that is not an ennobling activity…” emphasis mine Is art supposed to be about servitude to others? What rights of others can you "trample" by expressing how you view a certain aspect of reality? I am so indignant right now about for what this truly is: censorship in thought and of the human spirit. ART EXHIBIT CLOSED LINK If you gentlemen would like to see the his work, here's a link. POLETISMO (Polytheism) by Mideo Cruz PS I realize that I'm starting to rant and I just suppose that this is the right board to do it because this involves art. However, please feel free to move this Michael. Thank you.

Aha! So you have actually four questions! 1. It demands that one's life should be placed in the service of "others" and this obliterates the ego i.e. the identification that one is separate from others (one is the owner of his life). Altruism is not about helping, it's about letting others be your motive for living. 2. That's certainly false. Ayn Rand is fallible and she never claimed to be otherwise. If you disagree with Rand based on rational, evidence-based, independent judgment then congratulations: you are a moral and intelligent and I believe she would commend you for taking a stand if she were around. "Check your premises." I believe is what she would say in these sort of situations i.e. question man-made facts and do not take it on faith. For all her goodness and greatness, Ayn Rand never endorsed closed-mindedness and intolerance. If literature were correct, you just have to, errr... beat her at intellectual skirmishes (which she is really, really good at!) 3. Dunno. But as far as far as I know, the phenomenon of Global warming is natural (not caused by the activities of man) since this cycle of global warming and cooling has been going on for billions of years which is something that will get you a consensus in the scientific community. If memory serves me right, I've heard that volcanic eruptions produce more carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide more than all the cars in the world running at the same time for a long period (citation needed). I also assert the falsity of the environmentalist argument based on my observations and allowing for some variations in weather patterns every 2 to 5 years or so. 4. Imo, you missed the definition of Objectivism by a mile. It is a philosophy that recognizes the essence of man's spirit (being a rational animal), celebrates the achievement of his glory (hero worship) and gives you the vocabulary to fight the good fight i.e. the things that are of value to YOU in accordance to one's nature. I believe this(entry #15) best sums Ms. Rand's Weltanschauung: I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows. This—the supremacy of reason—was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism. (For a definition of reason, see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.) Reason in epistemology leads to egoism in ethics, which leads to capitalism in politics. “Brief Summary,” The Objectivist, Sept. 1971, 1.

"And believing in God does not allow you to be a coward. (more chuckling)" - Ann Coulter She stated this in a negative so it could mean anything else besides being a coward. She could mean a. it allows one to be a zealot b. sheep/zombie... (the list could be extensive yet boring) It's okay to believe in god really... but the question remains: Got a proof that does not have a scientific alternative or is not subject to physical laws?

Okay. I'll bite. If we define C to be the force on the cable, S to be the force on the strut, and W to be the weight of the heavy weight, we proceed with a force balance to get: x-component: Ccos(30) = Scos(45) y-component: Csin(30) + Ssin(45) = W The 'tricky' part: the x-component of the balance gives us an equation for two variables (S and C) that we probably think we already know (from their given maximum values). Plugging in the maximum values, the x-component shows that S = 1225 lbs, instead of its maximum of 2000 lbs. (the logic here is that 2000*cos(45) is greater than 1000*cos(30), which means that, for the equality to be satisfied, C must increase (impossible. already at maximum) or S must become the value that gives the equality). Then plugging in the value of C = 1000 lbs, S = 1225 lbs, we get the maximum weight W = 1366 lbs. Mike Wow, is this guy looking for the answer for his son's physics homework? Have other people do the "heavy lifting" without paying? he he he.

I've heard that line in films that involves rape. That, to the rapist justifies the act somehow...

Medieval scholastics had already established that God cannot be omnipotent, pointing out that God cannot make that e. g. Rome never existed. As for your argument that science does not apply to a limited god, I don't understand what you mean by that. For wouldn't a god's being subjected to scientific laws actually be an argument supporting the idea of a limited god, as one that does not 'stand above' the laws of nature? Oh... if you read it again, I was sort of shorthanding "omni-presence,potence and science" means omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience. As for your question: exactly. In effect, the god that my friend there was trying to portray was limited and I just had to point out/clarify if that's what she meant i.e. the "man" in the dialogue is equal to (or can reach the level of) "god" which all religions (including hers) believe is blasphemy. The mere assertion that one could invoke the name of this supposed creator who was determined by the creations to be omni-whatever in terms of jest or have him use the same measurements as humans would automatically delimit the powers that religions have ascribed. If so, I was thinking, why worship something that we have only made "powerful" by projections and consent? Moreover, why should man devaluate himself to a glorified ghost (if there exist such a thing) only to be used by men in holy robes as an excuse to conquer his consciousness? I assert that there is no such thing as "supernatural" and everything that was discovered (experienced) and will be discovered is subject to natural/physical/scientific laws that can be tested. The biggest stumbling block here are zealots who play blind and would kill for their faith or would always shy away from the idea that their premise has no grounds in reality - for it is in heaven? He he he

There's no escaping those fucks really... they hide behind despicable logic and cite dogmatic texts all over. Good thing I found this thread or else I would have started it. I saw this posed on a wall of one of my acquaintances on facebook: Man: What is a million years to you? God: Only a second. Man: What is a billion dollars to you? God: Only a coin. Man: OK give me coin. God: Wait a second... My reply was: Does this dialogue mean that this "supreme being/invention/projection​" is a being and is therefore subject to the laws of physics and economy? It suggests that God is limited and therefore the characteristics of omni-presence,potence and science do not apply to Him since He needs time to grant Man's request and the fact that He is willing to give in to His supposed creation. The dialogue suggests that Man and God are already equals albeit living in relative perspectives of the time-space continuum. LOL. Her: It's better not to base your understanding from this dialogue, check out 2 Peter 3:8, so you will not be confuse. =] Anyway I don't own that dialogue bro. Me:why didn't you just post 2 peter 3-8 then? also, when do you take responsibility for the posts on your wall Jaja? =) Her: simply because not all people give enough attention to a Bible verse. Some don't even believe in the Holy Scripture. Me: Hahaha. If it is factual, belief is not necessary. It is demonstrable and testable within a set of criteria and conditions. If this God is real and necessary for life, then once a person disbelieves (as faith is the basis for such arguments) , he would be obliterated at once just like if you close your eyes while crossing a street with heavy traffic. Her: od is absolutely real. And from the beginning He gave man the freedom/freewill to choose either to believe Him or not. To obey Him or disobey.(Genesis 2:16-17) We can choose to live in God's favor or we can choose to live outside God's favor. What are the Ten Commandments if not rules so that we may make a choice? But if man disbelieves Him it does not mean He will obliterate man. If He did not found faith from humankind then man will face the consequence of hell (Revelation 21:8). And man chose that unfortunate path. No one to be blame except man because he permits himself to commit a sin. Truly God's character is not subjected to any laws simply because He made those laws. Now if man acquires eternal life with Christ, it means it is everlasting. And living with Christ eternally is more important than acquiring a billion dollars right? Me: nope. Her: oh. Alright. I just found out that you are one of those A's =] Me: A's? Hahaha... the burden of proof is on you true believer - mytho-historical records aside. I cannot be persuaded by threats of damnation as you heavily imply. Besides Ja, perhaps I was speaking to the wrong representative since u dare not even claim this post even though u certainly did not cite it source. Where does religiosity end and plagiarism begin? Her:A: atheism. There's no burden of proof here. No need to prove that God or even hell exists. And I'm not asking you to be persuaded with my beliefs. You already claimed to be an atheist, why would you care to question anyway? Perhaps you are still searching for truth. May you find it though. =] Me: I ask because there was a glaring flaw in the logic of the original post and I was merely wondering as well as commenting if my observations of those errors were indeed correct. However, I am simply disappointed to find out that you did not even own it and what's more, would not even take responsibility for it. No need to prove...? You speak as it if was self-evident, as if God or whatchamacallit is right there in front where anyone can hear, see, touch, smell and taste and especially test or study. Therefore, we must and can only infer with our faculties about the existence of such as well as attempt to build an instrument for observing that phenomenon. That is, unless, deep in your conviction you do not really give a damn about it. Really, I am an atheist but it seems that I care more about this issue than sheeps (like you?). I am one who would still like to know what all this fuss is about and find out if I am wrong or right. It's about time to test this hypothesis which has been around since man (or being prior to man) became sentient. More specifically, I am speaking against this farce called religion and faith which has long outlived its benign purpose and has been used instead to oppress humanity for the rest. Religion of all forms endorses gods and other bs and the best way to go against it is to deny its very tenets. Back to the point, oh wait, you don't even have one for the original wall post right? I judge this as a bait and switch scam Ja. Tsk, tsk... Anyway, that's the end of it... for now. Sly bastards those people.

Yup, variations on the same old theme. For some reason or another, there is a new flare-up of this mounting. Nauseating. And I started putting out fake ones, making fun of it, all kinds of mayhem. You know what I got? Stuff like "Some of us aren't that good with words, it is easier to just copy and paste." Crap, my wife even said that. Fuck's sake. rde Yeah and a buddy of mine at work showed me a website where you would come up with a topic and it spews out proverbial sounding garbage... Incidentally, my boss was working on internet addiction on kids and asked for my opinion on what could be a/the possible cause of this phenomenon. To which my answer was,most people don't know what they have on their hands. If the parents don't understand it, the internet's a dangerous place for a kid or anyone for that matter. Problem is, they aren't even making an effort to know it... just use it and abuse it and let it run as well as ruin their lives in the process.