psychoanaleesis

Excellent! Exactly! I morally assent to that statement!

What makes you think there is only one cause of lung cancer? Statistics show that smoking is a big factor in getting lung cancer, but not the only one. You need to update your understanding of "causality". Yes, that's what I said but I think you missed the point in my reply (yet again). I know a "cause" is at least one thing acting on another and maybe even not by itself which could bring out a need for a catalyst. Smoking by itself (extracted from all other factors)does not constitute a definitive evidence of it being a cause of lung cancer but rather of harming your biological system in at least one more other way. In the end, as an average person of knowledge, it all boils down to which factors do you consider to be significant enough to be decisive in your question of whether to smoke cigarettes or not. The point I'm trying to make is, you cannot, under any circumstances, force a person to choose to see any other "realities" except than what he chooses to perceive. In an Objective argument, you will be relying only in his good reasoning to influence him. In summation (to the one who started this thread): Do not use Ayn Rand or any other person to justify any of your decisions and consequently actions for you do not know all their motives (maybe they don't know either) for doing so. You are an end in yourself. Use your reason through the process of logic based on an infinite set of facts that your mind can process and not rationalization where you had no conscious evaluation and just looking for an excuse to make it seem like you did. Since at least one of us (me) is Objective enough GS, why don't you just state the facts that you know? Lecture me if you will. I'm not forcing you to, but do demonstrate that you got more abilities than misquoting, misunderstanding and just generating random phrases. Name your game and let's see if I play.

It's not rationalizing if she had consciously taken up smoking. However, if it was a habit she picked up living in Russia (which for practical reasons, people had to keep warm) then it's pretty hard to get rid of. I don't think she tried to rationalize it either, as far as I can see, she never had any apprehension nor regret for it. Ms. Branden is right about this: "Yes, in the early 60s, when Rand said there was no poof that smoking caused cancer, it was true that there was no final, definitive, absolute, syllogistic, incontrovertible, undeniable, non-statistical, overwhelming proof. But we knew. We all knew, including Ayn Rand." You know that you're breathing fire and like any cases of smoke inhalation, it's bad for your body but there is still no proof that smoking causes lung cancer, it's related or it increases your chances of getting it but not proof and cause by itself. Take Dana Reeve for example: a healthy, non-smoker who died of lung cancer. Besides, I don't think any "expert" stands a chance of winning when they merely give their opinions to an Objectivist who says: Laissez-faire or Mind your own business. Don't justify smoking if you think the risks are bigger than its benefits. Smoke because it makes you happy. Weigh it consciously and don't think that because Ayn Rand did it, you should too. Also, buy nicotine patches if you think that it prevents Alzheimer's disease.

This may be an appropriate attitude for an attorney trying to sway a jury, or even a politician trying to win votes, but on a discussion forum I think the right approach was stated by Christopher Hitchens in his article about Holocaust denier David Irving: “a case has not been refuted until it has been stated at its strongest”. I don’t understand the last part, did you write something and then edit it out? It looks like Brant was just giving you a book recommendation, and you’re snapping back at him. Yes. I did write something then decided to write it out. I answered so strongly that when Brant read it, he told me to calm down. I erased my response here when I realized GS' question, although answerable, does not merit further consideration from me other than my assent. If I kept what I wrote, I'll be led to a trap and the thread will mutate (quoting me will have the same effect). I asked Brant why he thinks I need NB's books regarding my response (before I erased most of it) because I do not know how that will help me in this particular subject.

Oh, damn, I wanted to edit my last post because of too much editing, it doesn't make sense now... 1st sentence should actually be: The hole is actually a point of reference to the doughnut or, more specifically - the dough that surrounds it

Question is, how does being cruel to animals benefit a person in any way? Answer being: none. If they say that their standard is pleasure and pain, a trait that is common to all animals (man included) then let's see how this person likes to be cut, shocked, burnt and beaten 'just for the heck of it'. Even if say dogs do not know what it means to have rights, you do. You, as man should know how pointless it is to pursue these kinds of endeavors as it goes round and round. It's not productive in any way. When pleasure and pain are your standards, the your values would follow. Since pleasure and pain are the base values common to all forms of animals and you chose this, then you are no better that what you are torturing and therefore you are one. This is one of the lines dividing a mere animal incapable of reason nor volition and Man, who has better things to do.

As to the means by which you fulfill your happiness are clearly within your rights, don't be taken in by the notion of 'great romantics' and their 'Romeo and Juliet, happily ever after scenario'... However, I think the reason we need a partner or look for one is to have at least one another like you, who will affirm your stand and implicitly or explicitly state that "You are not alone in what you hold to be good and ideal, I do too." or even better, you can say that to yourself: "I am not alone in this... someone else sees what I see too." I'm making deep thoughts now to persons who says "I love you"... It would implicitly take everything into account: your character, values, actions, etc. words upon words upon descriptions summed up, condensed into those three words. It's the Affirmation. The 'Yes' we look forward to in every endeavor that we take. This is why, the emotion of joy comes someone proposes marriage (or a lifetime of commitment) when their partner says, "Yes" because that means that your efforts to achieve that which you value, your partner, has not been in vain. It is to say implicitly, "This is what I have to offer, do we have a deal?" It is the ultimate trade.

Wow, thanks... but I wonder if they deliver here and how much would it cost with all the duties? you know, the sad part is, often, the opportunities that come are so exclusive...few good businesses are willing to touch this part of the world with a 10 foot pole... They're out there, I'll keep looking!

Wowza! Thanks for bring this up to awareness again Michael! The human brain never stops working and it's said that should it be attached to the right electrical transformer, it could jump start a car! How cool is that??? And you know what, the questions doesn't even have to necessarily answered with a verbal response. What is it? Emotions. Your facial expression changes, body language, everything starts falling in place when you focus on something. I've read somewhere in the Ayn Rand lexicon of a term they use in IT... GiGo - garbage in, garbage out. Am having a continuous train of positive thoughts because I just asked myself, "What do I need to do to get a better job (than this one)?" and the answer, which I'll keep to myself but we all know gave me that boost of morale.

Thanks, all you who are concerned about my level of knowledge. But things happen - in my own good time.

Brant: Why are you selling NB's work to me? (Oh, please don't post in case any of you guys have seen/copied with the intent to quote me. I do not take back what I said. I take back merely my consent to saying that. It will no longer exist in this forum.)

So you think moral certainty is an allright thing even if it leads to things like genocide? Yes. I refuse to explain further. Find it out for yourself if you wish. P.S. To those who like to listen or look: In a real fight, I don't intend to fight fairly. In philosophical arguments, this is the same principle that I uphold. The only thing that I'll give a fair or equal appraisal to are the facts that my opponents present. I do not leave an even ground for evil. As heaven is above and hell is below- for my enemies both in the physical and intellectual - I will seek for ways from the facts (whether I wield a weapon or my convictions) to gain the upper hand and for them to be always fighting an uphill, losing battle.

Can't he be both playing and eating in the same period given? And who will he play with if his playmate would feel hungry and choose hunger over playing? As he can't be forced to eat, so he can't force his playmate to play. If this person is even remotely rational and by that I mean he's not psychotic. Then he will surely sense the needs of his body and that his mind will eventually lose focus over playing checkers precisely because his biological needs are not met. Man does not need self-sacrifice.

Really? Moral certainty is the root of all harm man does to another man? If that's the case, I'll still take this because I can be sure of whether I want to harm my neighbor or not. Rather than be a despicable, diffident, cowardly creature that cannot decide on whether to and where to place his anger and intentions. If this is the cause of all harm, then this is also the cause of all things right and just because one can say: I certainly like this or I certainly don't like this. I love this or I loathe this. If a man has no moral certainty, one can only answer the questions in superfluous moderation. Do you love him/her? Sometimes. Do you want to live or die? It's alright either way. Are you a human being with dignity? Maybe. Those are the answers you will get and the highest concepts of certainty like "Forever", "Always", "Never" shall be erased from your vocabulary. The highest praises and the lowest insults will become a meek and impish sound of "fine", "okay". Then you cannot judge who is a killer and who is the victim. It will hurt but you will not be certain of even if it hurts at all. There will be no more comparison nor contrast. Good and evil mixed is evil in itself because the good allowed it so to exist. The difference, distinction will be gone from man and it would not matter to him what happens whatsoever. When there is only mediocrity and moderation, the Choices are automatically annihilated. When man will have no claim to responsibility and no sense of responsibility, then everything will be thrown into chaos and a sludge. You read cause and effect because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Given adequate tools and knowledge, even the movement of the smallest particle can be predicted or traced back and better yet: controlled and that is what certainty is all about. A sense of control over yourself and your environment as a conscious being. What did that Betrand Russell think when he said this? Did he think he can escape the law of cause and effect by abstaining from choosing? If he did say it, what made him sure of that statement in the first place? Weak argument.

Well put. Bravo! Adam Thank you! Thank you! After almost two decades of battling with hordes of their kind, I'm used to taking their heads apart (metaphor!)

I just have one argument... I think existence and 'being is' is the same thing. Language nuances however would make it awkward for any discussion to always use the term 'being is'. If you can identify a 'being is' with the same process you identify any 'existing' body, the it would follow that these words have the same characteristics and therefore definitively similar. Conversely, if something is 'non-existent', then one cannot identify it as whether what specie of 'being' it belong to i.e. 'being is' and 'being is not' and therefore no way to prove it. However, if there had been a way to identify a 'being', it would automatically group it to 'being is' and therefore an 'existing' body. In conclusion, only existing bodies and existence is everything you will be able to make sense with. There's my ten cents.

Michael: I can't hate this creature enough to mind him further. Instead, I have a constant feeling of disgust towards philosophies of this kind. I like what Roark said about this because it's liberating: "I’m not capable of suffering completely. I never have. It goes only down to a certain point and then it stops. As long as there is that untouched point, it’s not really pain." and "But I don't think of you." I shall never give up my mind. I'll stand up for what I think is right, whether I'm correct or mistaken. Take responsibility for it, review my premises and make it better. I'd rather be this than have to take another man's word for it whether it be the Pope,Hitler or Rand. Where they could still be wrong or right but I'll be dragged down with them if it's the former and I'd feel and deserve no achievement if it's the latter. *Revised

Doc: Well, in that case, I have been immersed in it - for at least 14 years! Can you imagine the constant feeling of disgust that comes when everywhere you look you know that there is something wrong and rotten about in your surrounding? In people? In their actions and thoughts that it becomes their core? However you didn't have the proper way of defining that rottenness? It was like this story of a man who was awakened and found everybody else still sleeping? But this story is different because you know all of you were sleeping on muck with everyone sinking slowly at their own pace and you just happened to be somehow buoyant. The twisted part is this: you try to wake everyone that was close to you and in little increments they do... just to slap your hand and say, "go away!" That's when I found out that it was useless for me to try even more to convince them and just focus on how to save just yourself. Then you meet persons who throw you a lifeline and realizing that there is a way to get out of this state without using other people's bodies to use as a means, you get instead this strong rope called objectivism-reason, newly "manufactured" by Rand, coined by Aristotle and those persons who gave this to you are men of competence and you are one of them. You know this lifeline is true and it can never betray you not because of "faith" in it but because it is its main characteristic. It can answer anything, leaves no mystery untouched, everything is knowable and doable, that you just had to utilize what you have to the best that you can. Heh. I felt that passionately about it eh? Good. I know why and how how I came to feel this way. So when I read this Perigo guy selling the muck that I loathe, my disgust made me vomit some of that garbage I swallowed back then... but more to purge! On God: Do I sound like Hawking? Thanks. I've always been interested and understood physics (in my class I got the compliment of my professor that while I am good at it, I still had a mountain yet to get over.) I've yet to finish reading his take on the universe on a "Brief History of Time". I cannot and will not pretend to have a vision of being the one who solves this God problem since my mental capacity is unlike men of his capability... I just long to see the day when it gets solved and applied by every science, with each its own take but assent to the same principle/law. P.S. I noticed I had a lot of typo in my last posts, but as you can see the timestamps. I hadn't slept very well this past few days. Thanks!

Thanks Adam. By the way, did you know that another way of saying "Stay on course" is to say, "Keep true"? That's something to ponder on.

Dr. Ellis wrote a book attacking Objectivism in the early 70ths. I don't know if he and Nathaniel Branden ever had any further contact after their debate in 1967. You are probably right about Objectivist theories and Freud. "Is Objectivism A Religion" was published in 1968. It's a quick and easy read/rant retaliation for the May 1967 debate with Nathaniel Branden where his supporters were vastly outnumbered by Rand supporters. I think I once read there were 1100 people in the audience, but don't know and if so that was a huge room in that hotel at 8th Ave. and 34th St. I'm tentative about the location too. I wasn't there. I'd love to hear the complete tape, wherever it is. I don't know if it still exists. That would have been the absolute crazy epitome of the insular New York Objectivist culture. As I've mentioned before in other forums if not this one, 1968 was an interesting year. "The Break," which broke the back of Objectivist cult culture and caused most Objectivists to re-evaluate what their proper relationship to others and themselves and ideas should be, was also the year President Johnson threw in the towel on Vietnam and the idea he might run for re-election. This essentially broke the back of general American subservience in the psychological sense to the authority of the state relative to its war-fighting competence and its sanction. It wasn't enough--it didn't go far enough; the size of the state never really stopped increasing and generally accelerated, but the cultural shift was almost palpably real. That's why today politicians are held in such general low regard but they keep getting re-elected anyway. It's no longer "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," a progressive, fascist sentiment, it's what my country can do for me, loot wise. --Brant Wait, "objectivist culture", you mean to say an objectivist 'way of life'? That's preposterous Brant. There is no 'manual' of how to become an objectivist. Only the law of nature and causality. If there ever existed such a monstrosity as a 'your life in a box' book for objectivism. It would also imply that if you are an objectivist, you could simply pass the practice along to the nth generation as in culture. I do not care about Rand's supporters who were there nor their numbers but I can see the merit of Rand as a philosopher and author of fiction. So far, I have found what she's saying is true but before I do, it implies that I question what she's saying first. She did not preach - at least to me- on how to live, but stated nature's requirements which are self-evident. What the hell, I'd still be living rationally even if objectivism was not coined. I am thankful to Rand that she gave appropriate words for what I have been practicing but not for my existence.

Did you just complete a SLOP immersion course? How long did it take you to draw these conclusions about Perigo (who, BTW, I customarily refer to as Jabba)? My preliminary conclusion is that your gag reflex is working up to spec. From your point 6 should I infer that you’re an agnostic or a deist? No, I did not complete a SLOP immersion course, what is SLOP anyway? I read what he posted, analyzed his mentality, evaluated against my standards and drew my conclusions from there. Point 6 is one of the great questions that I have. Like detecting invisible wavelengths of light, I have this notion of creating some sort a method or device to bring to focus any sort if phenomenon which creates. I know this is more in the area of higher physics in theories like the String theory or Theory of Everything but I do see the possibility of identifying exactly what is the nature and characteristics of this "God" - in short, break it down to concretes like any other concept. I can't say (although I did once with embarrassing consequences) that I am an agnostic since I think we can know "God", just not with what we currently have. As to being a deist, if I currently do not know that there is one, how could I know if he abandoned it?

Adam: Hahaha. I had to re-read your first paragraph to grasp it. Still, that falls in the category of what Clinton refers to as "substantial" and by that I mean, "getting in her pants plan" was a profound/substantial idea. It could be that laying with Monica or women comes high in his set of values and by there, we can now infer of his true nature. This can be better discussed in another place here in OL. In "Humor" perhaps? I have some idea how you found him personally despicable. The rules that you are probably referring to is the "contract" of marriage which he vowed to uphold and did not. I can empathize with you since I can see you are a conscientious man. Breach of contract is such an ugly thing even for me! In this light, one can find him "guilty as charged". How can one possibly acquit himself to something that is so damningly self-evident! At first, his words betray him and then, (good thing he proved to be more of a man than a predator) he admitted to later on? At least that's the news that got to me... I remember Hank Rearden in this scenario but the difference is in their veracity.

Dr. Ellis wrote a book attacking Objectivism in the early 70ths. I don't know if he and Nathaniel Branden ever had any further contact after their debate in 1967. You are probably right about Objectivist theories and Freud. And I think that what makes Objectivism and its embodiments great. The mere fact that one "attacks" it, only adds fuel to the flame. That is, you present new findings to the philosophy thereby complementing the vision or assertion of Rand that it is not a static philosophy. Besides, I don't think he could refute principles (universals), lest he couldn't have gotten along with (at least) the persons who represented it for any length of time but mostly the axioms that it presents. I've read somewhere in this thread that he admired Rand and Branden as opponents but the operant word there being: admire. He saw the world in a different perspective and that is exactly the point of being an objectivist. To see for oneself. As far as I have read, both him and NB argued rationally and used facts to present their cases but one saw a flaw in the others' reasoning that they perhaps could not come to a solid conclusion or resolved in that given period but that he remained true to his convictions is amazing. He probably saw something which Rand or Branden failed to mention or the other way around - I don't know. Still, he was in the same sphere of thinking and he could have wanted a more appropriate label to conceptualize what characteristics he saw.

First off, WTF is this Perigo babbling about? *I take full responsibility for the snide remarks. I just want to defense vomit ideas garbage forced into my mind growing up in a cult-mentality country. Bleeecchhh! 1) Does being an Objectivist mean the same as being a member of some religious org-y? A: I think not. 2) Does this mean being an objectivist (choosing to be - to be more exact) have to agree with all of Rand's ideas? Objectivists are Individualists with a capital I for the Ego. So no. I don't have to agree or take her word for it. We just got the same or similar conclusions from the facts presented. I'd really like for him to see a shrink but then again, his delusions are so deeply ingrained to his soul (mind) that no amount of anti-psychotic medication can snap him out of it. 3) Does being an objectivist require you to follow a person? Yes. Yourself. That is, your judgment, reason, standards,values, choices and it does require one to follow one thing more: Facts in order to effectively utilize logic. 4) Does being an objectivist require you to think like a group? No, I think individually for my own sake but may join a group with a common agenda when called for i.e. selfish-interest. 5) Does or did ever objectivism or being a man of reason require me to serve others for the sake of others? Never. 6) Does it ask me to shun my belief in God? No. Nonetheless, I don't believe in a being that is unquestionable or that somehow he mystically controls or "guides" me whichever way. I think God loves me so much to let me be and not send me to hell for standing on my own decisions (where I'll gladly throw myself into should I be incapable of making another one!), leaving everything up to myself and reasoning and facts. Besides, if God is a supernatural entity, then there is no way for my natural senses to, well, sense God. About his post at http://www.solopassion.com/node/5662, I'll attempt to analyze this bullshit in the lens of semantics and let's see who's the cult. "There's no mystery whatsoever about this. Take this in: (referring to Ave Maria video)" - He's asking the reader to just "Take that in"? That's like shoving down a piece of steak down someone's throat. Juicy, maybe, but you'll choke and definitely won't enjoy that. "...the beauty of Schubert's Ave Maria—glorious music set to evil lyrics—remains irresistible to anyone with a soul. Until it can answer this, Objectivism will languish." -Precisely because of the music it remained irresistible. They bent the uplifting melody and set it with lyrics that asks a person to bow down, kiss the ground, lick the dust - just like in the Dark Ages when you see the Liege Lord heading your way. "Until we have not just a bunch of Halley concertos, but an understanding of their objective necessity and superiority, we will get nowhere." -Nope, objectivism never asked you to "get nowhere" nor understand it. It's self-evident! The "superiority" is not applied to man, it's his surroundings he must conquer - excluding people. -I think, that the Halley concerto only resides in my imagination. Beautiful movement of notes not to be rivaled and I mean every piece of music that I liked, retained and selectively integrated in my mind. My Halley's concerto is slightly different from everybody else in the sense that it is my personal music to the valor of man. "Hate to sound like a cracked record..." -Isn't this one of the methods cults use to brainwash their members? To keep them in line? Glaring contradiction. He doesn't hate it. He loves it. If he hates it, then he should shut up about it. "As I've said so many times, it's time for Objectivists to take The Romantic Manifesto seriously. More than that—to affirm unabashedly the objective superiority of Romantic music." -I've yet to find and read the Romantic Manifesto here, but with other of Rand's books, I take seriously but not literary. It's great if I can discuss about it in front of an audience that is, my dollar (two cents are insufficient) on it. -Romantic music is the ideal music but objectivism require one to "like" it. And don't put words in another person's mind. Music is not similar to a song. To prevent my kind of unholy songs from entering my consciousness, I try to take apart the lyrics and the music. Listen to the lyrics first for it's idea or sense of life then the music's sense of life and weigh both consciously. But sometimes, it just captivates me so fully. Besides, I like the church hymns I'm hearing... sadly, not most of its lyrics - Pitiful (an emotion which I abhor!). Wooohh! That felt sooo good! Now, to find a paper in this damned country that wants to publish it.

The hole is actually points or shape of the to the doughnut or the fried through that surrounds it. Because of the doughnut, we can see the hole i.e. because something exist, we see its contrast. "Fugure-Ground" law of gestalt. However, even without the supposed hole, the doughnut is still a doughnut but the hole, without the doughnut is nothing.