psychoanaleesis

If you're talking about faith in a God of Christianity and have thus abandoned the concept in favor of atheism, then you must necessarily reject Christian morality i.e. you are not bound by it's teachings anymore. You struck down the metaphysics of the issue, so why not its ethics? If you have to look at it simply: Metaphysics = I am Epistemology = I'll think/understand the world through my faculties i.e. reason Ethics = I'll do that which are within my rights i.e. Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness Politics = My rights end where the rights of others begin i.e. Non-initiation of force or Principle of trade. Now, it might sound similar to a lot of Christian values/virtues but when you change your view of metaphysics, you have to change everything else that follows.

Whom. Were you in the kitchen when Rhett carried Scarlett upstairs and she was beating his chest and then the scene is the next morning with the same staircase and we hear her singing. Atlas and GWTW are similar because of the time and place of the authors. Ayn Rand was very much a Hollywood writer. Atlas Shrugged is really a movie in the form of a book. The characters of both are not really "naturalistic" portrayals from the 1860s, but projections from the 1940s. Remakes of Pride and Prejudice similarly project the people of their own time. The girls of the 1940s are more like the women in GWTW. I am not sure how Jane Austen herself would relate to Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennett, but I think that she captured the person of the 1840s better than did Greer Garson. As a film, GWTW was an achievement seldom matched only (I say "only" but it is a big "only") because of the relative investment in money and talent. Both have gotten cheaper. Whoops. Right and right you are. Thanks. However, both did not register as "rape" to me. Just serious, passionate love making. hmmm... projections from the 1940s? Is that so? I'd get back to you on that Michael. Thanks again. Yeah, and the investment was worth the while for everyone.

Oh , yeah, about that... I don't want to read it anymore since it's written by another. I kinda wanted for the author to apologize to the ideal characters she has betrayed. Oh, another interesting note, GWTW is flawed in the way it homes in on the Naturalistic side of things e.g. domestication of characters and I think this is the poison that the author perpetrated that even the most amazing of characters Rhett, could never have successfully defeated. This became most apparent when he told Scarlett on the way back to Tara that he decided to join the cause of the Confederacy. I'm thinking along the line of BS. Like, it was forced by the author. If only things went more to the Romantic side of it, I could've called it "Romantic realism" where Rhett and Scarlett would be happy and have more kids and all. the quote that I heard before that stuck and attracted me to this movie was "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" which I thought spoke of defiance to the fact that Scarlett has been unfaithful to persons (but not ideals) around the first couple of hours - until the very last scene since. When I understood the full context, my mind was already screaming a resounding NO! and tears started to well up in grief of this catastrophic tragedy of the human spirit. You're right, the story is distasteful but the acting was amazing. If only Atlas Shrug would be produced like this. daunce: What rape scene? Who raped who?

Bal, Just a quick comment: Read the fountainhead. Rand was right about the film. The acting was errr... stiff and out of sync. I saw it before I read how Rand reacted/what she said about it (I just have to find that link again).

Last night was my first to watch Gone with the Wind and I could have loved it except that it was a tragedy. The characters started out with fatal flaws set by the author (except for Rhett Butler - he was a story or universe of his own). I'm still searching for the precise concept to integrate what I witnessed but the whole movie was great awesome! Superb acting, great casting, the characterization was very vivid yet the ending left a very rough texture in my mind. It is like the conflict was not resolved (my girl told me that there was another novel following this where Scarlett and Rhett got back together -wonder where I can find it locally?) Apart from the above, I'm very happy that I saw the movie and look forward to having it in my movie library someday along with the likes of Iron Man, the Hannibal series and a few more (I enjoy books better so - meh). What I wanted to talk about here were the similarities of Rand's characters from AS and the Fountainhead to the characters in GWTW. My eyes became as wide as saucers especially in the scene where Scarlett visited Rhett in the Union prison to ask for $300 for tax. My god! It's Dagny asking Fransisco money for the John Galt line!!! The main difference that I witnessed between Rand and Mitchell's was that though the characters was that though equally vivid, their metaphysics were complete opposites. Rand produced heroes who were fully integrated or had little flaws while Mitchell's heroes gave me the feeling of looking at a cracked mirror especially with Scarlett. Here is a list of equivalent characters I saw and a brief description as to why I think so. Scarlett O'Hara = Dagny Taggart/ Dominique Francon - both had no primary "sense of guilt" but an overflowing "passion for life", intelligent, independent and both know how to run businesses. They were rather controlling too I suppose hat's what Rand was talking about when she said Dagny had too much optimism that she wished to extend it to others albeit Scarlett shows it in a bit immature way (and this is how Dominique comes in). Rhett Butler = Francisco D'Anconia/ Gail Wynand - do I really have to explain this? Why, by just the way Clark Gable looks and his ability to change expression dramatically... that's how I always imagined Francisco would look like. Also, he understood everything that is to be understood about the story. He's trying to fight the flaws of the other characters and the story from the inside but knows the implication of his every action. He already advanced but not far detached (unlike Galt who watched from a distance until very later on in the novel). He's ruthless disciplined and would not hesitate to defend his philosophy even if it meant killing the very woman he loved. Ashley Wilkes = Hank Rearden - They are both Men of their words. They uphold honor even though both do not know/refused to know its root (at least at first for Rearden). Mammy/Big Sam = Eddie Willers - well intentioned help or advisers of the heroes. Melanie Hamilton = Katie Halsey - as Rhett described her, she had "no life of her own, only heart." I still think there are more but please feel free to comment if I overlooked major ones. Thanks in advance.

In the case of plants curing illnesses, science has often confirmed later what people had learned from direct experience. Our human ancestors did a lot of 'testing' here via trial and error, like e. g. finding out that certain leaves placed on a wound speeded up the healing process, etc. "Epistemology of reason"? What do you mean by that? And what is "Objective" epistemology? Or do you mean Objectivist epistemology? But whatever it is that you mean (please clarify) - in what way is this "Epistemology of reason/Objective Epistemology" "different from Epistemology in itself"? Were you asserting that the scientific method is "trial and error" method wrapped fancily in foil? Human ancestors should be likened to children and since Man has matured quite a bit, that method will simply not do anymore. We'd show them greater gratitude by taking it a step further than by emulating them. Epistemology - theory of how one gets to understand existence Objectivist epistemology - uses reality as a basis to explain how he understood an existent Mystical epistemology - uses supernatural BS to explain how he understood an existent P.S. Answering on the fly i.e. not sharp enough. Oh, Shayne answered this fully see first response on this topic. Sadly, it seems that the original query already got lost. Unless he replies to me, I'm out of this topic.

Bal, Well, yes, "legacy" would be alright metaphysically but that would not even be the issue. Even if no one ever utters my name or quotes my words or thoughts, I'd still have achieved what I am after because there would never be another me. Even you copied my configuration to the atomic level. The mere fact that this other person was a copy would entail that the events that caused him was different from mine and therefore, he would only become 'similar' or 'David-esque'. Also, I'll never ask anyone to remember me but I would ensure that I'll be damn worth remembering by doing whatever is right and true and it should be significant or worthwhile to me and the world as I see it. You said in the previous post, "Have you ever heard of a painter named Robert W. Vonnoh? Until this moment, I did not..." Interesting that you brought up art. The same principle applies - when a copy has been made, it is always considered to be of lesser value - as art. The caveman example you used would not do because he and I have relatively different faculties and abilities or that he could project no farther than drawings in a cave or an offspring. That said, in his way, he could have still passed on his genes via a bloodline somewhere but enough of that, I do not want to mind his life anymore. I care not for the "public". I live and work and create for my own selfish need. I would like immortality in the epistemological sense of the word (ideals being eternal) especially in the correct context. The vision changes, the concept of and my actual destination remains the same. To paraphrase Rand, I am not perfect - but perfectible. I am checking my premises to project further and further. You said, "We don't "own" our own lives. We control very little that goes on in them. We are susceptible to unanticipated events, and there is literally NOTHING you or anyone else can do about it other than to prepare in advance as best you can. -I like what Bear Grylls said on his show, "Nature is neither for nor against us..." I love what my friend said, "Our job (Man) is to eliminate accidents." Why would I wait or simply prepare to be killed by nature? I'd try to understand it and control it within the best of my abilities. If I did die due to an accident, do I have time to complain anymore? You said, "I find that I am happiest when I don't try to "own" things; including my life. I just live. I try to do good in the ways that I understand good. I try to be a source of pleasure and help for others in my life. Not out of some kind of selflessness; but because I find myself happiest when I do so. Call it a quirk. I don't mind that you try for immortality. Go for it if it is important to you. Just understand that at least one man doesn't give a rip about it and has other things he considers more fun, more entertaining, and more useful." I find that I am happiest when I have true and full control of things. I am happy to know/grasp/understand how and why I am living. Awe would be the proper emotion every time I have that moment of lucid identification, an, "Ah, this is what it is..." because then, I can use it as an anchor to say, "Ah, that's the way things ought to be." so to speak. I never expected anyone to give me a break or care or pity me. I want to afford their help and companionship. Way back, my boss offered to help me get into a prestigious university around here, I declined it on the count that I cannot afford her help. She said that at last I showed humility, I said I was just honest. "But I tip my cap to you, sir. Sincerely I do. May you live happily and productively forever. The true owner of your life. " And I, to you sir. PS: At first, I thought you were indeed trying to be caustic and cynical and that is why I likened you to GS. I am glad that you've identified yourself as a friendly. That was a kind of warning shot that I would not tolerate the behavior that he continually showed me - regardless of what his apologists say. I've learned to do it since I committed the mistake of engaging him when I first came around here. I find Peter here to be good, I believe it was him who put in a good word for you and I'm happy that he did.

David Lee, Where do you get the idea that you 'own' your life? How do you claim "ownership" from the mere fact of existing? And how do you deal with the fact that you are inevitably going to lose what you claim to own? Xray: Go ahead. Answer my questions using the correct context. See if I am wrong and then object. Where do I get that idea? The mere fact that I am and I fend for myself by avoiding to beg/plead/threaten (random) people to come in and barge into my business i.e. transaction with reality. I might ask and they may help but that would be consensual and considered a trade. How am I going to deal with the fact that I am to lose it? You mean, upon my death? The biological clock may be ticking but leaving my knowledge or mark in this world in places like this means I am never going to lose my claim. In that sense, I am immortal (or my ideals are immune to change). You see, I can pass my essence as apart from my being... even without blood heirs, I can formally teach someday and have a hundred others who might carry on my legacy - for which, in that particular, I am yet to know how effective it will be.

OK - I'll ask... So by "suffice," do you really mean to say that your remarks are truly the last, final and sufficient word on everything there is to know and discuss about metaphysics, epistemology and ethics? Really? - Bal Far from it. My questions are under Metaphysics - Epistemology - Ethics and would suffice for Nate's query (context). Oh, please do not be generalsemanticist in another name. I found that guy similar to a spambot. I am just an egg, with much to learn... So you're saying that your answer here was sufficient to answer Nate's original thread question? Let's go with that. But I'm still not getting it unless this is another term of art that O-ists use that I wasn't familiar with: Epistemology of reason. Is that a term of art for a subject related to, but different from the general subject of epistemology? I ask because I use the word epistemology to label my explorations of what I know; the processes (physical, physiological, sociological, psychological, linguistic, etc.) by which I come to know various things; the constraints that exist as I try to understand these things; my very real and unfortunate predilection to make mistakes (generally recoverable, but sometimes not) - etc. This leaves the discussion of "self-interest" and "egoism" (si&e) miles away. I'm not saying si&e are not relevant. Just miles away from a current focus that wanders around the universe in ways that sometimes astonish me. (My wife calls my mind "ping-ballish" because it jumps hither and yon in ways that she can't fathom. Call it a quirk.) Oh - and I think you are the first person in my life to ask me if I was akin to a spambot. I'm not sure how I feel about that. B) - Bal Bal: First, I never asked if you were a spambot and I apologize if you felt I was asking. That guy "GS", as he is called around here tends to get too intense with his proofreading and his arguments fail to see implications -- I think he's really trying to pull my leg and as Rand put it, "package-deal" by luring me to fight him using non-essentials. I don't know if he's still around but I've already placed him on my ignore list (so I guess I can't see his replies anymore?). Well, Epistemology is the study of science so it is fair to say that you may or may not use reason to arrive at your conclusions about how you get to know things. A scientist and a voodoo priest may both know, for example, that certain plants cure certain illnesses but the former relies on science i.e. putting his knowledge in a system (using logic and reason) while the latter simply follows tradition/relies on luck/accident/god(s) or (if he is bright) use reason to some extent but ultimately gives up because of the irrationality in his culture. The priest could become a scientist had he not succumb to the abject thinking of his fellows mind you. In conclusion, Epistemology of reason/Objective epistemology is different from Epistemology in itself. By the way, what you do know is called knowledge and please do not confuse it with the subject of getting to know it. Very real and unfortunate predilection to commit mistakes? If you mean that you are fallible, well, so is everyone else. The highlighted words above are quite contradicting: Are you unable to influence your environment/variables and that is why it's unfortunate? OR Are you unwilling to try and are the type who likes to botch his work for its sake? I'm hoping for the former. Mistakes, as long as you are alive and acknowledge it can be corrected: check our premises please. If you take it from an eagle's vantage point, akin to seeing a branching road from high above, you'd be surprised to find out how close is Ethics from Epistemology. Meanwhile, if you start walking down that road rationality, self-interest and egoism are the kinds of precious stones that you'd be able to see but must have the proper tools and perspective to recognize. Hope this helps.

OK - I'll ask... So by "suffice," do you really mean to say that your remarks are truly the last, final and sufficient word on everything there is to know and discuss about metaphysics, epistemology and ethics? Really? - Bal Far from it. My questions are under Metaphysics - Epistemology - Ethics and would suffice for Nate's query (context). Oh, please do not be generalsemanticist in another name. I found that guy similar to a spambot.

First, I would just like to say that SJW had one of the best answer before this thread caught fire. Nate, answer these questions: Who owns your life, how do you know it and for whom do you live for? If, in your answer, the word "I" ever appears, then you've just answered your question. These questions involve metaphysics - epistemology - ethics which are objective, observable and practicable. I think I have formulated it correctly and should suffice. However, feel free to ask or object.

Peter: Quick question, What are those scientists going to use to discover the method to do what you envision? Answer: Reason - because it is impossible to do something that was set forth by logic, to be completed by accident (except in absurd movies) and in even cases such as these would disprove that since reasoning still finishes the discoveries through accidents and makes it science. Moreover, I do not see anything wrong with biological hardware upgrades, do you? If you have a software might as well have the stuff that can unleash its potentials. You are not the first one to propose these things Peter. "For knowledge and profit"? Huzzah!

Adam: Despite the heat tonight, I felt a cold chill upon reading how you phrased your statement. Having "arrived" would mean an "achievement"... I know that it is a figure of speech (irony) but I cannot help to think that somehow, someway, Americans (such as the illiterates) have accepted the premise of the traitors and enemies of man. "Americans have no clue how to present ourselves in the world" You, who were the first ones to effectively apply the principles of marketing and created the archetype of "Salesman" in my head do not know how to "present" yourself? I'd like to think that despite the current (and temporary - in the historical sense) lag in literacy, you are still far ahead of every other nation when it comes to THAT stuff. My teacher in grade school used a pejorative tone in discussing the way Americans do business. He said something like it's purely transactional/in-and-out/cold. I never understood nor accepted that and in fact, my sense of life always says that I am like that and I would like to live in a community where BSs are told but only to catch your attention or for formality after which straight talk. So what if other nations can't see the merits of your way of life? When has anyone been obliged to sell something to someone who cannot even begin to see the benefits of the American way and dream? I wonder what would it take for every American to check their premises?

"The Constitution always has been a pesky obstacle standing in the way of the government taking away more of our liberties..." Upon reading this article, I remembered something that my grandfather hypothesized on 9/11, after he showed me the morning paper: the US government allowed the attack to happen. Later on, I learned about Osama's previous connection with the CIA, how he was "trained" and such as well as other "official" transactions with your government. I am not one to dabble in conspiracy theories and I have to admit, I am far from being an expert. But if you think about it, maybe it was an attack on the guarantees written down in sacred parchment(s). I suppose every constitution that was ever written had a section for "rights". However, what makes the US constitution different, I think, from all the others is that it uses (the individual's) rights as its cornerstone while for a country like mine, the foundation was "social justice". You, the American people, have something worth living, fighting and dying for. Why allow an institution that you created ever take that away and go back to the kind of rule that made you rise up against a monarchy i.e. A divine ruler i.e. against a or the god? If so, then why be scared of your own shadow America? Never let this war against terrorism allow you to be blindsided by letting your liberty be stolen by cowards who hide behind legalities and flimsy scare tactics. Never let it become a dichotomy. Let the war against terror be a fight to regain freedom.

Thanks! That joke actually made my day... it made me snicker in a good way.

This joke I heard from a TMZ paparazzi but saw it at the nypost just now The Double Tap (a k a Two Shots and a Splash) 2 shots of any American whiskey in a rocks glass. Add a splash (of) water.

Well, I experienced it about four times. I remember it as being like in the movie Inception - a dream within a dream. I "woke up" thrice but it was probably because my REM sleep was disturbed because I was tired each time it occurred. You're right, I also had that scared feeling where you grit your teeth just to wake yourself completely. The Wikipedia entries are accurate enough. By the way, what are you going to use this for?

If you meant by Tropical Paradise is here, well, you said it, "invisible plants from the ninth dimension are sprouting from our ears..." Kidding asides, the heat just turned up along with prices of basic commodities. The mainstream media shows that pressure groups are whining and clamoring for an increase in wages and seems that the meek voices pleading the government to repeal the Value Added Tax has been quashed. Regarding Eagleman's philosophy, you're right, the things we should celebrate are the ones we know, grasped, accomplished and attained. At the same time, one knows that he ought to know more and I think Rand herself said something about achievements/joy/happiness serving as fuel to go farther. If Eagleman was like any other bloke, I'd be worried since one cannot possibly test all the hypotheses one comes across. However, I have great hopes for him and more so if he can focus all that mind - that would be awesome. Problem is, Possibilianism would sound like a rehash of Agnosticism but if you let reality be the "final arbiter" in each case you pursue, then I do not see any problem with that except that one must start with good premises and tenets. You said,"I worry that someday Quantum Paradoxical Possibilists will prove that our version of reality is an illusion..." I do not Peter. If, somehow these people can prove that their theories are of significant impact man's life (because, hey, that's the true measure ain't it?) AND can be controlled to his benefit then it will serve only to catapult him further to reach his ideal. Nine dimension to multi-universes or not, it will still be part of our known reality. If they can show me that by pushing one particle or pulling the theorized "super-string", I can travel to far-off distances or periods then why not? In this case, by finding more about the workings of human consciousness we may be able to make the more difficult mental tasks be grasped more intuitively. However, the very nature of consciousness does not change. Man's soul would still be governed by reason and exhibited by logic if such things ever happen. I believe the principle behind human knowledge was covered and affirmed by Rand in ITOE. Behold, a new horizon for man yet unfolds!

You're very welcome. I just would like to add a bit of background: Those cranes on the picture are the ones that I was referring to in my poem. "MONOLITH" was the name on it. I was walking home when I passed by a construction site. That was taken another day when I was going to the grocery. My thought then was, "The Sun seems to be within reach now, huh."

From "The New Yorker" The Possibilian What a brush with death taught David Eagleman about the mysteries of time and the brain. by Burkhard Bilger David Eagleman is one of my new persons of interest along with the likes of Dr. Paul Ekman. This man studies consciousness - which for Ayn Rand, the very "soul" she refers to at times. So it seems that he is scientifically studying what we've always been seeing as special effects or experiencing when adrenaline kicks in i.e. Slow-Motion. From the article: “Time is this rubbery thing,” Eagleman said. “It stretches out when you really turn your brain resources on, and when you say, ‘Oh, I got this, everything is as expected,’ it shrinks up.” Furthermore, it seems that he's discovered a philosophy "Possibilianism" by the way, I think the contributor's definition is slightly off. This one's good: "Before Francis Crick died, in 2004, he gave Eagleman some advice. “Look,” he said. “The dangerous man is the one who has only one idea, because then he’ll fight and die for it. The way real science goes is that you come up with lots of ideas, and most of them will be wrong." Here too: "Eagleman was brought up as a secular Jew and became an atheist in his teens. Lately, though, he’d taken to calling himself a Possibilian—a denomination of his own invention. Science had taught him to be skeptical of cosmic certainties, he told me. From the unfathomed complexity of brain tissue—“essentially an alien computational material”—to the mystery of dark matter, we know too little about our own minds and the universe around us to insist on strict atheism, he said. “And we know far too much to commit to a particular religious story.” Why not revel in the alternatives? Why not imagine ourselves, as he did in “Sum,” as bits of networked hardware in a cosmic program, or as particles of some celestial organism, or any of a thousand other possibilities, and then test those ideas against the available evidence? “Part of the scientific temperament is this tolerance for holding multiple hypotheses in mind at the same time,” he said. “As Voltaire said, uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.” A garden-variety agnostic might have left it at that. But Eagleman, as usual, took things a step further. Two years ago, in an interview on a radio show, he declared himself the founder of a new movement. Possibilianism had a membership of one, he said, but he hoped to attract more. “I’m not saying here is the answer,” he told me. “I’m just celebrating the vastness of our ignorance.” The announcement was only half serious, so Eagleman was shocked to find, when he came home from his lab later that night, that his e-mail in-box was filled, once again, with messages from listeners. “You know what?” most of them said. “I’m a Possibilian, too!” The movement has since drawn press from as far away as India and Uganda. At last count, close to a thousand Facebook members had switched their religious affiliation to Possibilianism. Francis Crick, the patron saint of intellectual long shots, might have approved." Now, I find something a bit disturbing with his choice of words but in full context, I've got to say he's a kindred spirit.

I've been visiting from time to time but as a guest. Couldn't spend a few more clicks to reset my password. So, it seems that things have "slowed down" here in the posts I mean -- or is it because I'm on the outside looking in?

Monolith Monolith, the power of singularity reaching for the sky, As if one could see the universe with the naked eye, Where it goes, life flourishes and follows, And where it woes there are stark pains and sorrows. To look up is to revere justly, The mind that has made it so purposefully, In far off distances, it will still be seen, Its beauty and glory like His queen, This is an awesome power Man hath wrought, And the purest bliss He hath bought. If God can only make a tree, Man hath constructed buildings to become free, Oh! Where could such passions lie? Surely, not in heaven, in a prayer nor a cry! Neither is it in an angry yawp, nor in the barrel of a gun, But in rational minds that has reached farther than the sun! Dost thou see the lights shimmering on the yonder? They shine so earnestly, unlike the lightning and thunder, It seems that they only do so flicker, For those who has succeeded as a reminder that He should be no meeker. If in these words, I express and bellow, My immense and intense joy, To the upward glance, to my fellow, To say, “My good man, Ahoy!” Glad to be back.

If I remember correctly, that was said/implied by Dr. Stadler because he wants to be left alone by the government/society which provides his grants (imo, he's more of a practitioner of solipsism) By the way, why is this in the psych forum friend?

To Leonid (first): Your response in post#483 is confusing. I could not fully discern which are Rand's words and which are yours. Bob: You said, "We have selfish tendencies because the gene is selfish. We have altruistic tendencies because our genes are copied in others to varying degrees." Those two only came from the premise of a "selfish gene". No altruistic tendencies can be inferred there. If you did something for gain e.g. "genes are copied to varying degrees." then it stands to reason one does it for its own benefit and therefore cannot be truly called altruistic. I do believe that altruism, as demonstrated by even our basic biological components, can not be fully achieved. However, due to our nature, even basing from the premise of a "selfish" gene, consistent egoism can. Therefore, I ask, "Why preach something that cannot be achieved and more so, pass it as an ideal state proper to man?" The only logical conclusion would be because those who preach it, are spiritual perverts who enjoys seeing their fellow trying to fight their nature while they perpetuate it for they want to rise up using others to get a "better" view of the tumult they have wreaked. These are the men who knew but betrayed that knowledge and intentionally preached that they "know" the way to fulfill the desires of men - by giving it up. Oh, they feast, they demonstrated their power alright. They fulfilled their own desires only by using others as a means to get it. I cannot say I could point out what made them do it for their motives are as varied as mine. I rely on my fellow's honesty as I rely on mine to the best that I could since even when I do lie, I make no illusions about it. It haunts me so that even before I can get to Dr Freud's couch, I'd be spitting slips here and there which tells me that I acknowledge the guilt and I can be corrected. I can assume they come from the same premise which is egoism but that's where it stops for they do not recognize the facts before them. They are cowards. Peeping Toms that scurry like rats at the first sign that someone notices their activities. When you try to accuse them, they evade the issue and spews out concepts which you cannot even comprehend. When you ask as to what they are referring to in actuality, they'll tell you to find it out for yourself. "Guess what they mean" is the name of their game and lo - they are very skilled at it. They are masters alright, masters who can only see slavery as the proper relationship between men. What do you think of people who knows that something is of a certain quality but do not recognize it as such? Even more terrifying, they say it does not actually exist, that somehow, their eyes deceive them. Think, if your own senses deceive you truly then where can you place your trust? They have the answer: Other people. But you ask, "How do they know?" They answer: They have special abilities which you lack. and then you'll feel ashamed and at that moment you'll feel indebted to whatever these "special ones" give you - whether it be wisdom or trash - it does not matter, you do not know and cannot know anyway. To do evil out of ignorance is bad enough for facts will stand as facts against you. How much more to recognize evil as it is and attempt its execution and *Son of a!* teach it to others as if it was the natural thing to pursue! I admit I digress. However, the aforementioned is to illustrate what kind of people who fancies themselves as teachers of the common good or altruism or like the boogeyman that is told in your childhood or the devil they teach you in your church to scare you out of your wits, they come in many names. Many indeed. They are legion which denotes a collective mass of entities. You said, "To say that only a rational egoist can be benevolent is nonsense. Explain how a rational egoist would ever buy life insurance." (emphasis mine) This may hold true, but then again, they hold no illusion and if you ask for their motive they strive for which maybe a lot of things (they may even lie) but you are safe in the knowledge that they surely do not work for your good but rather their own and whatever good that is done to you is a bonus, an added value to which he recognizes and likes as a creature of trade. A "rational egoist" does not go around with a tag that says, "I am rational egoist: I do not work for your sake." because that would be an insult to every man who wish to acquire their competencies but have yet to find out if a trade or bargain is possible. The above comes from the same premise (to what is considered an etiquette) that you do not shout at the top of your lungs the money in your bank account. That would be equivalent to saying, "You cannot afford me!" or it could also be, "I am very cheap!" and then of course, everyone will believe you and no one will offer to trade with your competency for either they will be appalled by your thinking that you are higher than them or be doubtful if you can deliver the goods which you advertise. This is also where the saying, "As good as your money can buy" comes from. Let your transaction be discreet. You'll find it most comfortable for you and your potential clientele. As to address your next sentence, a "rational egoist", precisely because he is rational, he uses the present facts to speculate about the future. He buys insurance not for the fear that his life is in constant danger but for the preparation to and acknowledging the fact of "accidents". It is because he is an egoist, he has confidence in his ability to sustain his life but he acknowledges the finitude of his bodily constitution and that he will desist from physical exertions - for his own sake - someday. Let me make my opinion of you Bob. Since you asked the audience here to try and explain for you which I did, this is my payment: You have valid points (although their strength is arguable) but you rely on us to cater to your needs. Why not try to explain how a "rational egoist" can or cannot buy insurance in your view and then judge both with the same treatment? Let's move on. You said, "Logic and rationality are dangerous things when combined with false premises..." That is very true Bob. However, it is better to start with a false premise and leave yourself open to be corrected rather than be cautious of every single variable that crosses your mind. What image does the word "cautious" invoke in your mind? I can think and name two: Shifty eyes and fetal positions in a dank corner. Since you are a being of limited awareness, you can only trust what is in front of you and make an inference, an estimate or a hypothesis from it and proceed. But my good man, do your honest best. Going back to altruism as a "possible way of life" (I do not wish to confuse my audience but this is the way I write and should you ask for clarification on certain points, I shall be glad to respond and identify what I mean). Bob, you said, "But sacrifice for family and kin is easily explained - as is tribal based behaviour because our tribe is more likely to share our genes than other tribes." That "easily explained" is what makes the whole idea dubious, because such a complex behavior as to giving up one person's life for another could be rationalized by just biological "levers and strings" which then could cancel out that claim. Also, there is that "drive to survive" which an area of science also claims due to our "biology". Surely, having your serotonin decreased substantially would cause depression and conversely, elevation of it mania. But, is that all there is to it? Are you claiming, this gene is a "cure-all"? And that's all there is to your volition, choices and life? Can you see any alternatives that would successfully integrate free-will to heredity thereby making the systems complementary? I can. Those pre-dispositions which you have are only a spark, an impetus if you will, that dictates "how much must and could be filled" as with a gas tank, but you decide "how much should be filled and what type of fuel/energy do you run on". The first humanoids or apes worked on trial and error and the correct choices were passed on via culture or religion (or some claim was encoded in our genes itself) which proved to be working. However, the sin of these systems is that they stagnated as if they forgot why it exists. Further down the line, men, a few men, decided to depart from it and kept the correct again but this time re-evaluated premises and that is where logic started which proved to be a system does not only examine the present but can also infer and direct future trends based on how well one can identify the nature of the objects which they seek to manipulate. This is where I believe our current thinking abilities are from. You may argue that there is something better than logic and I could agree with you on that but unless you identify it using the present terms, a translation if you will and demonstrate it to us, then you are off on your own and based on your system, we will be wiped out. But know this for a fact: We take responsibility for it. You mention that the theory is based on tribal behavior, do you mean to say that a tribe is an entity in itself? or is it a concept which can be broken down by "individual behaviors"? I choose the latter, how about you? You say, "A high percentage of parents would give their life for their child's if they had to make the choice and I suspect the percentage would rise if they had to choose between their own life and that of multiple children." Do you always look at the bleak side of figures? This "percentage" which you speak of may have come up due to lack of better words by the subjects - or was it from the statement of the scientists *gasp*. It would be better if they'd given a sentence completion test. If I may restate it, "A high percentage of parents would kill for their child as they have a choice and I speculate (based on the trend inferred) that the percentage would rise further if they had multiple children to protect." Same quasi-statistics, different interpretations. It would appear you obediently swallowed the pill the doctor asked you to. I can't thoroughly discern why you enclose in quotation the word pretend. But with your challenge, I never pretended to play around and pit the value of my life in relation to my fellows but this lies in the assumption that they do not attempt to pit their lives against me. I seek to trade both implicitly and explicitly if necessary just as contracts are made with both parties bearing witness and bargaining with each others' requisites before engaging to "business proper". If you could, spar with my ideas with the same benevolence and veracity that I approached your challenge. In closing, egoism does not invoke, "My life is of higher value than yours..." banality. Instead, recognizes that each human life is equal and each must let his fellow decide on his own on what to do with his life. You want his commitment or use his talents for a certain period? You ask for his price. If he deems it's too little a job for you to pay him an excessive amount, know that he is honest and do not be insulted. Instead, give him what he asks for and do not forget to add a word of your recognition which is: "Thank you." Altruism on the other hand tells you that "Not only you should serve your fellow." but you must also deny yourself the gratitude he offers and which you deserve as a token for demonstrating your talents. This self-abdicating or self-effacing attitude is a worse insult to me than having my fellow saying, "Fuck you!" although I prefer also not to hear it as it still is an insult. Again, if I deal with competent men, I praise them and remind them how much they deserve my gratitude and as a physical manifestation of it, I give them money as a standard of exchange between men of not equal talent but equal in the spirit of ability to produce on his own. When I see men like such with so much potential trying to live under the lie of "altruism" by not accepting my money, I well up with contempt - to a point. However, if I do meet a person who refuse to even accept my thanks and tout their smallness or humility, I'd attempt to return their product or "favor" in the same condition and medium as was given and walk away. This should be the same treatment if they refuse to acknowledge the goodness which they ask and got from me. Take at least the money or if I become really ill, destroy which I have created and walk away. *I attempted to re-phrase Rand's ideas (from the Fountainhead - one of Toohey's speech I think) using my own words (see par.5) and for which, I call the experts in copyright here to assess and advise me on how to proceed as to avoid accusations of plagiarism should there be any problem. Thank you.