psychoanaleesis

Hmmm, the GOP members (if any of them were using good reason) could have shouted, "Own up! Own up!"

Well, let's hold on to the assumption of a competent system of checks and balances, shall we?

Guys, Regarding the nature of Altruism and whether it is a system man should live by; just ask yourself one question, "Who do I live for?" and that should answer what is altruism's true goal. We can base all good arguments from Rand or the altruists but think independently through and through even just for a moment where as if you witness a man serving another and the one who served did not receive so much as a "Thank you." Where: One who served = "servant" One who got served = "served" Action = "service" *Scenario = unending biological life >What do you think prompted the servant to service? Is it for the interest of the served or for the action itself? (Do you see any other alternatives? If so, please, you are free to add) >With the intent of knowing you ask the servant what his motives were and he says, "It's for the sake of the served." >or if he says, "For the service itself." What do you think Option 1 would imply? Option 2? (or so on until you exhaust alternatives) Should you decide to consider my proposal, remember, Option 1 has no gains whatsoever i.e. purely for the sake of the "served". Meanwhile, I see Option 2 has an extension/implication of gain (whatever that may be for the "servant") Suppose you are given the chance to practice only one option for the rest of your life, which one would you choose? As I see it, the goal in man's life is to retain the values he is endowed with and when possible, add to it. Given the example above (which works in an infinite loop) there is no "added value" to the servant's life if he chooses Option 2 but he gets to keep his already existing values i.e. his competency and love for the work itself. In actuality, since man's biological lifespan is finite and it stands to reason that he can still choose either Option 1 - where he devotes or gives or expends his values solely for another, lose it entirely since the scenario given is without that coin of gratitude. OR Option 2 - where he keeps it in its entirety but knowing that life is finite, he therefore asks a philosophically defining question, "What more can I do with this finite lifespan?" Consequently, knowing that his value (competency in *insert action* in this case) is good, he seeks other men like himself whom he can demonstrate his value in the form of virtue and they, in turn can recognize that is, appreciate and in response, reciprocate it with theirs. But, where is the coin of gratitude? It is evident in the fact that he has done good to his fellow and his fellow has done good for him as well, that they seek to find a noble expression which is "Thank you." and this coin, since men have more values than which I have presented, may not be enough to deal with all competent men. Thus, these men invented money which is in essence like a "certificate of gratitude" that others have recognized his talents and it stands as a witness to his competence. Further, it is known to most, if not all men of same nature that one can use this "certificate" to gain access to another man's valuables who did not bear witness to what has happened before and this is where man fulfills his other desires and gains value or adds value to his finite life and in essence, immortalize his inseparable self in the form which all men, like himself, acknowledges.

Yes, but would the data necessarily have to come from the government? Why can't I just ask the doctor about it or the educational institution(s) where he came from - if I'm so doubtful. I'm no lawyer and I'm under the assumption that the constitution here was copied based on the US constitution. Isn't there a statement there against having two laws existing side by side covering the same issue? As far as I know, if you want to add even a letter to an existing law, it must go through the process of amendment, correct? Or is the 'Obamacare' already it? Also, correct me if I'm wrong about bureaucratic gibberish but something reeks about a 1000+ pages of mandates that could fall under omnibus or hodgepodge bills. For all you know, there's a clause there regarding implementation of electronic chips on the base of your skulls - for monitoring purposes only.

We've digressed for a bit but the article above is good and relevant Peter. Have we covered all the issues regarding IQ and Heredity? I'd just like to add that when I speak of IQ it refers to overall 'intelligence' or 'g' and not the old/standard definition which is the quotient of one's mental age/chronological age. However, due to laziness of typing 'intelligence' all the time, I decided to stick with 'IQ'. Probably everyone who's interested and has searched Wikipedia got this and this

I found the article coherent and logical even with lack of technical understanding (since I do not know much about US Law). That said, being on a long leash does not mean you're free. That means you're still a slave - with a long leash. I like the way David Hogberg inserts, "Think you know how to spend that money..." lines there. It means that you have someone else practically dictating, "Oh no...that's where you stop mister!"

What's that? The other 900 pages we approved... were blanks?!? But we signed up for it already...

It's fun and good getting responses like what you guys are doing. Even after the disclaimers I wrote. BTW, I like this too Doc, "How about the Monadnock cyclist? He grew up to stop the motor of the world. I like that." Peter, I enjoyed your post too if for a role model, yes Francisco is the most plausible to "come to life". I also see some connection between him and that client of Roark who commissioned the Aquitania building.(Did I spell it right?) I used to have a bad image of middle-men. After I read the principle behind it, I corrected my self. It's relieving to be taken seriously (without the fear of getting heckled) when the question I present could be from a dream or the beginning of a serious psychiatric disorder. As you may know, people around you try to calm you down and assure that you're not when you say, "I think I'm going crazy." and when it gets worse and you start denying that you are crazy then they send you to an institution. Kidding aside, no explicit word from Rand about an issue like this one? If none, then it's okay. It won't be surprising that most, if not all of them to have similar characteristics that could cross-over since they were written by the same person who sought to practice consistency in her philosophy if anything else. Thanks guys.

Yup, I noticed that too Peter. If any, I should have placed my response under Rants section. I do digress a lot especially when writing for myself. I have no intention of this getting published here and it stands virtually no chance either owing to the prevailing mentality. Sad to say, most readers in this country belong to a. cannot comprehend properly (within its context) b. cannot refute it in a similar manner that has been presented (use of critical thinking skills) c. just plain bigots playing blind to reality. Sometimes, I do still feel that disappointment for the "many" *gasps* but I try to engage each individual that still acknowledges that there is a more suitable way of living for man.

Hi Summer, First, I've got to say that I haven't read your story's draft in full but I'm just going to give you my first impressions. In my inexpert opinion, it appears that from the beginning, you've made it very obvious what the characters' intentions are. While this is not necessarily bad, it takes out the excitement of getting acquainted with the background and the characters. If you're planning to write a novel, I'd suggest that you leave little clues here and there for the reader to pick up. Also, creating a more vivid and diverse background in terms of plot and/or character should get the reader worked up. I've read a lot of fictional literature that had characters so complex that they take a life of their own and could readily be placed in virtually any situation. If you like this tip, please do use it, I'd be glad.

Peter, That was William Shatner on the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien. He did a beat poetry shtick (with bass and bongos) using cherry-picked excerpts from Sarah's book, Going Rogue. She was also on the show. She walked on, took Shatner's seat and did a similar "beat" version of some lines out of his autobiography, Up Til Now. Here is the line Shatner gave. I haven't read Going Rogue, but I imaging the line is a mashup of two different quotes. "I always remind people from outside our state that there's plenty of room for all of Alaska's animals -- right next to the mashed potatoes." I tried to find the video. It is hilarious. I couldn't find it easily so I stopped looking. But you can real a lot of the lines both delivered in this article. Michael Peter and Michael, ROFL! Thank you for the relief that pseudo-quote gave me. Man, I'm still so green! (pun not intended) I read too much at times that it really gets on my nerves and narrows my focus to a pencil tip. If you have the time and interest, guys, I'd like my article to be properly corrected i.e. errors be identified and the idea be chewed over. My critique above "We're going back..." is what I think of the essence behind environmentalism. Please do note that if either one or both of you would take time to look this over, I do support the inventions that would "make this world a safer place" via the use of already existing entities - as long as its their money. To be honest, I was on the verge of calling Michael to be an arbiter (as the owner-moderator of this site) on whether I was already going overboard and possibly, help me see Panoptic's valid points. Thank you again. D.

I see... Now that I think about it, it might be the shrewdness of Dominique - Francisco. I've always fancied the two as the perfect couple. No, he has this standing theory about a Supreme Being fitting Objectivism while moi am only a nominal catholic (atheist in practice). Never fully believed a damn thing those priests and fanatics say anyway. Nonetheless, most of my friends identify themselves there. Also, it does not hurt to learn the nature of your philosophical enemies. Called him "godfather" (exclusively here) for lack of a better term and technically, he is. I could say he's my uncle, but can you suggest a better way to call someone who's a 2nd degree cousin of your mother in one word?

After the billed passed, somebody whispered to her, "There will be no exceptions Madam Speaker..." Nancy (realizing she's been screwed): "You'll take my money too?!!"

That, and it's basically a trade-off. You agreed, so there you have it. In my workplace or in my country in general, my company don't even have those "health benefits", save for the *blech! socialized one. I'd wish they'd just let me keep the housing fund and my social security and that damn socialized health care contributions for my paycheck. But hey, my workplace won't keep me if they think I'll put them in jeopardy with the bureaucratic thugs right? I could only shake my head and think, "I could have spent this elsewhere rather than having those crooks 'securing my future'..." I could have taken it to a bank and have it earn interest or took it to a bar and have that expensive drink worrying less about getting through till next payday.

It's probably this: NIOF = Non-Initiation-of-Force

I'd like to hear this played on a fiddle if possible with a jolly ol' tune to boot! The lyrics goes: ...Both the ovines and bovines follow their Judas goats who says, this way, everyone, don't be afraid. All ye suffering shall cease. Follow the farmer, don't stray, heaven is just a yard away. Oh don't look left nor right, you'll be an outcast and that's no fun. Don't look ahead too, it's gonna be a surprise! There's gonna be a BASH! You'll feel bliss real soon... No, that's not dread, you're excited! Sshh, here it comes!...

This is rather trivial so I'm posting it here. The man who introduced me to Rand's work, my godfather, seems to have told me when we met about a year back (this happened after I just finished reading AS) that, there is a/are character(s) that "survived" The Fountainhead and apparently did a "cross-over" to AS albeit with a different name. If I also remember correctly, it's not Roark - Galt... Hmm, I'm very curious as to who could this character(s) be. I suppose I could ask him again, but it seems that either he himself forgot (because when I asked on another occasion, I think he ignored me/didn't hear -as if it was a secret to precious to just give out) or that memory was false (dream). So, I'd like to hear from the experts here first if there was ever a Fountainhead-Atlas Shrugged Character cross-over and if there is, would you please tell me? Thanks in advance. PS The power went out while I was trying to edit this. I don't mind if I have to discover it myself but it would be awesome to know if this would be a worthwhile pursuit. This is all very vague and it's like déjà vu.

Pt1. Should what you mention be accepted by insurance firms, I'll only wait until those companies realize that the government is favoring one or two of them through "pull" which brings to mind - strings which have something on the other end... and as I can visualize: A puppet. Pt2. When that time comes, I'll be laughing so hard and with teary eyes say, "I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you." I'd do that, because it is so absurd that with all their supposed "powers to see the future" of their clients' health, stock market, etcetera, they could not foretell their own because they were blindfolded when they accepted. Pt3. And from where will the government get the funds to subsidize that large portion of the populace? Hmm, I'd like to see them do a hat-trick on this one just for spite. Question: What's on the calendar of activities in 2014 that would warrant civil disobedience Jeff?

-deleted- irrelevant

Bye-bye Toohey.

Dan, Woah, we do sound alike as you said in the other post. Interesting. You said: This is confusing because Rand is contradicting her own definition. Either architecture is not an art, since it is not "a selective re-creation of reality," or her definition of architecture or of art in general is flawed. (Louis Torres and Michelle Kamhi recommend changing Rand's definition to "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's fundamental values." However, their change doesn't affect the issue here, since they have not touched the "selective re-creation" portion of it. See their "Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Art: A Critical Introduction" Aristos 5(2-5).) From the above, it has been shown that architecture does selectively "re-create" reality. This being so, is any part of Rand's definition of architecture salvageable? A good definition would admit that architecture "is in a class by itself, because it combines art with a utilitarian purpose" and that it also re-creates reality... [end quote] Quite right. Even for Rand, reality will clearly not yield to even the slightest flaw in its understanding. I read somewhere, "Do not alter the facts to fit the theory, alter the theory to fit the facts!"

Yes Peter, I can fully grasp what you say. It's linguistic nuances. For when I say "culture" I refer to a system/method of living that which is stagnant and passed on from one generation (parent) to the next (offspring). However, I could have took that also partly thinking more on "traditions". The "human mind" is I intended, not as collective but man as a conscious creature and pertains solely to the findings of that research which is in extended form would turn out something like so: the human mind has a limit... although it cannot be said that it is without exception or it still could depend on a case to case basis as this research has yet to test each and every individual on the planet. I do agree, it's rather difficult if you are picky with the use of words but you must be able to break down those "reifications" if and when it is asked or when you feel obliged to clarify or identify. I brought up that point not to discuss nuances because truly, I do not have a beef with "groupings" because it plays a significant role in the advancement of man qua man. To say simply, the Chinese cannot claim, "We invented the..." because that would be implying "communal achievements" which I have said in effect in another post, "communal" things are always of lesser value and are in a horrible state than that of "solely owned objects". I cannot yet discern (put my finger on) why this country (most of the world) is oh so eager to get one man's achievement shared among its citizenry. Take for example, Pacquiao (the boxer, if you've heard of him), I admire his prowess in the ring and the strength he demonstrates but it does not make me any more proud that "I am a Filipino" as screamed by every media here. They say, "Victory for the Filipinos!" and as if its spirit can be pandered "for the race". Oh, well, he said that himself and he does give (blindly) some of the prize money to strangers which he lovingly calls "countrymen". If he willingly wants to be the paschal lamb, I can't do anything about it for he is a being of his own volition. However, I'm gonna take a shot and say, "He did it for the collective - where I do not belong." but in my heart of heart, I cannot turn a blind eye to his achievement. I can only withdraw my consent to their practice since I do not approve of the atrocities being done to that which I know as "greatness".

Yup, I know, there are others besides Mayans and (somebody correct me) I'm just using straw-men because they're the easiest to attack. Woah, let's not forget the old Egyptians where would they have been existing up to now, let's see where your "diplomacy" towards slave culture end up. Which end of the whip would you rather feel if you were born in their territory? You claim they were great then? Try bringing the chieftains and warlords to this era would you and add them to the already existing ones... right... thought so. OR we're you just actually talking about individuals? If so, then don't talk about "civilizations" as if they consist of one entity. Now you say it's just history? Who's turning the blind eye now? I thought you were just contemplating on bringing them back? Well, physically, you cannot. However, try to practice their ideologies, see if its comparable to the state that man is now. You said, "I think that it's flawed to think that human civilization only advances positively." (emphasis mine) We're you speaking of "advancing sideways"? "advancing backwards"? or as I said before "advancing negatively"? or "retreating positively"? Neither of these contribute to that "flawed" thinking and more so perversely, these take away from it the spirit of which it is intended. Look, the one whose got it wrong is you. If you really want to say something then identify the things which you speak of. Do not speak of haze as if it were some object you could grasp. It appears that you rely on me to bring out such hideous alternatives because you are terrified to name them yourself. I should say, "Show some spine!" but that may be too much to ask of you. Define your "common sense" and see if it totally departs from Rand's. You talk about me visiting the library? Read some more you foolish brat! Yep, am not very good with dealing with blobs or abstract conglomerates which you hastily labeled "in any sense of the word (of an object)". "Panoptic" you dub yourself? Yes, suiting, you have the same name as your forefather "Plato". Disarmed my "extrimist" stand? Au contraire, you never even touched it. I merely slept to recuperate from bodily exhaustion since no one in this fora is paying me to stay awake at present. Hey, at least I have a stand, where's yours? Ah, no, you're preserving it for some exotic plant that may or may not cure cancer right?

Yup, could be a manifestation of them living in their "unrealities" or "malleable realities". Goes to show the true nature of solons where instead of taking decisive action, they resort to "prayers" in hopes to deny the fact that is currently before them.