mweiss

studiodekadent, This is an addiction that has been going on since 1976. Pretty much all of my net worth is tied up in this pile of gear. I realized I went way too far last summer with getting four Bassmaxx subwoofers (hey, I expected them to be a little better than what they replaced--I didn't believe the claims that one woofer replaces 8-12 conventional woofers) when I was standing in a neighbor's livingroom about 2,000' from the house, down the other end of the street, feeling the vibration from my bass in his livingroom floor, when I wasn't even using 1/10th of the capacity of the QSC power amps. It's just insanely loud when the "signal present" LEDs start to flicker on bass peaks. Having gotten the 'exterior perspective' on how much bass was leaking from my basement, I now feel a strong sense of trespass onto other people's property when I turn it up that loud, so I keep it much lower most of the time, which is still way too loud by other people's standards, but to me, 127dB is a comfortable listening level for the duration of a typical rock tune. I can tolerate much louder at extremely low frequencies, but then the risk is damage to building structure. At the very least, it "snows" in here when things get much above the upper 120s, as ceiling tiles start to grind themselves against the framework and precipitate particals all over the studio. So I always have a mess to clean up after a loud listening session, not to mention the many things that fall from shelves. I love my Kurzweils, but mainly because they have the ability to create any type of synthesis model with their VAST engine and the new K2600 with Triple Modular Processing just increased the number of sound possibilities by billions. The downside is that you have to be an engineer just to program new sounds, as the sheer number of functions and blocks and how it all works together is staggering. But achieving killer bass is very easy. A simple sine tone at maximum level is the ultimate bass. Of course, achieving the illusion of "killer bass" on smaller, limited bandwidth speakers requires combining some overtones on top of fundamental tones to fatten the sound and make it sound good on small speakers. But making killer bass is not what my original intent for buying the Kurzweils was. I chose them because they have the most expressive, playable sounds, due to the complex abilities of the VAST engine to modulate acoustic instrument sounds and provide a rich palette of variations in the playing techniques that mere sample playback hardware cannot match. This was important for performing orchestral music. The Kurzweil is the first system I've tried that could produce believable orchestral performances. And I love the Steinway grand piano they have on the ROM3 option that I got with the K2600RS. I can play that piano day in and day out and never get tired of it. It plays like a real acoustic grand, not like my other samplers, which always output the same note timbre, regardless of how I played it. The K is expressive, from the pianissimo to the crescendo, where the piano tone goes from soft and mellow to sharp and striking and does so without obvious switching from low to high velocity samples. And the K is probably about the only box out there that does sympathetic resonance, creating the final aspect of a real piano's sound--the way in which sounding strings set off some of the other strings in sympathetic resonances, creating a rich and colorful sound that until now, only could be achieved on a real acoustic grand. So I play the piano program a lot when I'm just composing or relaxing. And interesting and timely note about Bassmaxx... two weeks ago, was a "subwoofer shootout", a sort of audio products realworld test of all the major pro sound reinforcement subwoofers currently on the market. It was held in Manhattan at an 11,000 sq ft night club located a block from Madison Square Garden. Inside, they had about 15 different makes and models of subwoofers, shipped in from all over the world. The week prior, signs stating "SPLs in excess of 150dB" were posted all over the building. Then the testing began. Things were going smoothly during testing of the general mass produced stuff. Then the Bassmaxx came up next on the roster and they fed it power. It ran so effortlessly that some of the audio guys wanted to see what it could do, so they gave it all the amplifier power they had on tap, and they broke the sound barrier. Not only was it 8dB louder than the next loudest contender, it didn't go up in smoke and it was obvious that if a larger amplifier were available, it would go louder still. But the real wake up call came when a neighboring tenant from the 5th floor of the high rise apartment building ACROSS THE STREET came down to the club and complained that the testing just then was shaking up his apartment. If you are familiar with Manhattan, you know that most normal club system sound is drowned out by NYC ambient traffic noise. And the streets are 100+' wide, so anything across the street is quite far away. To make enough noise in one brick and steel structure that it carries over and across the street to another concrete and steel highrise, so that someone five floors up gets enough of a rumble to come stomping down to the club to complain (and it turned out he also complained to the NYC office of the EPA), it must have been unusually loud. New technology woofer designs are quite far along in terms of power handling and efficiency. Where the Bassmaxx subs excel is below 30Hz. In my cabinets, tuned the way they are, from 19Hz on down, they are king of the roost. And that makes pipe organ listening an incredible thrill. Carver's Sonic Hologram makes it sound as if there were a channel of sound for every instrument on stage (some listeners, when blindfolded, thought there were 36 channels of sound and 36 speakers) when I engaged the Hologram during an orchestral demonstration. Despite all the earthshaking bass capabilities, it still can faithfully reproduce my 24-bit/96KHz recordings that I made of the Danbury Symphony Orchestra, which is my benchmark for calibrating the system for uncolored sound reproduction. It was a challenge to solve the high efficiency OR high fidelity riddle, but I think I cracked that nut by 1982 when I came up with the mid/high reproducer configuration which remains in use today. Sheesh, long-winded reply here.. well, there are plenty of videos for "basspig" on YouTube and Break web sites, showing all sorts of interesting phenomena that occur in the infrasound range. Glad you enjoyed browsing the site.

I have one minor piece of information about Henry Mark Holzer, which may shed a tiny amount of light on the matter of the split with Ayn Rand: In 1995, I contacted Harry Binswanger, asking about how to contact Mr. Holzer for some advice about a tax problem. Mr. Binswanger's response was unexpected: he advised me to steer clear of Holzer, citing Mr. Holzer's alleged 'animal rights activism' as the reason. I think that says something about Mr. Holzer, if it is true.

Ellen, I think you're taking Miss Rand's statement about A SPECIFIC TRAIT of Joen of Arc, out of context here. Just because one disagrees with aspects of a person's philosophy does not mean that one condemns that person in a broad scope. Herein lies the proof of Miss Rand's ability to separate the things she condemns from the positive attributes about a person. For instance, one might condemn a basketball player for using drugs and being abuse to women. But one can also see efficacy in that same basketball player for his skill on the court. Miss Rand's ability to avoid condemning the whole person of Joan of Arc is not a contradiction of her philosophical ideas, but an affirmation of her ability to selectively and rationally evaluate a person by their attributes and accomplishments.

Rich, If religion isn't psychosis, then please tell me what it is? So your parents were psychotic when they were Christian Scientists? And you likewise as a child? And everyone in human history who has ever believed in gods or a god is psychotic? And you, currently, in your belief (which looks like a religious belief to me) that Ayn Rand pronounced the gospel truth? How many people on earth AREN'T "psychotic," by your standards? Ellen ___ Practicing Objectivism isn't like practicing religion, because in religion, we are told not to think or question the teachings. We are taught blind faith. Objectivism is not a religion because faith is not involved. We verify the principles for ourselves. That's the difference. Yes, I believe that I was psychotic, or badly misled when I was in Christian Science. But I corrected that aspect of my thinking, and recovered from an otherwise psychotic state of consciousness. People can recover, but they have to be willing to think and learn to reason.

Rich, If religion isn't psychosis, then please tell me what it is?

"Apatheism"... that's nice. Well now there's a movement that proclaims that religion is good for your health and the religious people are healthier than secularists. Cross posted from another forum I frequent:

IN case there is any doubt that I do not understand the horrible tragedy of war on civilians--particularly children, I offer a link to the Japanese film Hotaru no Haka (Grave of the Fireflies). Japan, WWII, just before the end of the war. The lives of Seita, and his little sister, Setsuko, who is but 3 or 4 years old. It's in ten parts: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...p;search=Search

I'll be very interested in your proposed plan to end these states that sponsor terrorism through the re-education of their citizens, however, I will remain skeptical that any such plan can work until a clear line of reasoning can be presented in support of the theory that it could be achieved. A press release at the ARI says it well:

Mark, Very respectfully, I wish you would not attribute things like "treading lightly in war" to me. I didn't write these things and I don't endorse them. If you really need to complain about people who do hold these ideas, I can find some for you. We can start with the LaRouchies. I, Michael, was very clear that I loved the way the USA went in and completely dismantled the military capacity of the governments of two countries in record time. They did not do that "treading lightly" and it was magnificent to behold (as much as things like such destruction can be magnificent). I am against what I perceive to be moral cowardice by ARI supporters of refusing to engage Muslims in intellectual terms, hiding behind some rationalized "moral sanction" of blowing up everything in a hostile country and committing wholesale slaughter when the real issue is irrational fear and collectivist thinking. Let me be clear that I am not accusing you, Mark, of cowardice. Only you know what is in your heart. Like I said, I have a job to do and I intend to do it. I don't know how successful I will be, but I do know that there is a universe of like-minded people out there who are willing to do something and the cause is noble. I am already in contact with some of them. ARI people screaming nuke 'em all do not help because I have to apologize for Objectivist fanatics, just like others are apologizing to me for Islamist fanatics. I will unveil concrete plans in due time. They are taking shape backstage. Michael Michael, It is what I read between the lines of your writing, how the implied meaning comes across--that I am responding to. I look at the overall picture you present, not the concrete examples alone. And it appears that your refusal to accept that fighting war with total commitment to neutralizing the enemy, instead raising so much concern about collateral damage, that you come across as 'treading lightly' in war. In my opinion, that is the position of the appeaser, and the position taken by the US already. We cannot engage Muslims in intellectual terms, because one cannot engage the functionally insane in any intellectual discourse. Religion is a form of psychosis. The very state of mind that enables on to believe in fairies and demons and gods is the state of mind of an insane person. And Muslims in particular, due to the teachings of their Q'uran, are especially militant about their beliefs. That is why I believe that your plan will fail. I wish you good luck with it, but I have reservations about sacrificing even one more American soldier for this cause, when we can end these states by launching missiles instead.

Ah, what a brilliant plan! We shall end terrorism by attacking the enemy with "Weapons of Masturbation"! All said in levity, of course. ;)

Before I make one final comment, I need to express my dismay at the general angle from which some of the posts approach the problem. The solutions presented are likely to be ineffective at best, and terribly costly to America in terms of lives lost and monetary losses. I was also dismayed that Michael deleted my last post. I must have struck a nerve. Well I was about to delete my account here, when I read Laure’s post. She states the facts eloquently and in a manner consistent with what I believe to be correct. Her first paragraph hits squarely dead-center on the issue. Her third paragraph recognizes the need for us to act in the interest of the US, by preserving our soldiers’ lives and by hitting the enemy so hard that they will have no choice but surrender. The forth paragraph illustrates the futility of our current military activity in Iraq. We’re wasting lives—our own soldiers’ lives here. Now if there were only a magical way that we could contain the threat, while re-educating them. Certainly it will not happen with those who are adults and steeped in Islamic idealism. Our only chance is to educate their children. But the whole scenario is impractical. Already, our efforts at ‘nation building’ have turned sour—their elections were a disaster, voting in ‘more of the same’, and there is little change to the fundamentalism. My complaint is with the notion that we should be obligated to tread lightly in our war on terror and protect civilians, when the process of doing so means that instead of turning some keys and pressing some buttons, we now have to commit 150,000 troops, billions of dollars per year of tax money, and spend decades with this ‘nation building’, which may turn out to be an utter and total failure anyway. On the surface, Michael’s desire to tread lightly in war seem noble, but he is turning the situation into the sanction of the victim by forcing the US to sacrifice troops instead of bombs. My stance on this issue is that the US government’s responsibility is ONLY to US citizens. We pay the taxes—not the enemy civilians. Therefore, our government should fight the war in the most efficient manner, with the minium of US lives lost. Fighting a “just” war is inconsistent with responsible government. We’re not in the business of saving other nations from themselves. We’re in business to protect ourselves. Whatever we must do, to that end, is morally-justifiable, so long as it is in defence of US lives and done in the manner that it spares the most US lives. No other lives matter, in this context.

Brant, Your remarks are amusingly juvenile. So much so, that I refuse to grant you a response to this rubbish.

Michael, My responses here are addressing the concepts that you and Barbara are espousing. It is clear to me that by indirectly accusing me of not properly identifying reality, and falling victim to fear manipulation, that I have set up a false alternative by citing that the existence of two diametrical opposites (the thinking and the non-thinking) will result in one prevailing, and finally, that your living among Muslims, if by implied meaning, makes you sagelike in their religion. You have yet to make an argument that is philosophically sound, based on valid epistomology. Instead, you insist that we can somehow educate Muslims to give up their religion of death and cause them to come over to our side of thinking. You evade the fact that Muslims follow their Koran and in that document are 18 separate and distinct commandments to kill the non-believers. I too, have spent time among the Moro Liberation Front in Mindanao, Philippines from Jan-May 2000. But that doesn’t make me an expert on their understanding of religion. For your edification and enlightenment, I shall recite, chapter and verse, some of the passages from the Koran, which incite to violence, the Muslim beleivers: Quran-8:39, And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere (in this earth of Allah). Quran-9:29, Fight those who believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam), even if they are of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Quran-3:85, "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good)." Quran-9:39, Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. [Allah's hatred to those who are reluctant to join Islamic jihad] Quran-9:73, O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed. Quran-8:65: "O Apostle! Rouse the believers to fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred; if a 100, they will vanquish a 1,000 of the unbelievers.." Quran-8:66:"-.if there are a 100 of you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish 200, and if a 1,000 , they will vanquish 2,000 (two thousands) with the leave of Allah-" [This fabulous verse was written in the diary of Muhammad Ata the leader of 9/11 terrorists]. Quran-4:78: "Where ye are, death will find you, even if ye are in Towers, built up strong and tall" (Perhaps Twin towers was meant here?) Quran-2:193, And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression Quran-2:216, Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you Quran-5:33, The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Quran-4:89- "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades (change to other religions), seize them and kill them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-" (Punishment for the apostates). Quran-9:5, But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem. Quran-9:28, O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. (This verse is a glaring example how much hatreds Islam possess against non-Muslims). Quran-8:67-"It is not fitting for an Apostle that he should have prisoners of war until He thoroughly subdued the land-." (Allah insisting Prophet to kill all the prisoners, and should not keep any surrendered prisoners alive) Quran-8:17-It is not ye who Slew them; it is God; when thou threwest a handful of dust, it was not Thy act, but God's-.." (Allah said, the killing of surrendered soldiers were done by the wish of Allah) Quran: 9:23: "O ye who believe! Take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong". [Quran is asking Muslims even to go against their own father and brothers in respect of religious faith] Quran: 3:28: "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah" Quran: 5:45: We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear. Tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." (Does this verse sound humane?) 47:4- "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), strike off their heads; at length; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives": thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens." 9:123: "Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you." 2:191- "Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out." 8:12- Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." [Allah is really most merciful] Quran: 9:111, Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran. In addition, a strong support and explanation to the verse: 9:111 was given by Merciful Allah by the following: Quran-4:74- Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory (i.e. killed or be killed) - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value). Quran-4:95- Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons (sacrifice both life and wealth) than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward. Quran-3:169-: Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; (Here Allah is saying that those jihadi who dies [commit suicide] is not dead but he will be living with Allah). The main themes of Quranic or scriptural instruction are: pursuance by advice, then by intimidation/coercion, then by force (killing, fighting, maiming etc), and in return plenty of heavenly reward from Allah. We can find hundreds of cruel hateful and utterly inhuman verses throughout the Quran. The above Quranic scriptures incited early Muslim Jihadis of 7th century period to kill thousands of non-Muslims and other infidels. You say we should fight ideas with ideas and force with force. But in the case of Islam, the very ideas are the genesis of force. They are non-negotiable. Those people are corrupted beyond repair. They are poisioned. Like those afflicted with a deadly plague, where the sick are quaranteened from the world, and the bodies burned in pits to prevent further spread of disease, these radical Islamicists are a clear and present danger to western civilization. You erroneously accuse me of racism, but what you are blinded by is the sanction of the victim—your belief that there is good in evil and that the USA owes them the benefit of this doubt. That is what you seem to be saying in principle. I am attributing your implied meanings and that is what I’m responding to. It appears that, based on your writings thus far, you would rule out the use of aerial bombing or tactical nuclear weapons to win this war and bring an end to Islamic terrorism. You would cite the reason being that the “innocent” civilians have a right to live. By denying the US the right to use the most efficient means of defending itself, such that it must use a secondary and much ineffective method involving occupation and troop casualties, you are, indirectly, advocating the sanction of the victim here. We are both entitled to our opinions, but I am seriously doubting whether yours is consistent with Objectivism. I guess I made a false assumption, being that you named your forum in the namesake of Objectivism. But what I’ve encountered here are neo-Objectivists and pseudo-Objectivists. It appears that many here are not fully integrated with respect to their understanding of Objectivism. They hold a few key points, but don’t realize that if you grasp some of it, then, because it is a highly-integrated philosophy, you should be able to grasp all of the points covered within Objectivism. There is a peculiar “part-way” adoption of Rand’s ideas, but only selectively and when it suits you here. You have not convinced me that your argument against a swift and thorough elmination of the whole of terrorist nations does not come from Altruistic beliefs. One would have to suspect that there are shades of mysticism underlying your thinking, that would allow you to reach such a conclusion. Nothing I can say would convince you of the properness of a nuclear retaliatory strike against all terrorist nations, particularly, Iran. I can only state my views, for the record. Let the future be my judge.

Barbara, The issue that I think is most important here is avoiding the needless waste of American lives in an unwinnable war. All of the other definitions and discussion were my supporting arguments for why we must fight to win, and that means to fight ruthlessly, without being hampered by futile efforts to protect mosques and so-called “innocent” civilians. Ayn Rand was certainly not lacking in moral courage—she chose the only correct alternative—she left Russia. That is what anyone who uses Reason as his guide would be doing in Iran/Iraq. The fact that Islamics all over the world were silent after 9/11 is testimony to the fact that they were not outraged by the acts of terrorism. Many of these Islamics were not in a position where voicing an opinion would get them executed. Some of them were right here in America. And their silence was deafening. About being human, in contrast with radical Islam, once the mind is under the influence of religion, its thinkig processes have shut down in favor of the automatic response to progammed dogma of their religion. They do not question the Mullahs. They dare not question “Allah”. They don’t question because they are so brainwashed that they have lost any ability to think, if it was ever taught to them at all. Thinking is a skill. It does not come naturally. It has to be taught. Conceptuatl thought is the defining difference between humans and animals. To say that a primative tribe that practices the sacrifice at the stake of one of their own are humans is to confuse anthropology with philosophy. Members of the Homo Sapian species do not automatically gain membership in the class of consciousness called Human. It is a process that one achieves through hard work. Very few people do much in the way of integration, unless they are scientists, or problem-solvers. The rest of us are on autopilot. We get up, we eat breakfast, shower and drive to work every day. These actions do not involve the integration of ideas. They involve memorized action/reaction processes. Even a monkey can be trained to drive a car. That doesn’t make the monkey human. We are tasked with the challenge of facing a choice: to become bogged-down and ineffective as we try to protect certain portions of our enemy’s population, thus requiring a protracted invasion, great loss of American life and astounding cost to the American people in monetary terms, or a decisive victory through the use of tactical nuclear and conventional bombs to paralyze the enemy so completely that they will realize that they are up against “a power even greater than Allah”. Principles are timeless. That principle worked with Japan in 1945. It can work with Iran in 2006. And it can be done without sacrificing American lives. It is not genicide. It is self-defense, and America is justified in such an action. It irritates me to a level that words cannot describe, to see how much Altruism has hampered this nation, turning it into a bunch of apologists for defending itself. This “political correctness” of focusing media attention on Abu Graebe and other irrelevant incidents (not that they were justified—but these prisoners should have been converted to atomic ash by now) depletes our energy and dilutes our efforts to rid the world of this dangerous group of people that cannot be reasoned with. You suggest that there are Muslims like Muhammed Ali, who are peaceful. Show me a peaceful Muslim and I’ll show you a person who does not truly follow his faith. The Koran is very specific and direct about converting all the non-believers to Islam, and killing the ones who won’t convert. All Muslims are charged with this “responsibility”. It’s just that Muslims in other countries have not embraced that religious ideal. They are Muslim in name, but not in faith. This is a war of ideals, with both sides holding non-negotiable positions. There can be no reaching of compromise, no peace, until one side is reduced to ineffectiveness. Since these people are not willing to consider Reason, they are committed to their faith and will remain a threat to all freedom-loving, Reason respecting individuals. When someone that cannot be reasoned with is threatening to murder you and all your family, there is only one rational response: you must kill that person. These radicals are no different than rabid animals, in this regard, and we deal with animals in the only rational way. We don’t try to rehabilitate them. We put them to death. The mistake that the US has made here is to assume that the Muslims can be reasoned with. But they are finding that their efforts at selectively fighting this war against terrorists will come with a heavy price in human life and will not yield the result wanted. You cannot educate fanatics. It is not a racial issue. It is an issue of minds that have been indoctrinated at an early age, with an idealism that cannot be undone. Unless we have a magic “brain broadcast” ray we can aim at them to reprogram all of their minds simultaneously by magic, we will not achieve re-education of these people in any reasonable amount of time and at any reasonable cost to the US. The American people are being forced to bear an unbearable burden and pay a terrible price, just so that we can unsuccessfully demonstrate to the world that we are able to be civil while fighting a war. And we have failed terribly, given the world opinion of the USA now. So in conclusion, appeasement of the enemy and the attempt to save the enemy’s civilian population and re-educate them is an exercise in futility. Worse, we are paying for this foolishness with American lives and eventually the taxpayers will be footing the bill for the entire mess. It is a grave mistake. Rand correctly saw that when need (or victimhood), replaces ability as the highest of societal values ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"), it creates a society in which the needs of some place a moral claim on the lives of others. It is this moral claim in a twisted sort of way, that you advocate when you state that we should not kill civilians in this particular war—that is is better to sacrifice more of our soldiers so that we don’t have to use some sort of mass weapon on the enemy, risking destroying them all. This whole philosophical position sounds suspiciously like what Ayn Rand referred to as “The Sanction of the Victim”. That is why I categorically disagree with your position and Micheal’s on this issue.

In response to the post entitled “Statements from those who knew Ayn Rand from NBI & such”, I have the following observations, as a longtime follower and attendee at Ayn Rand’s lectures throughout the 1960s and 70s in New York City: Post number 8, in reference to Ellen Stuttle’s observations about Miss Rand’s handling of questions and her general attitude toward people asking her those questions is consistent with my own observations. Ayn Rand was indeed a person who radiated power—the power of her mind—like her heroic main characters in her novels, almost as if it were a metaphysical power over everyone in the room. She was also very precise both in her definitions and her choice of words. Words have meaning to Miss Rand. There are no grey areas. All terms are defined. It is clear to me that her thinking is systematic and that she spent decades refining and sharpening her thinking to the point where she valued her cognitive abilities and therefore regarded them as sacrosanct. When she spoke to her audiences, it was her, offering the gift of her philosophy, not her, begging for feedback from the audience. As such, she had no reason to look expectently upon them. They either “got it” or they didn’t (her ideas and concepts). Ellen did however feel that there was no psychological visibility between Ayn and the people on the autograph line. I can tell you from personal experience that this was not always the case. My parents and I often carpooled to these lectures, as it was a 2 hour drive to NYC, and so we were all present for many of them. Hence, I witnessed a profound sense of two-way recognition between Ayn and my parents, when they told her that they loved Ayn Rand and when they finally explained what they meant by love in this context. Miss Rand, in a very rare sense of direct awareness of one of her fans, acknowledged and accepted my parents’ declaration of love for her mind and her works. Perhaps Ellen’s assessment was as it was because the level of intelligence of most of the attendees was pedestrian—and that those people were only there to take her autograph, not to repay her, symbolically, for her efforts. My own encounter with Ayn Rand, at a piano concert given by Allan Blumenthal at Carnegie Hall in New York, was positive and uplifting. I had, up to that point, held an irrational fear of Miss Rand, because I perceived her in the manner that most of the other people mentioned in that thread perceived her, though to a lesser extent. I felt that I had better know my Objectivism perfectly before talking with her. But my encounter with her was in a social situation. We did not discuss philosophy at all. I found her genuinely warm and charming, like a sweet older aunt. There was nothing hard or judgemental about her demeanor. I felt a huge sense of relief, experiencing her as a benevolent being; an event that changed my view of her as a person from that day forward. I’ll now address some of the earlier comments from people who met her: First, I will state that Miss Rand dispenses with friendly formalities. For her, it is fluff, a waste and is immaterial to the discussion at hand. Therefore, she will appear as being blunt, to the point, very direct. There are questions that are valid, relavent and genuine efforts to increase one’s knowledge. And then there are questions that are slanted to insult or otherwise denigrate, in a “clever” way. Finally, there are the just plain dumb questions that only people who either did no read her books, or were asleep or on drugs while reading her books, would ask. That said, I’ll address a few examples: The young man at Yale U in Feb 1960, asked a “loaded” question about her characterization of Kant’s philosophy and whether it was correct. What the hell kind of question is that? The only purpose of such a question is to insult and inflame the person being asked. I am not surprised that she became very angry with him. In my understanding of the situation, he got what he deserved. If the question was not posed out of malice, then the kid was supremely dumb. In regard to Maxfield Parrish’s art, Miss Rand may have been referring to some of his fantasy art, such as “Man in an Apple”, “Land of Make Believe” or “Reluctant Dragon”. If she had seen only these types of paintings, and concluded that this is the extent of the artist’s work, then I can understand her response. Perhaps a more appropriate response would be “of what I’ve seen of his art? Junk. Next question.” With regard to her responses to questions on Phil Donahue’s show, I have just recently watched the archived broadcast, and I saw no instance in which her response was inappropriate, excessively strong, or otherwise monstrous. In all cases, where a rational question was asked, she treated the person asking with similar respect. When a condescending person asked a question intended as a smart alec question, she let them have it, appropriately, but with reserve. I found nothing explosive. She remained calm and methodical about telling such people what her assessment of their values was. You see, when you’re as sharp and clear about something as she is, you have earned your arrogance. She could be a lot more arrogant, in my opinion. She originated Objectivism, and she calls the shots. No one knows it better than she. No doubt, due to the contraversial nature of Objectivism, she has had a lot of heckling and negative audience responses over the years. She has certainly demonstrated that she can handle them with a facile that is nearly as awsome as her philosophical system of values. She could be sweet-tempered, but when the situation demands it, she will defend ideas and denounce those that are the second-handers and those that open their mouths without benefit of brain activity. Many of the stories related in that thread are the accounts of people who see Rand through the filter of their emotions. For many, it is a frightening experience to see Rand get angry, and they feel hurt by that anger, especially if it is directed at them. However, I think they exaggerate the matter. I have been to enough of her lectures to see her attitude toward questions from the audience. Not once have I gotten the impression that her response was out of line. Some questions don’t merit an answer. She is blunt about that and wastes no time moving on, because to address such stupidity further is to steal time away from issues that matter, and we were all paying good money to hear her speak. For her terseness and efficiency, I thank her for giving me full value for my money. With regard to Tibor Machan’s letter requesting Rand to write an article for his student newspaper, he is sadly mistaken about the ethics of the matter. The fact, as presented, is that he expected her to give away her time for free. If he had really understood Ayn Rand, he would have realized that she does not work for free. She is a Capitalist. She would obviously take offense to his badgering her with not one request, but repeated annoying requests for her services for no compensation. That she wrote him back at all was even amazing. He got the response he deserved. Robert Davison second quote, last sentence, certainly sums up my impression of Rand as well as any: “Upon meeting her I knew I stood in the presence of greatness.” In closing, I will state that I hold the position that the naysayers are soft-skinned, oversensitive people who had better develop a tougher skin, or get out of the philosophy business. Both in my own experiences and in the descriptions of the dialog of the experiences of the complainants here, I found nothing unreasonable about Rand’s responses. If bluntness and unabashed honesty are negative traits, then I guess the world is upside-down.

Michael, It seems that you are throwing definitions from Objectivism in front of me, as if to validate the unrelated concept you are going to throw at me next, specifically, citing a principle of epistemology and then arguing a mishmash of enemy appeasement/respect thy enemy rhetoric. You even throw another assumption about my “fear” and the new media “manipulating” that fear, which is completely a fantasy within your mind. I have no fear of Islam or the situation going on in Iraq because these people are savages and should be dealt with in the same manner. The only fear I have is that our own government suffers from the same self-destructive thinking that you espouse in this thread. We are war with a philosophical idealism. It is not a negotiable matter, as would be the case with a territorial dispute, or a resources dispute. It is a clash of cultures and ideas. Islam’s philosophical ideal is the annihilation of all non-Islamic culture. It is non-negotiable. The US’s ideal is freedom (well, historically, from it’s inception anyway). The US position is also non-negotiable. The two adversaries cannot negotiate, therefore one of them has to be eliminated. If we don’t eliminate Islam, they will eliminate us. The logical answer is very simple. Even my wife, a Catholic from the Philippines, recognizes this, as she has had first-hand experience with the terrorism in her country. As for the discussion of human life, the lives of Iraqi civilians and the lives of American soldiers, there are several statements that need to be made: First, defining terms. Ayn Rand’s definition of Human is, and I’ll paraphrase to the best of my geriatric recollection: A rational being, capable of using Reason and Logic to integrate information, received by his five senses, into new abstractions. Now look at the Islamics: They follow faith and religion, or ‘faith and force’ as Ayn Rand would say it. Their minds are shut down by their refusal to think. Since thinking is a requesite characteristic of the human definition, these people are not human. Therefore, taking that definition and applying it as a qualifier to the war, who are the humans there? Are we really weighing human lives against human lives? If the Iraqi suicide bombers are not humans, then they must be non-humans, or savages. In which case we are weighing the lives of human (for the most part) American soldiers against the lives of savages—more importantly—enemy savages, bent on the destruction of western civilization and ideals. The two cannot be compared, and the answer as to whose lives are worth more is self-evident. Now that we have an understanding of the value of lives of the enemy vs. live of our soldiers, the answer to whether one US solder is worth 1,000 Iraqi civilians becomes easier to answer. It is self-evident. We must also address whether those Iraqi civilians are truly innocent. If they do not leave their contry, or beg us to destroy their government’s evil regime, or do it themselves, then they must support it by default. In the rules of argument, silence is regarded as consent. Therefore, under those criteria, the Iraqi consenting to their form of government. They are not innocent bystanders in this war. In fact, many of them act in direct complicity to shelter, aid and finance the whole terrorist network. Far from innocent. Just because they don’t all have machine guns in their hands does not make them innocent. Their implicit support of their government is enough to demonstrate that they are no friend of the US. There is nothing further to understand about Islamic religion than the most important matter of its directive to overtake the world and destroy western civilization. We do not owe any further credibility to a philosophical school of thought based on mysticm. You deny with words that you are advocating appeasement of the enemy, but with the concepts you expound upon, you are demonstrating the contradiction of your own words, because the minute you place the value of an Iraqi citizen above the value of an American soldier, you have fallen into the same trap that Bush & Co. have fallen into—you are appeasing the enemy. The moment you choose NOT to bomb a mosque, or to not fire on the “human shields” that are surrounding a terrorist hideout, you are engaging in appeasement of the enemy. I think the only person who has expressed a view that is even moderately close to that of Objectivism is Roger. The rest have assumed the same position that the religionists have—Altruism. Altruism on the battlefield is suicide. You are correct that this is not a war. We have forgotten how to fight a war. This is a travesty, a pathetic “show” for the public, to make them feel good that the government is “doing something” about the terrorists. It is as much a failure as that other atrocity, the Viet Nam War. We are fighting ideas with force because these particular ideas are the root of force and in this case, the ideas are the call to use force against us. The ideas we are fighting are tantamount to the embodiment of force, and if ever there was a better example of ideas equaling force, this is certainly it. This is not an intellectual battle. It is very real, and the terrorists have demonstrated that they will stop at nothing, until they destroy western civilization. If you made this argument to Ayn Rand that you made to me here, she would have most likely become very angry and told you that you have not understood Objectivist ethics and that your argument was full of floating abstractions and inuendo. I think you have spent too much time in Brazil, getting in touch with your Altruistic side. You have revealed many mixed premises in regard to this issue.

I have to say that I've been reading this thread off and on for the past week, and I find the position taken by the majority of the contributors here to be quite disturbing. My understanding is that we are at war with an enemy who wants nothing but the total annihilation of all non-Islamic populations of the world. We are at war. The purpose of war is to kill the enemy. The purpose of the American government is to protect US citizens from foreign attack. We are not in the business of protecting "innocent" Iraqis. Certainly, it is regrettable if citizens who do not support their government's position are injured as collateral damage, but if they lack the moral courage to band together and overthrow their government, then they, through paying their taxes to that government, are supporters of that government, and thus, by that logic, become part of "the enemy". I would be in favor of the best way to neutralize the enemy with the least amount of civilian casualties, however, from what I've seen so far, the failure to use more automated means of neutralizing the enemy has resulted in the senseless MURDERS of thousands of American troops. Troops who were wasted on a war that cannot be won by ground troops. This is a war of ideals. Unfortunately, we cannot convert these people to our way of thinking without SACRIFICING a lot of American soldiers in the process. That even one soldier dies to save an Iraqi life instead of an American is altruistic; it is a sacrifice. Objectivists, if you really are such, you will remember what Ayn Rand stated about her definition of Altruism and sacrifice: it is the giving up of a value for a non-value. That is what we are doing all over Iraq. The purpose of fighting a war is to WIN. But America is not fighting a war. It is committing national suicide, staging a mass sacrifice of soldier's lives in the name of appeasement of the enemy, while holding the enemy's civilians as a higher value than the American citizens who, every day, affirm their love of country through their service in the military as this nation's defenders. To those who would suggest that there is any way to fight this war in a 'civil' manner, I submit respectfully that you do not understand the ideals of Islamic faith. The Koran is peppered with example after example of calls to "kill the infidels" and to spread Islam as the ONLY faith on earth. They won't stop until they've succeeded--or until we have annihilated them. And if we fail at that task, they will annihilate us. These are radical fundamentalists who cannot be reasoned with. A being that cannot be reasoned with is existentially no different than a rabid animal. What's worse, is that these Islamics are rabid animals with bombs and guns and they have an agenda to kill all of us, if they can't sink our world to their level of depravity. There is a difference between Hitler exterminating the Jews and America stamping out Islam. The Jews weren't going around with bombs strapped to their bodies and blowing up shopping malls. Hitler was paranoid and racist. His purpose was not defense of Germany, but the annihilation of a race that he believed were 'unpure". Contrast that with Islamic radicals: the Islamics are NOT harmless--they not only intend to kill us all, but they have accomplished far more along this agenda than any other radical group, and have full intentions of finishing off western civilization, either through conversion or annihilation. It is absurd to even compare the two situations! The more I read this kind of appeasing words, the more I start to doubt whether the writers are really Objectivists at all, or whether they have understood Objectivist principles. I am rather disappointed in the Egalitarian stance taken by many on this thread.

Barbara, Thank you for taking the time to comment on my situation. I value your opinion, since you are one of few definative authorities on the subject of psychology that I respect and trust. That said, I have some reservations about using any form of medications. My mother was in that situation, right after Ayn Rand’s death. She sank into such a hopeless state, that she was sent to several hospitals, which chose to administer a plethora of drugs. Her condition turned from distraught, to being a vegetable. I’ve seen what the mental health industry does to too many people. My friend’s mother. My neighbor’s sister. Various people who are past middle age, and mentally burned out and then medicated until they become little more than plyable vegetables. I have had countless examples of what standard clinics and hospitals do. They don’t really want to solve the problems at the root cause. They want to treat symptoms. I’m sure that you are aware that the pharamaceutical industry puts considerable pressure on doctors to prescribe medications—because that’s a major channel of revenue for them. They hold profit above the patient’s well-being and that’s not a good thing for the person under treatment. I live in a relatively rural area, but it is fairly expensive now (wasn’t that way when we came here in 1966, but things have drastically changed) hence we don’t have a lot of services for low income people. I’m within driving distance of New York City, and was thinking along the lines of Dr. Blumenthal, as he’d seen me in 1971. While I suspect my inability to focus and succeed at a large goal is related to premises, it is quite possible that part of the problem is an imability to commit (and thus limit myself) to one career goal all my life. I actually did so, early in life, where I went to school to learn electronics and pursued a career in that field for a long time before realizing that there was no money in it and no satisfaction in the work itself. But more importantly, I think I have a severe inability to concentrate, to focus on something for more than a few minutes at a time. Another thing that contributes greatly to my current state of growing unhappiness is the pressure from the government. I would be fairly happy if this government just left us alone, but they want money which I do not have. My engineering business posted a NET LOSS for 2005 of roughly $3000. We literally lived off my wife’s tax return this year, using much of that money to do some serious structural repairs to the roof of our house (not a contractor—they wanted $170,000 to repair the whole thing—so I am doing the work myself over an 8-year span of time) which had partially collapsed in three rooms on the leeward side, due to water rot and carpenter ant damage. No contractor would touch the job, so I have been spending six months of the past 3 years doing this work, slowly, myself. I looked into selling the house last year, and could not find a realtor that would even list it in its current condition. I cannot describe the condition of the house and grounds in a public forum, but I could do it in a PM, if anyone is that interested. At any rate, my pain is constantly coming from one source: the government. So that pain is forcing me to find ways to bring in an income like that of my neighbors. Geez, everyone around here earns $150,000 or more per year. I own my home free and clear. It was self-built from reclaimed barn lumber, brought up here via countless trips on the back of a 1948 Dodge pickup truck. It was literally pioneering. When we moved in, there was no electric wiring in the building, no plumbing and no well or septic. For the first three years, I was “roughing it”, but the freedom from paying apartment rent every month was worth it, and slowly the basic necessities got installed. But then came the 1980s and an inflationary spiral that caused a 20,000% increase in property taxes, to where I am today. But I love this place. It is home. And I have seniority here and an implied right to continue in my eccentric habits, even if the effects of said habits do extend way beyond the boundaries of my property. I would not give that up. My parents had Objectivism pretty well under their belts, but their failing health certainly underscored what you are saying above about philosophy not being a solution for bad health. I agree, but I also feel that I should be able to do more with correcting what I deem to be false premises in the subconscious mind. I just don’t trust drugs because I have never seen a case personally in which they helped. In all three cases of people I know closely, they were harmed irreparably by psychotropic drugs administered by mental hospitals. Now with winter coming on, I am stuck indoors and my activity level is way down from what it was during the summer. At least then, I was on top of the roof every day, lifting, nailing, tearing things apart, etc. I was conquering terrible cancers of the house, exfoliating them and rebuilding anew, section by section. It wasn’t the ideal physical exercise, but it was better than what I’m doing now. No matter how much I begged my wife to join me for daily walks, she refused, so I never did them myself as I hate to go out alone. So I know the lack of activity is adding to the problems. A good physical fitness program would certainly help quite a bit, but it’s just another piece of the integrated solution. I have an increasingly strong conviction that I have either a bizarre desire to fail, or a fear of success. I think that I give up too easily. Also, since I have been unable to find a career area that I am truly happy in, I am unfulfilled in that area. So I can sum up some of my hypothesis as follows: 1. Inability to focus. 2. Difficulty maintaining positive mental attitude when results aren’t forthcoming after a lengthy and sincere effort. 3. Oversleeping; lack of desire to live in the real world, preferring the world of dreams over reality. 4. Goals that may be incompatible with means. 5. Sluggish mental processes; inability to think in realtime, inability to be creative in problem-solving. 6. Lack of self-esteem, lifelong cheater, second-hander (and what’s worse, knowing Objectivism and STILL remaining this way [i can picture Miss Rand chuckling at me now]). 7. Possibility of some subconscious evasions to facilitate wants and desires unearned. So you can see that from an Objectivist standpoint, I’m really a pretty evil person. However, I have suffered to the point where I want to understand what makes me tick and get on the path to change. I think I got this way by unconscious choices, not brain chemical imbalances. Genetics may play a role, but since there is no hard scientific evidence to support this assertion, I’ll set it aside for now. All I know is that right now, it is becoming more difficult to set goals and to focus on those goals. I don’t really even know what sort of goals I should set. I continuously fail to meet the goal of “will get up in the morning” on a daily basis, so I have much doubt that anything more lofty will be met with success. Perhaps the biggest lack I have is passion. Somewhere in the 1980s, I lost it. That fire, that strong desire to reach goals, no matter how difficult, because I had a force that drove me. I don’t feel that force anymore. Haven’t felt it since the 1970s. Which brings to mind what my late father once said to me: “Spiritually dead and an enemy of God.” Sometimes I think the first half of that statement applies to me. Whatever the case, I seem to lack the will or the desire to give it my “all” now. Uncertainty as to what path to take may be the reason. Finding that path may be the solution. Hmmmm…. this discussion and the act of writing all this out is forcing me to slow down and analyze thoughts step by step. Interesting… Well this is what I believe now. What do you make of it?

I hear what you're saying about entropy. To some degree, action helps, but whent that action is repeatedly 'rewarded' with failure, it becomes almost impossible to keep doing that action, even though it has been repeated 100,000 times around the country by other successful people. I have developed a theory that what we label laziness is a behavior pattern that arises in people with very low energy levels. Maybe they might be anemic, or have diabetes, or some other less easily diagnosed condition that leaves them feeling tired and less outgoing. One way to test this theory would be to administer a narcotic like speed, to give the person a temporary huge energy boost, then see how he handles tasks. If his behavior changes to ambitious and hard-working, then that tends to bear out the theory. If not, then there is another cause. "Inertia" is a big problem in some cases. Reluctant to go to bed, nearly unable to wake up, even to an alarm clock. (Although an effective countermeasure is wife applying hot frying pan to side of husband's face while he's still sleeping.) Inertia may be the fear of letting go of each day. It may be the sense that at night, no one, not even the police, sheriff or tax collection agencies will bother him. He feels safe in the tranquility of night. But when he does go to sleep, he is lost in a world he no longer knows how to control--it is like a drug-induced sleep--impossible, or nearly impossible to voluntarily wake out of. Such a condition may have caused loss of job and inability to be employed. Diet becomes worse because many times these people turn to food for comfort. The cakes, the cookies, the alcohol--all become part of the "band-aid" that enables the person to bear another day. Well, it's true that I've known some people who put on an obvious mask, but I've known Joe for five months now, and this is really his natural state. He loves the business. In fact, when he was still with his old job, 11 years ago, he found sitting down with a family and helping them with their financial needs to be theraputic and relaxing. His work with Primerica became his pleasure and source of good feelings. I believe him now, after months of consistency and sincerity. I can see that he lives that way--if it were an act, people would see through it and he would not have achieved the success that only a person genuinely interested in helping other people enjoys. But I have a hunch he had those qualities most of his life. And he works out in his downstairs gym (his basement looks like a Club Med, with every conceivable exercising machine known to man) every morning. He says that he doesn't like to start, but about halfway through, he feels that good feeling and it stays with him the rest of the day, so that's what motivates him to get through the first ten minutes of exercise each morning. I thought that it was not such a deep problem for a while, at least as far as my own personal challenges go, but I too find that actions ring hollow when not met with reward. I had another reminder of my long string of failures when after I blew through the three lifelong friends that I have, found myself working the cold market, doing about 40-45 cold calls a day. After hundreds of calls, I still had zero results. I began to sink into a less happy state, as I saw my hope with this company melting away. Why is it the rest of the people in my office are setting appointments ang getting people to come to the career overviews, as well as replacing life insurance, writing loans and doing securities transactions, and yet I am still working the phones and have not had even one person actually follow through on their indication of interest? As enthusiastic as I am about the opportunity, my positive attitude becomes dampened after a couple hundred unsuccessful phonecalls. I began to think that the problem has to be something in me, something about my tone of voice, or my presentation, even though my talking points are approved by the company. Either that or my credibility is so poor that no one believes me. I literally had to take a hiatus, because I developed chest pains so bad that I thought I was having a heart attack last week. Now I'm 'regrouping' and trying to switch gears in my strategy. I've studied hard, gotten my insurance and mortgage licenses, and I am invested in this career now, especially since my radio engineering business imploded earlier this year and I am too old to be eligable for regular employment, nor am I the type of person who would be a good employee. Once you're too old to insure, companies don't want you anyway. My solution lies somewhere else, but I've been searching in the many years since I retired from the corporate employment world, but have yet to find something that fits. I had a brief taste of success as a graphic designer, when, in 1995, a company that administered on-demand coupon printing kiosks contracted me to design the faceplate adverts for various products. They had a staff of 3-4 people, cranking out about 10-12 faceplates a day. I, working at home on a custom workstation of my own design, was able to crank out ten a day, by myself. The client liked my work and the speed with which I worked, the money was rolling in and life was good... until one day the checks stopped, but they continued giving me assignments. The stoppage was explained as a brief glitch in accounting, but two weeks later, I learned that the company was insolvent and had fallen into Chapter 7, with debts in excess of their assets. As such, the biggest creditors were first in line and I was last, so I was out $6400 for three weeks' work. I had not fallen into such luck again since then. Right now, I'm in regrouping mode and with Primerica as my only real hope of a better than subsistence lifestyle. The alternative is to apply for a job as a greeter at Wal-Mart. They hire old people for these tasks. Other industries with real jobs requiring degrees and real skills, want young, low-insurance-premium, and moldable people who aren't at an age where they are set in their ways, or a burden on the medical insurance plan. In fact, I sensed that implicitly in 1985, when, upon recovering from my first stroke, I attempted to go back into the workforce out of desparate need for money. I was never happy or fulfilled working for the monolithic employer. I never enjoyed being an underpaid, expendible pawn in someone else's chess game, where all the spoils go to someone other than myself. I gave away many good decades of my life, foolishly believing that the corporate world would take care of me. Boy, was I wrong. Now I realize that I should have struck out on my own while I was young and had the drive to succeed. The reason I want to explore core premises is because I think the roadmap of a person's life can be found there. I strongly believe that unless I can identify specific premises, invalidate the ones that are contradictory and affirm the ones that are correct, then perhaps it will be like a huge prison being lifted from my mind.

Oh man, I'm falling in love again! Thank you for posting these links!! I missed this episode because I was at work when it aired. This was beautiful. :yes:

I have a hunch that "laziness" plays a role in this, but I think that laziness may have two possible causes: Bad premises Underlying health problem--lack of energy. I have noticed that high achievers are people who seem to have limitless energy. For instance, the RVP of our Primerica base shop--he's practically bouncing off the ceiling every Saturday morning with enthusiasm and excitement, so much so that one would feel tempted to put some chains on his angles to keep him from flying through the ceiling. Well I suppose if I were earning $68,000/month in personal income the way he does, maybe I would be that ebuliant too. But what about people who sleep 16 hours a day and have no desire to get up in the morning, and for those that have to, who find that one act of getting up to be the most painful experience of the day? My relative in Florida, now a successful real estate tycoon, used to work in a mental hospital some 30 years ago. He once told me that mental patients sleep a lot and you have to get them out of bed. That always stuck with me. If one is sleeping more than ____ hours a day, is he/she mentally ill? Sense of impending doom comes when one recognizes that the path one is on will lead to great harm to their physical being, either by homelessness or a clash with law enforcement over some tax issue. Usually folks who don't live in the moment, but are constantly worrying about the future seem to be aware of the sense of doom, because intellectually they know they are on the wrong path, but emotionally they cannot be convinced to do anything about it. One of the problems with making steps toward getting above that doom scenario is one of lack of faith, or the belief, with courage, to act on that belief to effect a change in their life. They don't see the connection between certain concrete steps on the ladder to success and success, maybe because the lowest steps are so far removed from their perceived goal that they don't believe that taking that step will make any difference. But I think there is only so much you can do with positive self-talk--the real change has to come from core premises. If those are missing or incorrect, one will always have a contradiction, and having a contradiction is like having two motors--both working against eachother--so it's almost impossible for any useful accomplishment to take place. This is a deep issue. Gawd I wish Dr. Allan Blumenthal were on the forum!

There are people in the world that just know how to succeed—and then do it. Then there are people in the world who fail repeatedly, until their time runs out. The first type of person just seems to naturally know what needs to be done. That person goes to school, focuses hard, is goal-oriented and embraces change. Such a person moves out after college, finds a mate, finds an apartment and continues to work as a team toward common goals that are well-defined. For them, the future is clear and they seem to have no trouble working toward their goals. They develop good careers, make a lot of money, buy their dream home, raise good kids and life is pretty good. These are the “winners.” The second type of person seems to be a dreamer. They dabble in a lot of different things but cannot seem to focus on any one area of interest. They are marginal performers both in school and later in career. They often hold meaningless, dead-end jobs with subsistence wages. The work not because they want to but because society demands it of them. Often, their romantic life involves prostitutes, or solitude, depending on how wreckless they chose to be. They often live with their parents right up to middle age. I had known one overweight gentleman who was fifty and died shortly beyond that age—living with his parents. (The diner by the railroad tracks is a great attractor of people of this second category.) They seldom ever marry, as they seldom ever date, and all of those may have been arranged by a third party. They reach middle age and are still struggling at minimum wage jobs, or dare to “wrest heaven by force” by quitting and starting their own business without any education or knowledge of how to run a business. They fail again and again and seem to learn nothing from each failure, repeating the same mistakes over and over again. They often die far sooner than their years suggest, but look far older than their age. These are the “losers.” My background in Objectivism suggests that the difference between these two types of people is based in philosophical premises. But peeling away the layers of thinking, from the everyday noise of daily matters, to the early childhood core premises that determine our course in life is a task that, although not impossible, is next to impossible to accomplish without a brilliant technician, called a biocentric psychologist, to put a persons mind into ‘diagnostic mode’ and properly analyze the data coming out of that analytical process. For the lifelong failure, it seems not to matter how many self-help books one reads. Each book provides a brief ‘feel good’ period, but the deep-rooted cause of failure is not exposed and certainly not invalidated, and the person soon reverts to his failing behavior when he finds that the motions of “positive” behavior he attempted to emulate as described in the books did not work for him. With each disappointment, this individual lapses into a profoundly deeper depression, reinforcing his belief that happiness is unattainable, that “some people have the luck” and that he is a victim of his circumstances. As Objectivists can understand, persons with serious emotional problems, who amount to nothing throughout their entire lives, have core premises that are wrong. They may have many ‘mixed premises’ and are suffering on a subconscious level because they maintain so many contradictions that it fatigues the subconscious mind tremendously. For the person who lacks the skills to analyze and expose these mysterious core premises, there is no brighter future. Every action taken, in a blind and random search for truth and in the hope of making a change for the better, is met with the same dismal failure, and the person sinks further into hopelessness. This is a vicious cycle, because depression leads to undesireable changes in body chemistry, leading to health problems, and it also reinforces negative behavior. A person might consume alcohol to act as a “band aid” for the problem, to gain some relief from the conscious pain of existence in the midst of the results of a lifelong contradiction, but this person can never escape the core problem, as nothing has been done to excavate the premise, analyze it and invalidate it. For such people, it can almost be said that they possess a devil within their soul: the devil being a series of bad premises, probably formed when they were 3, 4 or 5 years old, which are so deeply repressed that they cannot consciously recall exactly how they came to be the way they are. All they know is that they hurt. They suffer daily. They were miserable in school, and they continue to be miserable at their jobs. Often you can recognize their faces: the faces of the “desparately unhappy”—faces that have that look of a person who’s been beaten into submission a long time ago, the eyes downward-cast, the flesh sagging, the corners of the mouth turned down, the deadpan look in their eyes, the eyes like that of a corpse that doesn’t realize that he is a corpse. Some of them go to psychologists. Some see psychiatrists and end up as junkies. Some turn to illicit narcotics for relief. Whatever the action, it is usually a method of evading the core problem, seeking some form of temporary relief. In the most severe cases, some turn to the ultimate relief: suicide. The goal of this writing is to discover how to regressively analyze the human mind, to get through all the layers of irrational behavior, the bad experiences that were not taken well, the daily matters that take the majority of one’s conscious energy, and to get to the primary core premises—many of which had to have been formed at a very early age—to identify these core premises, analyze them, discover why they are invalid, and to logically destroy them so completely that the person will have an epiphany that will change his life from that day forward. Barbara Branden described this sort of incident on a narrow spectrum, on her website, with regard to smoking. She talked about how a single book she’d read had so completely changed her thinking, that her desire to smoke turned to sickening repulsion at the very thought of taking another puff. That is the kind of epiphany that needs to happen on a wider, life-changing scale, for the person who suffers chronic failure in every avenue of life, from social interaction with other children, through school, and through the career years. While one can read many books, the books must be compatible with one’s beliefs, else the reader’s mind will effectively filter out, or outright reject, the ideas that the reader is seeking. Sometimes the meaning of words is lost on the reader, which is why the guidance of a skilled psychotherapist are so essential in salvaging these “basket cases” where the mind is so lacking in efficacy that it doesn’t trust its own ability to interpret words on a page. Sometimes just talking with people who have had their “epiphany” can provide a sliver of insight into the problem. But I suspect that solving such a deep-rooted problem is best approached in an interactive session, in which the psychotherapist can immediately “read” the patient’s moods in response to individual questions and adjust his troubleshooting strategy accordingly. For those of us who cannot afford a leading biocentriic psychotherapist, we are left with making this discovery on our own, or not, in which case, the failure to discover the cause of their failure, leads to ultimate failure. Therefore, it is the goal of this writing, to accumulate the knowledge from those who have learned this special skill for themselves and to digest it in such a manner that it will be useful to those who share the daily and growing “sense of impending doom.” I would greatly appreciate it if those with knowledge on how to unravel the mysteries of the unconscious mind will contribute to this thread. Thank you.

Good grief! Those cats are crazy! I've had several cats before, and none of them acted that wild. I guess there are Madonnas even in the animal world. Thanks for the laughs. My daughter and I watched them.

Sorry. I was referring to an adult human, skipping the child growth stage. I meant a viable adult, capable of self-sustained life. The connection to this was the notion that people who thank God for abundance usually hold the corollary belief that man's labor belongs to all mankind (Socialism). Perhaps that connection is a bit tenuous, but there is my attempt. Now as for feeling gratitude toward diety and producers, I have never gotten that impression from the people who thank God for abundance. They're attitude is exclusive about this matter: one cannot have abundance without God. Therefore, I extrapolate that man's production means nothing without God. Therefore, thanking God is a condition where those who do so, deem that man's productivity is conditional, because only God makes that productivity possible. And there in lies the slap in the face of the rational producer. Does that argument make sense?

My thanks to you and Rich for your kind thoughts above. I have been thinking about the meaning of greatly extended lifespans under the influence of Ray Kurzweil's book "The Singularity is Near", which I read earlier this year. I think Kurzweil may be wildly optimistic to talk of the capacity for a limitless life span being achievable for baby boomers, but this man is certainly a respected scientist and not some nutcase, so I think it is possible that greater advances in longevity are on the horizon than we would have thought reasonable to contemplate a decade ot two ago. However, it is the quality of life that I find much more interesting than its length. What Ray is doing is probably quite possible, from a purely scientific standpoint, but when I passed around an article this week about his work in this field, it was met with a lot of Socialist jealousy. Therefore, I am reminded that politics will ruin this chance, because it increases the vast gulf between the haves and the have-nots. That would be a shame, but in the government's tradition for egalitarianism, it would be regulated out of existence, put on trial and burned by the religious right-wing, and left out to pasture, like some abandoned junk car. In short, eternal life would scare the bezeesus out of the Social Security Administration. And then there are the people that have no clue where all the population would fit, if not in the ground or in crematoriums. I have to admit that I don't hold much hope for this coming to pass in our current political climate. But it would be nice. Certainly if it does happen, it will be available only to the very wealthiest people for some time. And it may stop there due to political pressure. Getting old is not fun. I first started noticing my age when WWII vets started conversing with me at the barber shop like I was one of them. But it's how I feel that reminds me every day could be my last. I repeatedly make promises to myself that I will start some small exercise regime, and I keep forgetting to carry out the plan. Forgetting has lately become a major aspect of my day to day existence. It brings to mind the later scenes in 2001: A Space Oddyssey where HAL 9000 is being disconnected and he's stating "I feel my mind going... Dave.... I can feel it..." Today, it has new meaning for me, that phrase, when I go into the kitchen to do something and when I arrive there, I forgot why I entered in the first place. The scary part is that whatever diminishing of mental ability I am aware of, it seems to be accelarating at a disconcerting rate. Losing one's mental faculty has got to be one of the worst states of existance. I'm constantly on the lookout for vitamin supplements that will enhance brain function and also for treatments that slow the effects of age-specific brain degeneration. Hopefully Ray Kurzweil's nanobot technology will address brain issues and soon. Although it may already be too late for some of us....