jack9f

Very good Michael. Not may people know about the Ivan/John connection. I picked up that handle from a book called Lenin's Tomb where it was explained that people on the lamb would use the name Ivan Ivanovich when ever they went somewhere, much like people here sign into a motel under John Smith or such. I truely am John son of John, so it works for me. You can call me Vanya, Vanka, or Vanechka, but ya doesn't have to call me Johnson. Thanks also for validating my belief.

Thank you all for answering some of my questions. As I recall Ayn Rand said she was an atheist and then went on to explain how people should relate to each other. It all made sense to me at the time and I began to refer to myself as an atheist, but looking back, I don’t see any reason to give up on Objectivism after my experience with souls from outside this world. I freely admit that my thoughts about God are emotional, subjective, and cannot be proved in any reasonable way. When asked to prove the existence of God I simply reply that “I can no more prove there is a God than you can prove there is not a God, and I don’t suggest that you should believe.” I saved the Nevsky Prospekt at Znamenskaya Square from the ARI site. I’ll try to find it when I’m there. I’m not familiar with NBI. “Buddhists are atheists”? Not from what I’ve heard. I have a friend who is Buddhist and he tells me they are both. If fact he says there are 10,000 different types of Buddhists. Some beleive and some don't. One thing I find attractive in the idea of God and politics (such as the USA) is the concept that all laws have a higher authority than man alone. It seems to me that Atheistic governments have no higher power and therefore what ever the top guy says is valid (I.e. Hitler & Stalin).

Michael You need not say any more. I'm very impressed and respectful of those that can kick a bad habit. As I said, I'm very naïve about such things. I grew up in a middle class neighborhood in the suburbs of Detroit in the 50s. My sister, who was 12 years younger, had some experience with drugs, but I did not. I did not even hear about “Reefer Madness” until much later when I was an engineer with a young family far removed from any temptation. Ivan, That's old news in listland. Let me make a parentheses to this love thread and plug some of my writing: Back to love. Michael

I have been a member here for some time, but not really active. Recently I started to check the message boards and found them interesting. In 1966 I read the Fountainhead and some of Ayn Rand’s other works and became an Objectivist. For 30 years I was an atheist and then I was touched by something the religious types would call “the hand of God”. Now I remain anti-dogma and still consider myself an Objectivist, but I believe in a higher being. Since I was a member here, I was invited to join a discussion group in Lansing, MI and I have been attending meetings for about 6 months. Some of the people in this group have implied that I can not be an Objectivist and believe in God, but most have been open and willing to discuss other issues and accept my beliefs. So I would like to ask this group: “Can an Objectivist believe in God?” Secondly: “Does anyone know more details about Ayn Rand’s birthplace?” I’m going to St. Petersburg in May and I would like to visit her birthplace. I'm already planning to visit the birthplace of Emanual Kant.

I agree that the comparison is not very good between love and drugs. Maybe that infatuation phase we go through is comparable, but real love is more than that. I was surprised to see Michael write about that, but then even at 63, I’m still naïve about such things. No, I don't think love is an addiction, any more than sleeping, eating, and drinking. But then, those three things can be an addiction, so I suppose it depends on how you do it.

This is a good subject and I liked Ciro's post. Billy Joel is one of my favorites. But now with my third love, I have one by Willie Nelson that defines how I feel about my love for her. If you had not have fallen Then I would not have found you Angel flying too close to the ground I patched up your broken wing and hung around for a while Trying to keep your spirits up and your fever down So leave me if you need to, I will still remember Angel flying too close to the ground. I knew someday that you would fly away For love’s the greatest healer to be found So leave me if you need to, I will still remember Angel flying too close to the ground Fly on fly on past, the speed of sound I’d rather see you up than see you down So leave me if you need to, I will still remember Angel flying too close to the ground.

Yes, Jeff, I know what you mean about the Congress. It sometimes seems like a waste of money, but having lived through the Nixon times I know that they are necessary. I think we are going through a difficult time, but in the end the three branches of government are good and a balance will be restored.

Ivan, I am currently reading "Brothers Karamazov," but in snatches. I have a thing against overly-long paragraphs and that is all this really long book contains. They make it difficult for me to give myself over to the story, unless I have absolute peace and quiet for stretches of several hours each sitting. That seems to be getting harder and harder to find. It is fascinating as a slow read in snatches so far, though. I am very interested in reading your impressions. Michael Yes, I know what you mean about BK. It takes time and commitment. I wonder about the translator. Mine is Pevear & Volokhonsky and they did a great job. I tried to read War & Peace and it was as you describe. I was very interested in the fact that much was the same 150 years ago and 15,000 miles away. Can you imagine if CNN and Fox were around then? In 1999 my first wife left me and I went to Lithuania to find where my grandmother was born. I brought back a new wife. This will be my first time over there in 7 years. My mother in-law was here 2 years ago, for the summer, and she will be our host in Moscow in May.

I think it does Jeff. Lenin and Hitler both used methods similar to the evangelistic preachers. At least communism and nazism come close enough to religion to blur the difference. Today the Islamic fascists certainly mix religion and politics. I am proud to know and debate many people who call themselves Objectivists. Seldom do I find 100% agreement between these people. So, who is to decide who is the real Objectivist? Victor! Your comments are out of line!

Yes, there are things that are unseen temporarily and yes, there are those to whom Objectivism is a religion. We are all different and we are different now than we were in the past. At least we should be if we are open to new experiences. This is not to say that Objectivism should be a religion. I agree that it is a philosophy, but anything can be distorted and substituted for a religion.

"Gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research." Many Republicans support those things, but they do not get my vote. On stem cell research I'll remind you it was "Embryonic stem cells” and the ban was only on Federal spending for such. Ayn Rand was not a supporter of homosexuals and I don't think that was a religious view. All I was trying to point out is that the simple view of Democrats being for the working people and the GOP being for big business is outmoded at best and pure propaganda at worst. Since I’m nearer Genghis Khan than George W. Bush that type on thing jumps out at me and I have to challenge it. Thank you for your comments

Oh, and if you are looking for a current view, I'm going to Russia in May.

Lenin's Tomb is very good on the fall of the USSR. Trotsky's "My Life" was a good read on the beginning. Dostoevsky's "Brothers Karamazov" gives a view of what was going on before that.

“Republicans who are increasingly controlled by the Religious Right” and “Republicans, being backed by business as they are” Well, which one of these pieces of propaganda do you subscribe to? and “The majority of people have selfish intent whether or not they will admit it” I will admit it! And what wrong with that?

I'm coming in late on this discussion, but I'll throw in my two cents. I am encouraged that MSK has allowed Jeff, and others, to continue this debate with his moderating words. Having grown up in the time of back alley abortions and seeing the difficulty of shotgun marriages, I have come full circle in my support for Roe v Wade to a more reasonable way of looking at the issue. In six pages of discussion much is said of woman’s rights, but I see very little on the individual rights of the male. Extremism seems to be the order of the day, speaking about 100 cells, 10 minutes before birth, and life in prison. Is there nothing in between? Most recently I signed up to begin receiving a pension and my wife had to sign a release so that I could get a full benefit. Why not something like that for an abortion? A huge bureaucracy exists to collect child support and alimony from men, with the threat of jail, and to paint men as deadbeats. Where is the equivalent for women? Just a few questions to keep this debate going.