Extropy

I recently, amost on a whim after reading more about the minefields left in the Falkland Islands, wrote an open letter to the Falkland Islanders directed to the Government House as I had no private contacts there at the time. To my surprise it was recently published on August 8 2014 in the "Penguin News". It's not much but it constitutes a political statement against Nationalism. I think there is one typo corrected but otherwise the printed edition linked is verbatim: Dear Representatives of the British Subjects of the Falkland Islands, Dear people of the Falkland Islands, I am citizen of the Argentine Republic and I outright sympathise with the British and indeed Falkland Islander position on the supposed "conflict". Not only was I raised this way but I have always thought the matter as a simple case of sense of justice: individuals should not be forced in general; but also in particular they should not be coerced to live under a foreign and particularly undesirable government! Firstly I would like to apologise in the name of all reasonably-minded Argentines for the continued, sustained, relentless harassment that our government is every year inflicting on your individual sovereignty, and by that I obviously mean on the individual rights of every islander who would like to remain British unmolested. The fact that these literally outlandish claims are backed by the United Nations and a sizeable portion of the Argentine population only makes the situation more despicable. I do hope you don't take Argentine claims seriously, despite what has happened in the past. Then I'd like to thank the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, the British Government, and especially the late Baroness Thatcher for her determination and the soldiers who shed their blood for a just cause that incidentally allowed me to be born under a democratic government. For it was the folly of the war and the prompt British reaction that contributed greatly to the stepping down of the Fascistic dictatorial military junta that controlled, and bled Argentina at that time. How a country that had temporarily suspended habeas corpus deemed it morally justifiable to invade a portion of the country that invented the concept of habeas corpus is beyond rational or even humane understanding. It was indeed an affront to human dignity. Finally I would like to offer the concept that reparations are due. The invasion was utterly unjustified and obviously unprovoked, and many Argentines know this. The invasion left the Falklands, once one of the most peaceful territories on Earth, tainted by minefields. This constitutes an ongoing imposition from the Argentine Government upon the Islands, as you now have pieces of land locked to development or whatever use you would want to give them. It might not be good diplomacy to demand reparations, I know for a fact that the United Kingdom seeks good relations with Argentina to a fault, but my sense of fairness tells me that the Argentine taxpayer should be fiscally responsible for the however costly removal of all land mines and unexploded shells left during those disgraceful months in 1982. I have to pay a 21% VAT each time I purchase any product or service and I am certain that the money is not being responsible spent. If at least some of that capital went to help repair a historic injustice I would be more than glad to pay for it, and so would many Argentines, perhaps more than you would imagine (as we can't be to vocal about our stance given the mob mentality that pervades Argentina). I would like to leave you with just one curious note: Most of the Earth's landmass had been already inhabited by humans before the Age of Discovery. Most but not all: the Falkland Islands are such an exception. Unlike Argentina; which had a native american population that was invaded and colonised by the Incans, Spaniards, and then internally by the Argentine Federal Government and European settlers; the Falkland Islands had never been reached, even less settled, by any population group before various Western Europeans sighted them and the British settled them. If there was one territory on Earth that posed no question whatsoever as of who are the original, "native", population that would be the Falkland Islands. This letter is written to all Falkland Islanders and I give permission to reproduce it entirely or partially in any either governmental or private English language publication. Most kind regards from your neighbour to the West,(my signature below)

Is it better for me to help him out of trouble? or allow him to discover, the hard way, that he might need to change some of his ways by himself?

Back to the 18th and early 19th century. In some parts of the World, the Illuminati, or rather Illuminism, is not considered a secret or a conspiracy, but just the Continental manifestation of the ideas of freedom and secularism that constituted the consequence of humanism. In Argentina, it is taught in primary school about the city block in the historical district called "of the lights" (illuminated) in reference to the intellectuals that gathered there and who would promote the Independence Revolution from Spain. Today (yesterday to be technical) was the anniversary of the death of General San Martin, the Bolivar of Southern South America (and Peru), the Libertador. It is not taught in primary school, only in secondary school, but it is no secret that he is openly considered a British-influenced Freemason by traditional history, not even revisionists. Most educated people know and are in good terms with the fact that the destruction of the Spanish Empire (and the settling of its frontiers, namely Argentina, Chile, Uruguay by these same people's ancestors) was brought about by the British through some sort of organization or another. Rotary clubs have always existed in different ways, and back in the Middle ages Guilds were common, so there must have been something in history and level of secrecy in between, I suppose.

Hello I'm afraid I just recently realized how much I could have profited from this community in the past. Spilled milk, I'll begin contributing soon, and now I'll share a situation I'm experiencing. As you might have read in my Introduction, I live (still..) in Argentina. Not many Objectivists here, but some, definitely not many "Passionate" Objectivists. I have to admit I used to be one. Without giving too many details: I've met a (very) young and bright man on another similar site who expressed interest in migrating to Argentina to make a life and indeed an empire for himmself and escape a vicious cycle in his home country. He had just begun re-reading Ayn Rand's major works and a lot of Peikoff's works too. To my surprise (and against my advice of chosing some other more promising country) he indeed promptly migrated to Francisco's fatherland, or rather, to the city of Buenos Aires and I got to meet him well. I don't like to use the word infatuated but I can't find a proper euphemism either to describe his current mindset in relation to the philosophy of Ayn Rand as strictly (perhaps narrowly) presented by the the ARI. I do hope you recognize this sort of behaviour and mindset and that it requires no further explanation. In different degrees, most of "us" have been there at some point. And it is indeed the collective "us" that worries me. I have heped him settle as best as I could and spend quiet a lot of time with him. He however makes no apparent effort to meet "non Objectivists" as if the Objectivist /non-Objectivist language barrier was more of a problem than the English /Spanish language barrier. He talks in a literal manner and though I'm sure he understands, he only responds to the literal words of a phrase, dissecting them, never (apparently) getting the gist of it. This proves a very real problem when trying to explain the quotidian pedestrian realities of dealing with non Objectivist humans in the city he choses to live in. He has helped me a lot in some aspects of my life that I had basically ignored or overlooked (I can explain further if necessary) but the point is that he gives me value in return and indeed a lot of hope as he sees a bright future in South America and we share some very particular interests. So we do trade value for value / up to a point. Part of the reason I was at a time so intensely attracted to Ayn Rand, is because growing up I could not put limits to Altruism. To this day I can not say NO so easily to friends and family. I rely on "social constructs" such as manners, and on implicit or tacit understandings to communicate to my friends (who understand perfectly) that I am either busy or require my daily time of solitude. I am now learning to say to this new friend: enough for today, see you some other time, good bye now, go, yes I do mean it, I don't want to be rude, but you don't care about rudeness or politeness anyway! It is not in my nature to talk that way, but I have begun feeling drained. I want to be kind to him. He is indeed very warm and helpful to me, and I see a future business or intellectual relation possible. And most of all I admire him immensely for his courage and determination. But how do you differentiate kindness from altruism? Not differentiate as one involves the trading of values and the other the sacrifice of them, but where do you put the limit when both become a continuum rather than a contrasting juxtaposition? I also notice his almost extreme dogmatism (for instance he would pay for and consume a lot of ARI published material, but refuses to give a complete paragraph of Branden (or Rothbard) a chance for the sake of sheer intellectual curiosity! It borders on idolatry.This would not represent a problem except that he is depriving himself of many experiences and opportunities while leaving me as his only IRL point of reference in a lonely far away new city. The contradiction between his apparent lack of tolerance or desire for solitude and his self avowed individualism honestly disturbs me (but I understand by experience the context of being alone in a new city). I enjoy the time with him, and new younger friends is precisely what I need; but I have my social limitations, I do require peace and quiet to do my work and enjoy Vivaldi. The thing I fear the most by writing this is that he'll read it in a year or three (when he discovers the unofficial story of Ayn Rand) and might imagine that I didnt want to be his friend or spend time with him. To the contrary if I wasn't so preoccupied with being friends with him, I would not be dedicating my time writing this call for advice. I also know some of his expectations are simply unrealistic, but I don't want to lower his enthusiasm when it is precisely his enthusiasm that is his biggest asset at this time. But to what point is an inflated sense of self esteem an asset...? How do you, by personal experience, deal with young, certainty-obsessed, Objectivist acolytes?

Sorry for the unbelievably late reply: I love the concept of extropy. I discovered the word early in childhood when I was explained the Second Law of Thermodynamics and noticed that life in general behaves in the opposite way. The struggle for the ultimate value is therefore the struggle against but within nature. Much later, and after reading Ayn Rand and one particular essay by Patri Friedman I realized how the best examples of applied volition are an act of Exttropy. Writing a book is a good example. I'm certain the digital age will multiply that sort of achievement exponentially. But I believe that the concept of the Singularity has a bit of a religious rapture-like element to it, or was otherwise co-opted by it, being merely a hypothetical paradigm shift.

I will, believe me, I've been trying to address the subject for the last half decade of my life. Matt: Start your own specific thread. It will be easier. You can be more precise in how you want to frame the question/ Adam

Welcome, I'm new here too, but not that new to Objectivism. Why do you think it suits you?

Matias, Yup. That is correct and there is the yearly cost of a license for proprietary software. But it's not all bad. We have a "Donate" button at the bottom that on rare occasions gets used. So, to be fully transparent and to use a phrase from Kat's favorite band, we "get by with a little help from our friends." Fluentemente mal. Foi tradutor técnico durante mais de dez anos. (Translation for other readers: Fluently bad. I was a technical translator for over ten years.) The Argentina thing comes from local rivalry. I don't know about the Argentina to Sâo Paulo perspective, but I am intimate with the other way around. I saw a lot of hostility towards Argentina--especially during World Cup times. Regarding the Ayn Rand issues, no problem. Truth has no agenda, but fundies sure do. Anti-Rand folks, too. Once in a while I have to restrict snarky preacher-type Rand-bashers qua Rand-bashers who makes a gazillion rapid-fire one-liners just to constantly dump on her--or on Objectivists--and derail discussions. You might be interested in the method I found that does a really good job of keeping things going smoothly. I stumbled on it by accident. Rather than moderate machine-gun snarky posters, I restrict them to 5 posts per 24 hours. Those who are not interested in discussion, but only want attention, tend to move on. The prospect of 5 posts only doesn't get them the high they seek, so off they go to greener pastures for their fix. The more serious people start making more thoughtful posts and--for these--I end up releasing the restriction without being asked. I've only had to outright moderate very few posters. And this was after several warnings about the posting guidelines. All in all, I think the atmosphere here is pretty fertile for intelligent discussions and sporadic inflamed passions. Like I said, I value balance and common sense. Michael I can smell the freshness of these new pastures. Your method for troll-control sounds organic and a lot more effective than the OCD reactions I'm used to and have alienated so many intelligent albeit rude minds I've come to known and would have wished to keep as interlocutors. But what can I say, the last I heard from O.O. is that politeness is not considered a value after all... I don't identify with that. Speaking of Organic, I believe Ayn Rand qua Ayn Rand is not very organic, but if depured can be made so. How much of this would be adulteration and are you at all getting what I'm talking about or maybe I should rephrase this tomorrow.... yes. Eu tampoco falo bom portugues mais lo comprendo e me fago comprender (in terribly bad portuguese> I don't speak good Portuguese eihter but I understand it and can make myself understood). I'll consider donations and honestly could spare a few bucks and might do so anonymously like the Torah says but I suspect there might be more profitable ways to sustain this. Still thinking.

Seleno, I don't mind turning my introduction into an Americas geopolitical discussion. As a matter of fact I'm "Asperger-like" fascinated with maps, academically love and study geography and history, and I value nothing above knowing about the fuzzy cloudy truth of the Geopolitical situation (it's rightfully complicated because it doesn't stop at the institutions, it stops at the very individuals they control or represent). ----- Maybe the only thing I value more is a good architectural design as I have studied architecture, sketched all my life (cruiseships when 4 skyscrapers when 14), and am a frustrated architect expecting to fulfill one of my professions when I reach the maturity to be an actual ARCHITECT. Hopefully like Kenzo Tange, a boxer who could only be an architect, the god complex profession later in life, or more likely like Shoei Yoh who was an economist until he could achieve being an ground breaking architect at age 40+. Ironically I have the opportunity to build my own design. I need psychological help in making that happen as I'm not taking full advantage of the opportunity. Later I'll request help on that. ----- Back to topic, I am honestly (hope that my English deficiency counterweights any smugness in this comment) surprised that you guys, interested in a philosophy that promote American values in CONTRAST to the rest of the World, and Human (individual) equality in respect of nationality (Ayn Rand immigrant, USA land of foreign settlers), aren't more familiar at what is going on your own back yard, or the whole World for that matter. After WWII America established military bases to contain communism. However, like during WWII, there were some countries, like Sweden or Argentina, that were not aligned with either Nazism, Communism or their respecting allies. Unlike Argentina Brazil was always an ally of the Anglo World. The Portuguese crown was a commercial political and Royal-marital ally of Britain since Tudor times. During WWII Brazil contributed troops to the invasion of Italy and previously contributed to the ally effort. Argentina remained neutral until only a month before the Axis powers were defeated, well after the invasion of Normandy. German ships in the South Atlantic flocked to Argentina to "surrender" to a more amicable "enemy" state than Brazil or the Commonwealth countries. Since Argentina (and for that matter Brazil) has been ruled by a semi-fascist ideology, Peronism (integralism in Brazil, later Vargas, in any case national socialism), it standed during the Cold War as an anti communist state. That was the only time that Argentina, the only other integral part of Mercosur other than Brazil, standed along with the United States, during the anti communist guerrilla campaign which consisted of state sponsored Nazis killing subversive Commies. That delightful incident (1976-1983) lasted until the Nationalists decided to attack the United Kingdom as if war was an honorable gesture worthy of 19th century diplomacy. The Falklands war made the World notice how Fascist and militarist anti-communism can turn, and in a matter of months the military junta was calling for elections as if the PEronist/Marxist threat never existed. At the time Perestroyka was not even insinuated. Meanwhile the War on Drugs served as a good smoke curtain for the States to secure Andean America, that is Central America, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and specially Chile under its sphere of influence. The rest, Brazil, Paraguay (to an extent), Uruguay and Argentina, unified in the Mercosur block, which like India is a democratic, British related power that is now rubbing shoulders with the former enemy, Russia, Iran. Brazil has a right a history and a future of expansionist life loving determination, and it really does not need the USA. But in the process of asserting itself as the "other" America, it is using Latin American 21 Century Socialism (Chavez) discourse to convince the people and voters (don't forget Democracy!) that Capitalism equals the American Army, and that both are equally bad. Latin America isn now divided into two block of influence: Mexico which is now almost equal to the USA, Central America, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile are on the Asian Pacific and American side. Argentina Brazil are the axis of the sovereign union. Venezuela and BOlivia the new acquisitons of such axis. PAraguay is a commercial memebr of Mercosur but allows US bases in its territory. Uruguay is a Mercosur country but foreigners have the same rights as natives in every term except voting, we can own property, receive free medical care, invest, and live indefinitely, so it is informally a pro Western and thus pro American citizens. Chile is the only country that has abided by American standards and directions for the last decades. It's certainly not nbad fpr the Chileans who recently elected a Right wing candidate and many Chilean leftists I know now admit that their anti communist cruel dictator Pinochet ironically saved the country. It is to be noted that these people have a very low regard of ordinary people. [quote name=Selene' timestamp='1308626690' post='137599' Matias: Thanks for the insights. I agree that having a surplus of natural resources is no guarantee of human prosperity. I was not aware of the "Mercosur countries" as a distinct bloc founded in 1991 by the Treaty of Asunción, . For any OLers who are not familiar with this see wiki link on Mercosur. The objectives were the promotion of the Southern Common Market: The free transit of produced goods, services and factors between the member states. Among other things, this includes the elimination of customs rights and lifting of nontariff restrictions on the transit of goods or any other measures with similar effects;Fixing of a common external tariff (CET) and adopting of a common trade policy with regard to nonmember states or groups of states, and the coordination of positions in regional and international commercial and economic meetings;Coordination of macroeconomic and sectorial policies of member states relating to foreign trade, agriculture, industry, taxes, monetary system, exchange and capital, services, customs, transport and communications, and any others they may agree on, in order to ensure free competition between member states;The commitment by the member states to make the necessary adjustments to their laws in pertinent areas to allow for the strengthening of the integration process. The Asunción Treaty is based on the doctrine of the reciprocal rights and obligations of the member states. Mercosur initially targeted free-trade zones, then customs unification, and finally a common market. The common market will allow (in addition to customs unification) the free movement of manpower and capital across the member nations, and depends the grating of equal rights and duties to all member countries. Because member states will implement the trade liberalization at different speeds, during the transition period the rights and obligations of each party will initially be equivalent but not necessarily equal. In addition to the reciprocity doctrine, the Asunción Treaty also contains provisions for the most-favored nation concept. This concept is that after the common market is formed, member nations are to automatically extend to the other members any advantage, favor, entitlement, immunity or privilege granted to a product originating from or intended for countries that are not party to the Latin American Integration Association (ALADI).Fascinating. Thanks. Adam

I have made two searches in these boards for both dogma and domatism. Is this where you guys discuss the danger of dogmatism in the most rational synthesis of human nature in history? Because, y'know, that's the theory's only real threat. love, Matt

I never slept well. My mother says from birth to 3 I didn't sleep well. The during latency all cool. I just turned 27, I still don't sleep very well specially when I don't exercise and become physically tired. When I am mentally extenuated by physically not tired, I have to lay and try to sleep. Eventually not REM, but some kind of sleep process settles and I lose consciousness / at least I cease to remember it clearly. But during that extended lull, which can happen before or (in the case you're referring to) after the brief golden REM sleep, many weird things happen as consciousness, semiconciousness and sleep (deep sleep, unconscious) intertwine. In many instances even routinely I have felt absolutely conscious of my physical needs such as thirst or the need to relief myself, while being semiconscious in all other aspects (such as pretending to be in another place, or actually feeling asleep). I am aware of that, but if I wasn't I'd feel that "weight in the chest" that is so often described by sufferers of sleep paralysis. You just need to recognize it for what it is, an intermediate category of sleep. It is probably not healthy but that's besides the point. You must realize that when you sleep normally you also experience that paralysis only you are at profound sleep so you don't care. the problem is that since you are in semi sleep, you are aware of both worlds and that might be at first terrifying, and again probably unhealthy. Exercise more?

Hello Adam, When talking Chavez we need to have a foreword about oil. As you can verify looking at a map, Venezuela is at the opposite corner of the continent I live in. It's demographics, culture and history are also somewhat opposite. That said, Venezuela has more barrels of oil per capita than any other South American nation. Brazil is yet to catch up and, unlike Venezuela's Orinoco Basin, at its own offshore hi tech exploration cost. In Venezuela they are just catching up that they had been sitting in a coffer of black gold and "allowing" the Americans to take the biggest profit margin for the last 80 years. In Brazil they have the technology and manpower to exploit their own offshore oil which by the way has only just been fully discovered. After all Brazil is a country that is able to produce successful commercial aircrafts, it can surely manage its oil production. In Argentina oil is plenty but not exaggerate, we're not exporters. On the contrary we import natural gas from Bolivia to heat our homes in the winter (because past generations used to just let the nat gas escape to the atmosphere when drilling for oil (!) this is the land of the plenty, the land of the extensive, not intensive, production, the land of waste). Now Geo-politically you may notice that all Mercosur coutries except Chile, like Russia, India, China and some parts of Africa are the only places on Earth exempt from direct American control - regardless of whether that would be a good thing. That makes the traditional Mercosur countries (Brazil Argentina and its satellites Paraguay and Uruguay) the only sovereign territories in the Americas outside the control of Washington. Venezuela is in this case used as a spearhead from Brazil. Let Chavez be the tough guy that keeps half of South America "sovereign" (EuroBrazilian) while shocasing Brazil as the friendly American partner and challenger. Argentina is not that traditionally pro American or even familiar with America like VEnezuela is. For Argentines English speakers means British as we always favored Brit capital over American to the point that in 1933 Argentina requested (and was denied) to be a part of the Commonwealth - in the framework of Keynesian protectionism Argentina needed to be a political part of what it was already a trading partner) So now we have Chavez torturing its own population and "redistributing" oil income in the form of bonds - which seems to be a scheme to try and get the Central Bank of South America going.... a benchmark of the European Union and its Euro. I am not surprised that people in Caracas or elsewhere in Venezuela suffer the price of bribing Chavez's buddies like my president. We have no blackouts here, we wouldn't tolerate it as urban Argentina is after all in the service sector. We get our energy from domestic and imported gas, nuclear power (two plants and one in construction), and the second or third biggest hydroelectric dam in the World. The soil is black and rich. Any other proof that geographical resources have nothing to do with human prosperity?

We wont have any problems with that as I'm fascinated by Ayn Rand and extenuated by the in-politics of her philosophy come movement. I really want to discuss skyscrapers, art and whether I can be CERTAIN of living in an objective universe rather than take part on sectarian battles. That said, I AM interested in the history of Objectivism and in "meta-Objectivism" that is studying Objectivism and what it provokes in different individuals from an abstracted (objective?) point of view. I am a big fan of common sense too! I just don't find it that pervasively common! Shall we call it "good" sense? Sounds good. See, If I were to discuss i.e. the role of Judaism, or Slavism, in Ayn Rand's life and its inevitable impact on her philosophy I'd have it to do it in private at O.O to get honest feedback. It's tedious. I'm hoping I can do it openy here. As an avid reader of "troll" sites from good old Adequacy to ED I am well familiar with "flames" and "trolls" to know how to avoid such phenomena and not let controversy be confused with instigation. I just meant that I recognize this is after all costy server time and someone, perhaps you, is paying for it, and therefore I am but an invitee. If we make that explicit at the beginning I'm sure it'll all go a lot smoothly later on. Now that comes as somewhat of a surprise (might have read about it somewhere?). Do you falas Portugu'es? Southern Brazil, up to SP that is to say the "gauchos", they speak a different language but share the same culture with Buenos Aires. Euro and Japanese immigrants adapting to this ex Iberian countries. People from Sao Pauo, Curitiba, Montevideo and Buenos Aires are more genetically and culturally alike than "us" and either Central and Northern Brazilians or Hispanic Americans from elsewhere including inland Argentina. From Santos/Sao Paulo to Buenos Aires lies an informal area of European settlement much like the Cape in S.Africa or Australia and NZ. It is certainly not a coincidence that one of the Heroes of the West from Atlas Shrugged comes from Argentina, although I must say, with lots of inaccuracies (the d'Anconias could never have been that old a New World family and that free of mind at the same time, but there is an element to it). Really, honestly, thank you! I do feel welcome! Thank you Chris! re Spanish: I've translated Francisco's money speech and made it circulate among some somwhat powerful mailing lists in Argentina. Is that what you meant? Most of Ayn Rand is already translated by Editorial Grito Sagrado, based in Buenos Aires, and for that matter most Latin Americans interested in Objectivism are already fluent in Lingua Franca Libertatis (English). re Falklands. Malvinas should not be used as a name but if you are curious it comes from home town of the first settlers of those islands, neither Spaniards or Britons but Frenchmen from Saint Malo, hence, Iles Malouines, populated from people of Saint Malo (Atlantic Loire or Britanny). I know perfectly what Ayn Rand would have said of the war, she wrote about it. She wrote that initiation of force is immoral and illegal. She wrote that governments should not rape their citizens but grant them some protection (like Habeas Corpus for instance), and she was even more specific about the proper relationship between the custodian of weapons and enforcer of law (government) and the citizen (patron, owner). In 1982 a non totalitarian dictatorship that did not grant Habeas Corpus or due process before torturing and ultimately executing the individuals that it illegally kidnapped; invaded a sovereign territory of the British Commonwealth which by 1982 fully granted Habeas Corpus and due process to the inhabitants and residents, the Falkland Islands. What else is there to it? Margaret Thatcher's greatest display of honor was retaking those islands for the only crown in the world that somewhat respects its subjects. I don't really believe in God or in Monarchy, and I wasn't alive when the Argentine Military Junta drafted civilians and invaded British territory; but this whole issue makes me shout from the core of my heart "God Save the Queen!"

Hi Rich, I am aware of geological times, I'm not arguing against it. "the universe now looks at itsef". Humans (yes, part of the universe), or rather I (who am human), look at myself and my own consciousness. And it's fine as long as I distract myself with something else, or at east know that I will before going to sleep or tomorrow. http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/humevas.html\ buy it at http://www.celiagreen.com/oxford-forum-publications.html Ayn Rand on the other hand thinks that one has to be more conscious of one's own thinking, but only tangentially to be sane, rather to be happy. I happen to agree with both statements which leads to an alarming but interesting conclusion. What exactly is this "alarming but interesting conclusion"? That sanity is not rational but an engineered state of cognitive (or spiritual) mediocrity that only has value in a social context. It is a conundrum.

I have recently found about British Psychologist and Philosopher Celia Green through her genial aphorisms. The first time I read her was while googling an Ayn Rand quote, which she had positively included in one of her essays. She shows a great respect for reality, self-ownership or individualism, freedom of the intelligent mind (art and science). But she doesn't seem to think those qualities are entirely compatible with one of society's most sacred cows: sanity. That in fact one has to evade intelligent thoughts to at least be categorized as sane, hence the Human Evasion. http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/humevas.html\ buy it at http://www.celiagreen.com/oxford-forum-publications.html Ayn Rand on the other hand thinks that one has to be more conscious of one's own thinking, but only tangentially to be sane, rather to be happy. I happen to agree with both statements which leads to an alarming but interesting conclusion. So what do you think?

Hello! My name is Matias Volco and I'm new to this forum. I'm in my mid 20s and I reside in Argentina sometimes Uruguay. I've been a moderately active member of Objectivism Online since 2007 and now I want to have another valid frame of discussion of Objectivism for several reasons, if not simply because two hive minds think better than one. One of the reasons I strongly feel in need of another "place" to discuss intellectual issues is a certain psychological milieu I've found in the aforementioned forum. Mildly ironic phrasings like the one above, "hive mind" in a forum dedicated to individualism, are taken, I think, irrationally serious. While I understand that Objectivism implies a straight-forward direct discourse, those, perhaps "schizoid" reactions to sarcasm or twists in commentaries seem to be only the tip of the iceberg. A few examples of what lies underneath pure reason are the several taboos surrounding Ayn Rand's personal background, an unspoken ban on attempting to discuss her mental state throughout her life, and of course attempting to suggest (in order to hopefully analyze!) whether something collectivist, that reminds one of sectarian behaviour, surrounds recently "ordained" online Objectivists. I would like to know whether I am invited to and free to discuss in this forum, in public, what I discuss with members of O.O. in private. That said, I feel grateful towards Objectivism Online for years of providing me with a frame of intellectual discussion throughout the process of digesting Ayn Rand's ideas. The boards are huge and well populated so there is a lot of value in the interaction that goes on. I have made acquaintances with some members there and I will continue lurking and posting at that forum as usual. But I have broken what I now realize was another unspoken rule of that forum, and I will now, if invited, be active in these boards as well. A special note to user Barbara Branden: I am extremely grateful that for whatever reason you chose to publicly provide light into the story of Ayn Rand's philosophy, with first hand experience. It is certainly not the reclusive or, ivory tower behaviour of less notorious people. Cheers! - WHY AND WHENCE I FELL IN LOVE WITH AYN RAND - My favorite word as a child was imperial but what I really meant was heroic. I could see it equally in luxury like a hotel or in infrastructure like a big vertical parking lot. A ship, particularly a cruise ship or Ro Ro joined both aspects. Then I passed to skyscrapers changing the scape fo the cities and to American corporations changing landscape of the economy and human individual creative possibilities. It was the golden 90s, liberalization, and I was in my teens. When I was 12 I watched a badly trasnlated documentary on Ayn Rand. I was lucky to have some sort of internet connection and I could ratify that this woman was indeed both an Atheist and an idealist, that she believed in guiltless human happiness and building height. That she experienced some particular sort of pleasure I experience when I get to see a bridge being built. That she knew that after our biological programming, the maximum pleasure was in self realization, production, what I had known all my life as a 7 year old frustrated writer. To be continued Matias Volco