IamBalSimon

Rand would be the first to point out that the episode had nothing to do with the first amendment; the constitution applies only to the actions of governments, and government wasn't a party to this, except the police, who did the right thing.

My views exactly. The idiot was pond scum. But he has a First Am right to burn a flag. But private citizens have a First Am right to shun him and make his life a living hell (to the fullest extent of the law).

- Bal

Adam,

This decision, and the one that preceded it (concerning "no-knock" searches), are both atrocious.

It would be nice to think that they would be overturned by SCOTUS. Unfortunately, it's unadvisable to bet on that outcome.

Robert Campbell

Until we remove the most unpatriotic POTUS to ever serve, Americans' Constitutional rights will continue to be trampled. Even if the Supreme Court overturns this, I expect the march of soft tyranny to continue unabated.

- Bal

Of course, war is not the main thrust of my opener, but a consequence of what happens when rationality and/or good faith break down to the point that bullets form the medium of communication.

And I would suggest that not all wars are equal; nor are the participants to wars to be automatically vilified, unless we are going to vilify men, since women have mainly been the victims and the spoils of war rather than direct participants. In terms of factors, is anyone suggesting we place the human Y chromosome on the major list of evolutionary villains, and perhaps the main components of irrationality?

- Bal

If you consider the range of opinions, discussions, disagreements and arguments here and on other Oist boards, you have to give great weight to Ayn Rand's observation that the bloodiest wars are civil conflicts. It is a mistake to think that people who share your professed ideology are like you or will like you or that you will like them. Or even that you have to.

The word she used was "religious," not "civil."

--Brant

Mike and Brant -

I don't know what Rand wrote. Googling didn't produce a quote that seems on point.

But leaving Rand at the side of the road, let's look at this on it's merits.

Questions: Was Hitler's war (12 million+ killed) a religious war? Was Stalin's reign of terror (23 million+ killed) based on religion? How about Mao's takeover of China (50 million+ killed)? Never mind Pol Pot or Kim Il Sung. I think religious conflicts pale by comparison, or am I missing something?

- Bal

Adam - thank you for your response. And thank you for the challenge.

I believe that your response establishes that there was nothing more than a temporary problem with the abuse of the commons. As rational humans, we have recognized that you always build your latrines downstream from your camp, unless you want your morning coffee to be rather unpleasant [scene from The Horse Soldiers].

The problem is that your downstream could be my upstream. From what I remember in my history classes, the upstream people often didn't give a rip about the people downstream from them. While there may have been some contracts between towns, it took "government intrusion" to "fix" it on a large scale. This is one of the core functions of a democratic republic and civil society. Supposedly rational people, without the agreement to have government and courts take control of the commons tend to not care about what happens downstream from them. And downstream isn't limited to waterways. You have corporations willing to belch smoke and smog pollutants into the air. "Perfectly rational" if the only thing a business person cares about is making money. ("My only interest is making money" was a line said by Hank Rearden in the movie Atlas Shrugged. I don't recall offhand if he said that in the book.) The commons have historically not been of interest to people who want total laissez faire. For the record: I want a society/culture with robust laissez faire, moderated by core functions of a government consented to and overseen by the people who are moderated (governed).

Clearly, we have, as a culture responded to problems in the commons with controls that are mostly rational.

I will agree with you if a good faith, responsible, limited core government is included in your meaning of "culture."

However, there are ample examples of the politicization of "protecting" the commons which resulted in terrible tragedies, e.g., the DDT ban which accounts for approximately 50, 000, 000 deaths per year world wide by some estimates.

Indeed, you are correct. But I can't think of any organizational structure, private sector or public, that can make rational decisions if it is steeped with political correctness, anti-corporatism, and socialist/communist fools who can't process scientific data with any kind of intelligence. Modernly, large American corporations can - and are - riddled with PC fools and socialists too. I've seen this first hand from the inside of some corporations whose names you'd recognize if I mentioned them. I'm almost positive that all major American corporations suffer these idiots. Somehow, I was lucky and missed "diversity training" through all of my adventures in corporate America. But just the stench of it was enough to irritate me.

As to OSHA, it was enacted in 1971, so I am reasonably sure that you mean the Department of Labor, see here, wherein Keating-Owen Act bans child labor; annulled by Supreme Court, June 3, 1918.

(September 1, 1916).

Right - that's what I mean and should have looked up. But again - it is government that influenced and continues to influence the commons based on long term views; based on the kind of society we as a people want. I want a powerful, but limited government because it can be a force for good. Historically, it has been a force for good in America - especially taking the long view. BTW - that is a cool government web page you pointed me to. Thanks!

As to an armed citizenry, the stats are quite compelling that more guns = less crime by a significant percentage, here,, this is the Wiki site, which includes studies that reject Lott's conclusions.

I would modify what you say here. An armed citizenry in the context of a society already made safer by a good faith, sane, and robust police force is better than a citizenry that has been neutered. But that is different from an armed citizenry that does not have such a police force protecting the commons, which was typical of frontier towns in the 'Old West." In my view, as you reduce the good faith, the sanity and the power of a police force, you move closer to the Old West "feral" society, which wasn't all that safe.

My way of thinking, is that we have "resolved" the problem of the commons in that we have a mixture of free use and controls.

If "we" includes the government functions as I discuss here, I can't argue with this statement at all.

Mike, William and Adam,

I appreciate the thoughtful replies. Here are my responses.

Mike - I can't disagree with anything you wrote. I am especially "shocked into recognition" for the umpteenth time by what you wrote here: "And think hard about the people you know here and on other Oist boards. Anyone who advocates nuking Teheran will have no problem justifying their defensive first strike against you for something you had no idea was so important to them."

So true! There are many liberals and people who "believe things" that I do not, yet who I get on with wonderfully. And there are people who supposedly share my views, and I can't stand being within a hundred miles of them (and vice-versa).

And you are also accurate about the need for inputs, although the bigger and more varied (I won't use the word diverse as it's been co-opted by the Left) the playing field, the more robust and self-sufficient a "community" can be, which is why it is easier for America to be self-sufficient than, say the much more geographically homogenous and insular Britain. (Of course, if this were all that counted, Russia and China would be even more self-sufficient than America; so politics, technology, culture, etc. figure into the game, too.

And yet...

I am not yet ready to give up on my idea. I put it up as a thought experiment to be explored. And attacked - as it should be attacked to show its weaknesses. As long as the conversation remains civil (so far it has), I welcome robust disagreements. Who knows? Maybe a workable idea could emerge. I tend toward optimism because I find pessimism all too boring. Very easy to just give up and say chuck it all. I would not be hanging out here if I felt that way.

Also - thank you very much (you don't know how much I appreciate it) for pointing me to MacCallum's Art of the Community and Conway's Game of Life. I have them now on my reading list. If they help flesh out some of my "possibility-probability-allowability" thinking, that is a very good thing indeed.

-------------------------

William - I think I made it pretty clear that I only really know America (and not nearly as well as I think I should). I don't know Canada; would not presume to say how Canadians view their society. I do know that one of the two times I was up there, I needed a little medical treatment, and promptly received it; covered by my American insurance. That was back in the late 1990s; I don't know if/how things have changed since then, though I do hear about people living in Canada coming to America for the purpose of getting medical care, just as I know people in America go to Canada to buy their pharmaceuticals a bit cheaper. BTW, sometime in the next 12-18 months, my wife and I will be trekking up your way. It would be good to meet you.

-------------------------

Adam - I think that your comments would also benefit from some exploring if you're up for it. Paraphrasing, I think you said that I had presumed that the treatment of the Commons was a tragedy without making the case. Would that be an accurate interpretation? You then wrote: "Seems that society, industrialization and productive growth and individual freedom grew without a "commons" that required any judgmental determination as to success or failure."

My reading of history is quite different. The Commons would be like the old wild west without the moderating force of Government and laws. Our Governments control the common areas of our society. In a democratic republic like America, we have delegated our personal sovereignty to the various governments for the benefit of the long view and the common good. People have viewed this mainly as being in their own best interests, and that continues today. We use the word "legitimacy" to mean that the Government is serving the long view and the common areas in a ways we don't find egregious enough to re-assert our personal sovereignty and take down the government. (Lots of feedback snarls in that, so the system is quite self-perpetuating, and this forms a major source of abuse by Government officials and bureaucrats who believe they can act with impunity. But there are limits. The Tea Parties in 2009 and 2010 were just the bare exposing of these limits.)

Consider Government agencies like OSHA which was largely responsible for the very good thing of wiping out abusive child labor in the earlier part of America's history. Consider how Government serves as a counter to abusive businesses that grow so big that they begin to act like governments. Company towns were notorious for abusing the commons.

Consider water laws that are now in place because private parties, who believed (wrongly, I'd say) that they had no personal stakes in the long view, and who couldn't be bothered with the ripple effects of their actions upon the Commons. They would drop poisonous sludge into rivers, leaving it for towns downstream to deal with. Sanitation laws arose in part because of the bad neighbors who acted as if the Commons meant nothing.

This is why it's called a "tragedy." Not because the acts of people affect others adversely; though that's certainly true. We use words like abuse and atrocity when discussing negative impacts a person has on someone else. No - the word tragedy fits because so many people cannot see that the kind of society they create for themselves, their spouses, their kids, and their friends - for all who they care about - is itself something that they would not like. They are blind to their own "contribution" to the tragedy.

I know I've been longish here. Apologies, but one more closing consideration: Why have police and not just arm everyone with guns? It's been tried in times past and found wanting. Too many people being shot (families being ruined) because the "easy" solution was a gunfight instead of a law suit. People these days, in most places, prefer to walk around without guns showing, and delegate the responsibility of maintaining the peace (of the Commons, as well as their persons and property), and accept that law suits are a necessary byproduct of this decision.

- Bal

The question in this thread is very hard to address, in that it is loaded, assumptive.

rde

Please elaborate, Richard.

- Bal

Socialist-Capitalist Mutt Economy Country is sitting up here, asking the age-old economists' question, "We know it works in reality, but how do we make it fit the theory?"

I think a variety of small-town sized, planned pilot efforts (this goes beyond "studies") could move the ball forward, if just a little bit. They would form their own charters, have their own internal agreements, much like countries and states (at least in America) do now. I don't know how independent and "sovereign" states/provinces are in countries like Canada, Australia, etc. But I'd imagine the economies of scale would grant some degree of independence. If located within the USA, they would surely have to comport with United States laws, federal, state, local, etc., so the efforts could not be "pure." But perhaps there is still enough liberty within the American structure to allow ideas like this to be tried.

If the enclaves did not incorporate (i.e., become legal cities within one of the 50 states, then there would be rules and contracts rather than laws. The rules would obviously be set by the founders and then modified as the membership changed and as these gated communities evolved. An interesting question would arise when children would be brought into the picture. Federal and state laws require them to be educated per approved curricula. There is room for experimentation as evidenced by home schools, but certainly the State would be penetrating into the community and people would have to live within the confines of the laws. I am not proposing a David Koresh, Waco TX compound, nut-job kind of system that's ready to go to war with the FBI, the ATF, or any of the other societal "white corpuscles." I am looking for as many win-win-win-...win plays as possible - for as many people as possible.

I am not Pollyanna about this. I believe that more of the experiments will likely fail than succeed. But each failure could be evaluated for reasons why and lessons learned could be applied to new experiments and when something is found to truly work, then that could be voluntarily incorporated into the more successful gated communities.

- Bal

If we end up with a kind of hybrid socialist/capitalist mutt of a country, I think people will still be able to live relatively peaceable lives, have families, raise their kids, etc. It won't be good; it won't work well; and people will find their lives severely downgraded. But not as downgraded as we'd be under an apocalyptic end.

- Bal

One Ba'al to another Bal.

This is precisely what we have now. A Mixed Economy is a mutt economy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And as one Bal to another Ba'al - Agreed.

Unfortunately, for a long while the country is likely going to grow "muttlier," with intensified movement toward socialism. But at some point, there may be enough pain that people begin waking up. This happened to some extent with the rising up of Tea Party movement; it would nice to see it accelerate. I think there is a race on between the level of pain we feel and the speed at which we become a stupider society. At some point stupidity *can* make the pain permanent. This is what was at play in Atlas and is likely the reason that I feel like I'm reading a variation of Atlas when I read today's news stories.

But I don't think we're there yet, and I have a romanticized and surprisingly strong faith in the American Pendulum created by the Founding Fathers with their Constitution and the checks and balances included in it. Nothing is inevitable. Pain or pleasure; socialism or capitalism. There will always be a mix. May the The Founders' Pendulum continue to swing.

- Bal

Bal wrote:

Has anyone looked for, or even discovered/developed, ways to move our current society to one where liberty is truly valued, where the long view is seen as important as the short run, where where people acknowledge ripple effects and try to deal with them so as to keep the game going pleasantly and productively? Do you think such a transitional state might be able to begin as a kind of pilot project? A project where outsiders see the fruitful results and say, of their own accord, "Hey - that's what I also want! How do I participate?"

end quote

NO. There have been quite a few attempts like Minerva or communes to be "the shining example." We are stuck with what we have here in the Western World. Here in America, activism would be appreciated in 2012.

Back in the seventies, the last time doom seem so close I was a minor "survivalist." I suggest you have an quick exit from cities and a place to go, keep a mormon closet (look it up), and keep water on hand for a few days. I have a generator and well water too. And an elephant gun, luger, shotgun, and 22 rifle.

Utopias don't exist except in the imagination.

Peter

Hey Peter,

I get the view that holds that America is doomed. As a nation, America has swung so far to the Left that we could establish a Left Pole, where any movement from it would be toward the right. And I think we'd agree that political correctness makes truthful public diagnosis difficult at best. Add to this the overbearing IRS, TSA, DHS, etc. and it would seem to require effort that is more than heroic to change society for the better in any significant way, which is why I thought of pilot projects.

As I wrote the opening post I thought of communes, which seem more like socialist enclaves than Galts Gulch. But what if a semi-closed capitalist "gated community" based on Objectivist/Libertarian principles was established? What if, just to enter the community even as a visitor, you had to swear John Galt's oath: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.

In such a community, I would think that the long view and ripple effects of one's actions that affect the community as a whole have bearing on each member's self-interest, and so social structures could be established and agreed upon without requiring highly granulated agreements for every little thing. A form of long-view "reasonableness" could be established. And if the principles were sound, then that community ought to be able to thrive.

I'm not saying you're wrong or that I'm right. I am saying that if your view is the only way to see this, and that there are no more cards to be played; that America is truly doomed and all is lost, then in the coming apocalypse, none of this matters. It will be your elephant gun and "might makes right" that will result. A few days water won't be nearly enough. You'd need your own insular water supply or one protected by warlord who you'd either be or work for - at one or the other end of a gun.

I can't go there with you yet. I see 2012 as a reason for hope. I see the Tea Party - if it continues as a movement and does not become a political party - as another reason for hope. And as bad as socialism is, I think it still is far superior to raw anarchy or warlordism. If we end up with a kind of hybrid socialist/capitalist mutt of a country, I think people will still be able to live relatively peaceable lives, have families, raise their kids, etc. It won't be good; it won't work well; and people will find their lives severely downgraded. But not as downgraded as we'd be under an apocalyptic end.

- Bal

Bal,

Just a quick comment: Read the fountainhead. Rand was right about the film. The acting was errr... stiff and out of sync. I saw it before I read how Rand reacted/what she said about it (I just have to find that link again).

Hey David,

It's on my list. Thanks.

- Bal

I begin with a couple of postulates:

1 - Most people don't understand liberty and contractual agreements.

2 - Most people don't rationally evaluate the phrase "self-interest" to include long-range and ripple effects that can lead to outcomes that they themselves would not choose.

If the above postulates are valid, and I believe they are, then perhaps it would be helpful for Objectivists to explore Garrett Hardin's construct: Tragedy of the Commons (TOTC) (described at Wikipedia here). Searching the OL forum, I have seen this referred to a few times (mainly by Brant, and once by me), but so far, have not found an exploration in depth.

It seems to me that if we are to ever have a "free society," we will have to go from where we are today (on the verge of a very nasty socialism) through one or more transitional societal configurations where eventually we are free in the O-ist/Libertrarian sense of the word. But that effort is fraught with hazard, in large part from the TOTC.

Right now, government is the main (and somewhat dysfunctional) guarantor of the long term view. Publicly traded corporations are held hostage to the quarterly bottom line because investors correctly believe that anything else will subject their money to government mischief, if not outright malfeasance. People go to national parks and litter because cleaning up "isn't their problem," and then they wonder why the parks aren't as pristine as they may have once been. "Short term self-interest based logic" seems to be rampant, and makes things worse than they need to be.

There are some people who seem to thrive on sticking it to others. There are others who do look at the long view, but then see the boors, bullies, and savages amongst us and wonder if it's all a lost cause. I personally have been in the latter camp. I sometimes have to struggle with great difficulty to not allow negativity to be my final word on a subject.

Has anyone looked for, or even discovered/developed, ways to move our current society to one where liberty is truly valued, where the long view is seen as important as the short run, where where people acknowledge ripple effects and try to deal with them so as to keep the game going pleasantly and productively? Do you think such a transitional state might be able to begin as a kind of pilot project? A project where outsiders see the fruitful results and say, of their own accord, "Hey - that's what I also want! How do I participate?"

- Bal

Hey William,

My participation was with a forum that was a listserve back in the 90s. Overall, I had an enjoyable time.

The people in that forum ran the gamut. People who loved the exploration of ideas, implications and extensions more than any particular conclusion or line of thought. People who seemed to operate on the principle that Alfred Korzybski was THE AUTHORITY on GS. Well, technically speaking, he was; much the way that I am the authority of BalSimonism. It was his baby; his creation; who could know it better than him? But from the standpoint of one's own participation, having an authority figure in a field like GS seems kind of strange. You can certainly have teachers; you can have people you respect, love and venerate. But I don't see how you ever get to the point of letting anyone stand in for the responsibility of thinking for yourself. I find the same kind of dynamic here in Objectivist land; it would seem very odd to me for someone to say that Rand is an "authority" that has greater command over your life than your own responsibility to think for yourself. That's also the reason that some of the discussions here about people *wanting* to assume the mantle of being Rand's "intellectual heir" seem odd to me. If I recall, there was some of that in the G.S. world, too; with some people calling others the intellectual heir of Korzybski. But unlike in O-land, GSrs never made a big deal about it; and I don't recall anyone claiming such a status for himself or herself. It was always something suggested by others about someone deservedly well respected.

GS does (or at least did) have it's orthodoxy defenders. I suspect this will be true in most human endeavors. I recall a college professor telling me over coffee that breakthroughs happened in science when the old scientists died away and made room for the new blood. If that's true in something like physics, where I would expect "objectivity" and "dispassion" to be strongest, I guess it's going to be true most everywhere.

Typically, those most resistant to change also seem to be those with the greatest stakes in the organizational structures. And there's probably a legitimate reason of sorts for that; the promotion of the organization might well seem to need a defense of the "original doctrine."

That's one of the reasons I find it nearly impossible to be a joiner.

But it takes all kinds to make this world work. Without the orthodoxy-laden people, the organizations might cease to exist; and the engagement of new blood might very well flounder. Maybe orthodoxies - if they don't become overbearing hogties - serve a real purpose and provide real value.

- Bal

In 1999, I was diagnosed with osteoarthritis in the left hip. Over the years, the degeneration became severe, and I elected to have a total hip replacement. One of the best decisions I ever made in the past 20 years or so. There is no way I could have afforded the operation on my own, and the lion's share of it was covered via our family health insurance.

Recently, I was talking with a friend who told me that his joints were beginning to give him trouble, and I told him that if he needed the name of a good surgeon, I could refer him. He said, "First, I need to be able to afford health insurance."

This has caused me to do some thinking and a bit of soul searching. The only difference between my friend (call him Gary) and me was that I had the good fortune to be in on my wife's health insurance, provided through the company she works for. Turns out to be a huge difference. So, essentially, my friend, and anyone similarly situated is "doomed" to suffer the pains of various maladies because such folks cannot afford to buy health insurance.

In a society like America, there is something about this that seems wrong to me. I know that there are people here who are prepared to bring out the sidewinder missiles to get rid of the socialist in their midst. Please - give me a chance before you blast away.

First of all, I pretty much agree with Rand Paul in the above video. I believe that insisting people have a "right" to health care is akin to slavery. Rand Paul said "the same as slavery," but truly, a distinction needs to be made if we are to not appear callous or like crackpots. The "slavery" that Rand Paul is discussing is not even remotely close to the harshness that was inflicted upon darkly pigmented human beings, sold by their brethren into the slavery of lighter pigmented human beings. If we cannot acknowledge this distinction, we will not have any chance at all of communicating beyond the hallowed halls of OL. But if we can say that a "right" to health care means that someone is going to be forced to provide that care, I think we can have a meaningful discussion here. Just to hit the nail on the head, no doctor is going to be sent to jail if s/he says, "I quit. I'm not going to perform medicine anymore." No doctor is going to be stripped of his or her (hir) family, property, etc. But If all doctors quit, it will show the lie of the "right" to health care for what it is.

Given the above, I'm wondering what can be done for people like my friend.

Here in Washington state, we have some of the most abysmal laws that interfere with health insurance. Among the worst are that I can't go beyond state lines to find a provider. So I think, minimally, we need to reduce state level interference. If you could create the ideal system, what would it look like? Would you come up with any solutions for people who can't afford the insurance, let alone the procedures they so desperately need? (And believe me; I felt desperate before I had my hip replacement. It is not something you go into lightly.) Or would you say, "Them's the breaks. This gives people motivation to do well in society, so they save their pennies, earn as much as they can, so that they can afford what they need."

- Bal

Probably like most people here, I come from a varied, eclectic intellectual background. One of the main pillars of my background is Alfred Korzybski's General Semantics. There are other influences, but I'd like to focus on GS.

I am fairly new to Objectivism. I came here as a result of reading Atlas Shrugged. I realized that while Atlas presented something of a caricature of America, and while Rand painted characters in sharp blacks and whites with very few shades of gray (as are found in the real world), the story nevertheless had a strong ring of truth to it. I felt like I she was writing the headlines for the news of the past 2 years, where the first real socialist president in American history has been systematically trying to fundamentally transform (his words) America into something that I do not recognize as good and against which I rebel. I was intrigued enough to look for the intellectual underpinnings of her work. I picked up The Journals of Ayn Rand and The Fountainhead. I saw The Fountainhead with Gary Cooper, but have not yet read the book. While I've not read most of her Journals, what I have read I find both inspiring and fascinating. Even if I don't agree with her on some things. On recommendation, I also just picked up the Virtue of Selfishness, and I'm looking forward to reading it. And I saw Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 a few weeks ago. I liked it, but not as much as I liked the book. Too much left out.

Anyway, out of my what I've seen so far (in Atlas, the Journals and here at OL), I see some parallel themes in both Objectivism and General Semantics, and I'd like to explore these. I'm not yet well versed enough in Objectivism to state things definitively about parallels and differences. But I'm wondering if there is anyone here at OL who is well versed in both Objectivism and Korzybski's General Semantics? For instance:

1 - Parallel? - Claims of being an Objectivist or General Semanticist provides no indication of personality type. I have seen serene, civil and thoughtful people in both arenas. I have seen people quick to fly off the handle in both arenas.

2 - Difference? - In General Semantics, a great deal is made of "non-identity" and "confusion of orders of abstraction." Korzybski is famous (in some circles) for the GS saying, "The word is not the thing," meaning that words are merely tokens or maps of things in the "real world." And with maps, one necessarily generates a transformation when moving from a lower order abstraction (e.g., the sensing of "red" when looking at an "apple.") to higher order abstractions like "red" and "apple." And the words "red" and "apple" differ in order of abstraction from the word "fruit." As one moves away from the lower order abstractions to higher ones, details are omitted from the higher order maps. What one gains from this is an economy of thought, and the ability to probabilistically generalize so that the next time one encounters an "apple," one has a decent idea of how to interact with it. But Korzybski emphasized the fact that details are omitted from the higher order maps. The word "red" when describing a "red apple" does not describe the yellow striations I see when I actually look at one. The map is incomplete. And no matter how detailed one makes the map, there will always be details left out, which leads to Korzybski's second big formulation: the map does not describe all of the territory. So far as I can tell, this is not emphasized much in Objectivist thought.

3 - Difference? - In GS there is no divorcing of "emotion" from "thinking." These terms are viewed as terms; not as entities themselves. In a Korzybskian world, there is no bright line which tells one where "emotions" stop and "thinking" begins. Indeed, in GS, "emotions" (almost always put in quote marks, as is "thought") are viewed as lower order abstractions, akin to "sensations," and these form the "raw material" for higher order abstractions. In GS one would no more try to "think unemotionally" than to stop breathing. One might try to reason dispassionately, i.e., keeping one's passions at a relatively low level on the belief that "passionate thinking" would lead to maps that were less accurate. This would not necessarily be true all the time, however. Deep passion can lead to some very impressive results because of the "sticking power" that passion can generate. But that's a side exploration. The main thrust here is that in G.S. the "organism works as a whole" and all differentiations of function that treat each as unrelated to the other are necessarily artificial and to some extent misleading. In Objectivist discussions I have seen so far, emotion seems to be something of an ugly step-child that exists but which forms undesirable baggage. Is my perception accurate?

4 - Neither a difference nor parallel - just a question: When someone composes music, what is going on? In General Semantics, the language seems fairly straightforward. The composer works with the lower-order abstractions (the sounds of notes as played by different instruments), some higher-order abstractions (e.g., the recall of musical pieces already heard and/or composed) , still higher abstractions (e.g., the 4-movement structure of a classical symphony), and still higher abstractions (e..g, music theory). All of this gets plowed back into the real-time effort to create new music as lower order abstractions (the notes coming off a piano, for instance). Does O-ist language cover this kind of process?

5 - "The word is not the thing" means also that one is not bound by the verbal descriptions of a thing. The show MacGyver was big on showing that "simple everyday things" had "properties" beyond what their common labels implied. A book may well be a book, but it can also "be" a door jam. It can "be" a projectile. It can "be" fuel for a fire if power goes out in the winter. Etc. Someone I knew refused to let an employee use "book shelves" for storing project notes, saying "book shelves are for books." In GS, one would call this a confusion of orders of abstraction, and an identification of word (the map) and the thing (the territory the map represents). In O-ist thought, it appears that there is a theme of saying that a thing is what it is. If this means that a thing is what we say it is, I have very strong disagreements about that. If O-ists simply mean that a thing is what it is, independent of what we think or say about it, then I think there is some common ground between Objectivism and General Semantics.

"Thoughts?"

- Bal

Bal,

Rich is a very good man with a very big heart.

I don't know what's happening right now, but I hope things work out where you get to know him better.

He's well worth it.

As to what's happening right now, it's just one of those days, I guess...

When they happen, a cigar is not just a cigar, but looks like a stick of dynamite--with a stink bomb included--disguised as a cigar.

Michael

Michael, thank you for sticking up for Richard. That speaks well of you.

In the short time I've been here, you and a few others have made me welcome, which I appreciate. I will keep an open mind about Richard, but I will make my own evaluation. I leave it up to him to determine if it's worth getting to know me better, as I had no prejudice one way or another prior to being insulted in a variety of ways. It's not a big deal, but the ball is clearly in his court, not mine.

- Bal

Perhaps I was not clear, I misaddressed.

IamBalSimon, on 10 May 2011 - 10:45 AM, said

That should do it.

Rich,

Actually it doesn't. You merely linked to the same thing you quoted before.

You said you have been reading Bal's posts for months and that they have made you exasperated enough to pop, but he has not been posting on OL for months and what he has posted here has been polite.

Something does not compute.

Do you guys know each other from somewhere else?

From the view out here on the outside looking in, the level of hostility and insults is hard to grok.

Michael

Thank you Michael. I don't know Rich from a termite infested hole in a tree. So far as I know, I've never met him in real life. There really is no need to come to my defense. I've suffered insults and tirades from CUSTOMERS who's opinions actually matter to me.

Oh - and Richard: sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. What's going to be your retort now? This should be fun.

- Bal

P.S. - Richard: that video was very funny. I did not expect that. Not that it matters.

Finally Snapped After Months of Reading This Stink-Worm

Rich,

Bal hasn't been posting for months.

He recently joined.

I'm confused...

Michael

Yep. I have just re read this thread three times and I am also confused.

Clearly, I've hit some nerves... Perhaps it just feels like months to Richard. There really isn't anything I want to do or even say about it. Just let him vent his spleen till he's done.

It's done like this, Sporty Pants: *sigh*

Elements like these are old flaming traditions that go back before you either A: drained down your mother's leg and still managed to crawl off somewhere and attempt consciousness, or B: (and this is stretchy) got scooped out of the vat you were grown in, and put-to-market.

Did you break a clammy sweat over those last two PPs? Were you impassioned, Grasshopper? Were you feeling the hot, sick wind of it all?

Your shiq<--(that is not a typo but you wouldn't even know why I do that) is like when you watch a semi-aware drunk attempting to make stew; that is, whatever is in the cupboard, they dump in there--then (then!) they actually expect people to compliment them on their cooking. The F.N. work alone was enough to make me sick up what was a very nice dinner.

I mean, Heavens-to-Betsy (whore that she probably was) I have not seen the likes of the goo you write in years.

Get a grip on it, man. Find the voice. Find something that doesn't taste like regurgitated hamster vomit (not that I have ever tasted it but I can only imagine it is, above all, bitter).

Go read something tranquil, maybe. Cummings. Something. Fucq.

rde

Finally Snapped After Months of Reading This Stink-Worm

SIGH...

Sigh...

While I agree with virtually every "reason" you gave for being disgusted with everyman, there's absolutely nothing new in this. This everyman you so despise is your next door neighbor. This everyman is most everyone in America, INCLUDING those who profess to be "reflective," as though that is some kind of moment-to-moment antidote that gives rise to the superman.

But this everyman, who has been with us since the beginning of this country; nay - who has been with us since the beginning of humanity; this everyman created and continues to create the Good Ship America. (And yes, I will continue to so call her that. And yes, I know I'm objectifying and personifying by using the metaphor "her.")

Name one period in America's history that didn't have everyman as the majority of its population. Name one period or one place in humanity's existence where everyman didn't screw things up. And yet out of the muck from which we come (including you, me, and Ayn Rand), good things have also evolved; one of them being America.

You will not get me to go from your "ifs" to the "then America is done and there is no hope for her to be a good place." This isn't mere patriotism. This is perspective. You are welcome to your dingy, spiteful, holier-than-thou, glass is 99.9999999999999% empty view of the world (or is it only America that you are ticked off about). If this is what makes you happy, who the hell am I to stand in the way of your good time.

I don't expect to convince you. Your business. And God knows that there have been times that I have been unduly pessimistic, that I give up on people that I shouldn't give up on. But even though it's something that will make you snort in derision, even though you will despise me for saying it, I believe America remains too GOOD a place; has been too GOOD a force in the world; has created the conditions - despite everything you correctly bring up as wrong with America - for me to give up on her. I am NOT ready to find or create Shangri La, which in Rand's book was Galt's Gulch. I gladly remain an American. I can think of no other REAL place that I'd rather be.

-------------------------

As for the word "flip." Really? you're going waste your time and mine to come down on me for using a word like that? (sigh)

-------------------------

Maybe, over time, as we cross paths in OL, I'll provide you reasons to drop the so-unnecessary hyper-negativity. I don't have anything invested in doing so; it is NOT my job; it's not even a goal I have. Call it a hope or a preference. I'm willing to hope that someone like me, who REFUSES to give up on America - much like Eddie Willers (or even Dagney Taggert and Hank Rearden for most of Atlas) will give you reasons to reconsider.

If I ever see America truly falling the way she did in Atlas, well, I won't stay on the train in the middle of nowhere. But while there are forces moving us in the direction - we are not there yet. Not by a long shot.

- Bal

There sure seems to be a good deal of defeatism with regards to the Good Ship America. Are you guys just being flip, or have you seriously given up on The Good Ship America?

- Bal

Ba'al - I think we are talking past each other and not really communicating. Clearly, I don't understand the point you are trying to make. I'll own it as a flaw in my ability to understand something that seems to be accepted as "coin of the realm" here in OL.

You seem to be equating charity with a "bribe." Would that be correct?

- Bal

And finally, more on point: who has more gold and raw power to make rules than the United States government? Yet we also have a Bill of Rights built into our Constitution that tells the gold owners, "Oh no you don't!"

- Bal

See how often the Bill of Rights is set aside or twisted by those who have the Gold or those they bribed.

Money talks. Lots of money screams.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are correct --- to some extent. Yet our government CAN and has been successfully challenged. Moreover, you didn't answer my question. I wasn't asking merely as a matter of tactics. I was asking as a matter of ethics. You said, "I'm a great believer in..." That sounds like a preference and, perhaps, an ethical position. So - you should be willing to take as well as to get, or do you think that you can get others to accept special rules just for you? If you are on the receiving end of power, do you still think unbridled power is the way to go? If you had a billion bucks, would your next move be to see how many trusting blind people you could knock down a flight of stairs? I'm sure you could hire lawyers to get you a get out of jail free card. So would you have a good time at their or anyone else's expense? Somehow, I don't think so.

- Bal

I am a great believer in the Golden Rule. He who has the Gold makes the Rules.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Really? Should I now consider you (who does nice work for the blind and dyslexic) no more than a Goa'uld. I would hope you were an Egyptian pharaoh or scifi bad guy in name only.

More seriously, though: how about when you're on the receiving end of the one who has more gold than you? Would you tell the gold owner, "do it to me; I live for being done to." Somehow, I don't think so.

And finally, more on point: who has more gold and raw power to make rules than the United States government? Yet we also have a Bill of Rights built into our Constitution that tells the gold owners, "Oh no you don't!"

- Bal

David -

I know you said that you were done with this topic, but on the chance that your curiosity brings you back to see my response, and on the chance that my response is a sufficient motivator to get you reply, maybe you're not quite done. We'll see.

I'll keep it somewhat brief... ;)

-I like what Bear Grylls said on his show, "Nature is neither for nor against us..." I love what my friend said, "Our job (Man) is to eliminate accidents." Why would I wait or simply prepare to be killed by nature? I'd try to understand it and control it within the best of my abilities. If I did die due to an accident, do I have time to complain anymore?

You said, "I find that I am happiest when I don't try to "own" things; including my life. I just live. I try to do good in the ways that I understand good. I try to be a source of pleasure and help for others in my life. Not out of some kind of selflessness; but because I find myself happiest when I do so. Call it a quirk.

I don't mind that you try for immortality. Go for it if it is important to you. Just understand that at least one man doesn't give a rip about it and has other things he considers more fun, more entertaining, and more useful."

I find that I am happiest when I have true and full control of things. I am happy to know/grasp/understand how and why I am living. Awe would be the proper emotion every time I have that moment of lucid identification, an, "Ah, this is what it is..." because then, I can use it as an anchor to say, "Ah, that's the way things ought to be." so to speak.

What if you don't die, but are rather seriously injured? Then, yes, you do have time to complain. This aspect of your argument doesn't hold much water with me. I never said you should "wait" for Nature to come along and kill you. I am saying that there are times when "life happens" in ways totally outside your control, and OK - maybe you don't die, you become someone who wants to communicate but has no means to do so. My dad suffered a severe stroke at the end of his life. One of the most challenging things my mother ever had to do was get past wondering if "he was still in there - but unable to communicate" before she could finally stop torturing herself and agree to pull the plug, at which point he was truly gone. What would you have said to her during her moments of agony; before she made her decision? Let me make the picture just a little more vivid: my dad, lying there silent, seemed to respond when I would hum the Ode to Joy from Beethoven's 9th. I took this to mean that my dad "was still in there," perhaps silently screaming to let me know. (Wow - surprisingly, I'm get tears right now just remembering that time. Who'd think grief would show up 16 years later with such force?) The doctor insisted it was just reflex to his ears registering the sound waves. It took me a long, long time (relatively speaking - more tears as I write these words) to get to "maybe the doctor is right" and then to "dad wouldn't want to live like this, even if he is in there." It took my mom a lot longer than me, and I think to the day she died some 10 years later, she was never at peace about her decision.

So - I'm definitely not saying you should "wait" for harsh circumstances to befall you. And I certainly don't wish any upon you. And I go farther and hope you figure it all out in time to avoid all such circumstances.

What I am saying is that, sad to say, I don't believe you will.

Perhaps we can find common ground in our thinking (I don't think we have any kind of difficulty in actually living our lives) if we look at events such as the Japanese tsunami (many thousands were injured who have not yet died) as "new starting points." They become the new reality for those who were affected. Indeed every second of our lives are "new starting points," but things like a tsunami can be more easily distinguished as such.

If someone was injured in something like that, I would expect that a rational response, after experiencing grief, anger, etc. associated with changes outside hir control, would emerge. A rational person would establish new control as best s/he could, given the new circumstances.

However, the way you write, I would anticipate you never grieve; maybe you have never grieved and see no point to grief; you simply adapt. Do you simply register new circumstances and move forward? Do feel any kind of anguish if something happens that wrenches at your soul? (When I watched footage of the mass graves in Nazi death camps, that was soul wrenching for me.) These are most definitely emotions associated with not starting over. For most people, the word "yet" is included, as in "not starting over yet," and "needing time to grieve" and other such phrases. But maybe you are above it all, or at least outside it all?

I don't know you, David. So I definitely am not asserting; I'm just wondering and thus asking.

I find Peter here to be good, I believe it was him who put in a good word for you and I'm happy that he did.

I like that someone put in a good word for me. That's just the kind of thing I hope people do if and when they happen to think in my general direction. It means that my impact on the world leaves it slightly more pleasant than before I got here. Good enough for me.

Cheers,

- Bal