IamBalSimon

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

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... ;) 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 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

The way I would respond is to step back a bit and ask the "socialist" if there is any difference between a privately funded charity and a government welfare program that gets its money by forcible extraction from producers, aimed (one hopes) for the common welfare of the populace. If s/he says yes, I'd see if I could get a sensible differentiation from this person. If not, I'd end the conversation as quickly as possible and walk away. Some people are so blind by ideology that there truly is no way to reason with them. If s/he can provide a decent differentiation, I'd start asking about the things that it's OK for a charity to do (without any reference to the government). - Would it be OK to require charity recipients to do anything in return for the money? If no, end the conversation and walk away. Drilling down just a little, I'm guessing that the socialists would say that it's "wrong" to "force" (but it's not force since it's a privately funded charity) someone to do something s/he would not do if she had the means to support hirself. But in reality, all you're doing is offering a very intense choice. The question is whether you have a legal and more importantly an ethical "right" to make such an offer. With some boundaries (see below), I think we do have such a right. I'd ask the following queries follow only if you haven't walked away: Would it be OK to require the recipient to: - learn how to cook? - take a bath? - learn the principles of hygiene? - follow principles of hygiene to a certain charity-established standard? - provide web design for the charity website? - stand outside with a placard that tells about the charity? - agree to have dentistry to fix hir (his/her) teeth? - agree to have diseases treated? - agree to face humiliation? (e.g., wear a clown's nose on Main Street) - be temporarily sterilized? ------------------------- - be permanently sterilized? - have an operation to donate a kidney? - put up a child for adoption? - put up the child for drug research? - get a divorce? - marry someone in the charity? - submit to sadomasochistic sex that might end up in maiming or death? - submit to torture? Are there any items on this list that anyone here would consider unethical and perhaps make illegal? I would be thinking seriously about all of the items below the red line. For instance, I think it is reasonable that there are laws that forbid auctioning of organs on Ebay. Everything above the line would be OK in my view. But I know enough to know that we draw our lines differently. Where would people here put the line - if anywhere? Between adults would you say it's totally anything goes - including what you do with "your" children? - Bal

David, I don't mean to be in any way pejorative in my criticism, but you seem to be expressing a kind of absolutism that I find interesting and perhaps charming. No - charming's not the right word, though it comes close... I'm not sure what the word is that I'm looking for here. etc... David, I've been thinking about what I wrote above. I stand by it, but I need to be extremely clear that it was not meant in any way as a dig. I think what you are interested in doing - in leaving a mark on the world is an admirable thing. I think I reacted to the word "immortality." If we can substitute the word "legacy" instead of immortality, that seems closer to what you are after. If we can go with that word, then I acknowledge that I too would like the world to be a better place as a result of my having been in it. I'd like people, if and when they remember me, that they do so with justified affection. I don't need to wait till I die for wanting this. When people I love or who are my friends are not with me, if and when they turn a thought in my direction, I'd like it to be with justified affection. Regardless - I need you - and everyone else reading this - to get the message that my intent in writing the above post, while written in earnest and playfully, was not intended to be caustic, derisive, or the like. Whether you believe it or not is up to you and none of my business. But I have now done what I can to clarify what may have been less than clear. - Bal

David, I don't mean to be in any way pejorative in my criticism, but you seem to be expressing a kind of absolutism that I find interesting and perhaps charming. No - charming's not the right word, though it comes close... I'm not sure what the word is that I'm looking for here. Do you really and truly believe that you can leave an indelible mark on this world that will be recognizable as your mark? AND are you really and truly using this forum "and places like it" as a way to leave permanent marks? There are currently 6 billion+ people on planet Earth in 2011. Billions more have died today going backwards through antiquity. There have been trillions (way to small a number) more animals, plants and microbes that live and have lived on this rock for the past several billion years. Every one of them leaves and has left one or more (probably more) "marks." Add to this the "brownian noise" of time. About 50,000 years ago, long after humans began walking upright and thinking that fire, wheels and language were cool, a meteor slammed into Arizona, the result being Meteor Crater (source: Wikipedia). Now imagine that some "David" who lived there thought about immortality and decided to paint some really cool murals on adobe walls. His marks are GONE. (Added after original post: I think I got my history wrong... Humans have been around this long; civilization not. But it doesn't change the main thrust of my argument.) OK - that's extreme, I'll admit. So let's take one that is less extreme. Have you ever heard of a painter named Robert W. Vonnoh? Until this moment, I did not. But as an experiment, I did a bit of Googling on the query painter bob, and he turned up. Turns out he was a decent enough painter in mid to late 1800s Philadelphia. Now, I acknowledge that I'm no bellwether about how well less than famous painters are known, but I never heard of him. And I dare say that there were painters named Bob (as well as Philip, Barbara, and Larry, etc.) who have never made a public mark in any way shape or form. And then there are the millions of us (I include myself so far in this) who live very private lives; who live decently enough, have friends, family, enjoy living. Nothing bad; but nothing special, either. But even for the special ones (and who knows, maybe you are and/or will be one who is incredibly important in the course of human affairs), I will now nail the coffin shut: one good supernova in our local neighborhood (say within 16 lightyears from us) will wipe out any kind of immortality you're likely able to implement. I can say this with near certainty because I am willing to be every penny I own that humanity will not reach the stars in my lifetime, and probably not your lifetime either. Meaning that if that supernova did happen, that would about wrap it up for humanity. We don't "own" our own lives. We control very little that goes on in them. We are susceptible to unanticipated events, and there is literally NOTHING you or anyone else can do about it other than to prepare in advance as best you can. But sometimes events can be so overwhelming that there truly is nothing you can do. Did you see the aerial footage of the Japanese tsunami; I watched it live and was just amazed and horrified at how easily 10,000+ lives could be snuffed out (the ethical and depraved; the smart and the dumb; the Objectivists, the General Semanticists, the Kantians, the Taoists, the Shintoists, and the solipsists; the family man and the hermit; the professor and the prostitute; the Epicurian and the hit man - all dead in "an instant." Did they "own" their lives? Did they leave a permanent mark that is recognizable as theirs? Maybe a very few; but I daresay not most. Not by a long shot. 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. But I tip my cap to you, sir. Sincerely I do. May you live happily and productively forever. The true owner of your life. - Bal

David - Please - no apologies needed. It usually takes a lot to irritate me in a forum like this, let alone offend me. I try my darndest to not be a pompous windbag who worries about needles doing a nice puncture job. And if I ever become a pompous windbag, then needles are what I deserve. Simple perspective: I've had a lot worse than anyone here can possibly throw at me and still, my wife laughs at things I come up with. How can my life be anything other than glorious overall? So I shake your hand in the middle of a delightful, if challenging discussion. My spirit in these discussions could be labeled "earnest playfulness" or perhaps better, "playful earnest inquiry and discussion." Please take my conversations in that mode, and not in the mode of trying to pull anyone's leg; other than perhaps as a good-natured ribbing. And I expect to get as good as I give. Don't know the GS guy; my experience with General Semanticists has been that they seem very similar to the conversants in this forum. The subjectmatter and the jargon differ somewhat, but the spirit of inquiry seems very similar as do the range of personalities. Indeed, I think I could map different personalities I've seen here to those I've encountered in one of the GS forums some time ago. So - I'm looking at the Rand Lexicon (http://aynrandlexicon.com) and there is some discussion about epistemology and a little about knowledge. Nothing on the word "belief." I prefer to call what I have "information-beliefs." IF they happen to correspond to facts, then these have the special status of knowledge. Let's look at a different example. The scientific method, as described in the late 19th century forward has not changed all that much between then and now. But a physicist in the early 20th century would have a mere glimmer of the information-belief structure of a 21st century physicist. I don't know if Scientific American still publishes this column, but they used to reprint stories from "50 years ago" and "100 years ago." It is quite instructive to see what information scientists had access to and what they believed about it. I'll wager that some of the scientists weren't so far removed from your voodoo priest in terms of the validity of their information-beliefs. I'm not sure what the point of this comment is. Misery loves company? I don't believe that's what you want me to take away from it. But how does the fact that other people are fallible or not figure into this discussion? Sometimes. Not usually. I guess that depends on what you mean by "corrected." Do you mean that the knowledge itself can be corrected, or that the actual consequences of mistakes can be undone? In any case; I was once working at a company as a tech writer, on contract. One day, while there at my desk, someone from the HR department told me to pack up my things and escorted me out the door. I asked why, and she said she was not at liberty to tell me. To this day, I have no idea why I was escorted out the door. There are situations in life where you can't peal back and see what's behind the curtain. Sometimes, the information you need to make a proper evaluation is not forthcoming. Well, I read the words, but I'm not sure of what you mean. In my view, epistemology underlies and informs ethics; assuming one takes the time (when life is flowing at a significantly reduced pace) to explore his or her information-belief structures in order to understand hirself. I see ethics emerging as a realtime application of the evaluation of right-and-wrong; and this evaluation will be influenced by one's epistemological underpinnings. Forget the same page... am I in the right library? - Bal

(emphasis added) Wow! I really do have some jargon/concepts to learn if I'm going to participate here in a way that lets me hobnob with the cognoscenti. Indeed, I am an egg. - Bal

OK - I'll ask... So by "suffice," do you really mean to say that your remarks are truly the last, final and sufficient word on everything there is to know and discuss about metaphysics, epistemology and ethics? Really? - Bal Far from it. My questions are under Metaphysics - Epistemology - Ethics and would suffice for Nate's query (context). Oh, please do not be generalsemanticist in another name. I found that guy similar to a spambot. I am just an egg, with much to learn... So you're saying that your answer here was sufficient to answer Nate's original thread question? Let's go with that. But I'm still not getting it unless this is another term of art that O-ists use that I wasn't familiar with: Epistemology of reason. Is that a term of art for a subject related to, but different from the general subject of epistemology? I ask because I use the word epistemology to label my explorations of what I know; the processes (physical, physiological, sociological, psychological, linguistic, etc.) by which I come to know various things; the constraints that exist as I try to understand these things; my very real and unfortunate predilection to make mistakes (generally recoverable, but sometimes not) - etc. This leaves the discussion of "self-interest" and "egoism" (si&e) miles away. I'm not saying si&e are not relevant. Just miles away from a current focus that wanders around the universe in ways that sometimes astonish me. (My wife calls my mind "ping-ballish" because it jumps hither and yon in ways that she can't fathom. Call it a quirk.) Oh - and I think you are the first person in my life to ask me if I was akin to a spambot. I'm not sure how I feel about that. B) - Bal

OK - I'll ask... So by "suffice," do you really mean to say that your remarks are truly the last, final and sufficient word on everything there is to know and discuss about metaphysics, epistemology and ethics? Really? - Bal

Hi Bal, Who can't wait? (apart from yourself, that is. B) ) I can, even if it involves living with contextualism, and Ghs's "delicate balance between relativism and absolutism.". OK - maybe my language wasn't artful. So let me try to clarify... Suppose you are an investor. Some developer wants to build a bypass through a fellow citizen's home; let's call him ADent. He, of course, objects. In the meantime, a bunch of Environmentalists (who despise developers and wish we could all go back to the paradisaical savannah from which we came) decide to invoke a study to slow down the developer. The wheels of government begin to turn. Glacially. No global warming (or any other kind of warmth) between the ears of those running City Hall. Hearings are scheduled, and could last as long as 2 years. Should you buy ADent's home? Should you invest with the developer's company? Or should you invest in something else? The facts that can guide you with any accuracy are beyond the ken of anyone since we don't know how the hearings will turn out. Yet you have money that wants to be invested, and you are loathe to put it in a pillow, awaiting City Hall's decision. One way of looking at it is to say that I don't have time to wait for all the parties to sort this thing out, so I'm going to make a decision not involving them. A different way of stating it is that I do have enough data right now to make a decision right now. I can choose to wait or I can choose to move on. I don't need to drill down into the factors about what might be the outcome of the hearings unless I choose to wait. Yes - this is my view as well. Yes - and I agree with this as well. This is where I part company with you a bit. It's all well and good to have a health dose of self-confidence. It is quite another for me to believe that I truly have a good bead on the facts that make up reality. The number of times I thought one thing was happening - truly believed it with every fiber of my being, only to find out that I'd missed a data point or two or three that turned the whole thing around is legion. The number of times I thought I understood something and missed an incredibly important context that ruined not only my day but that of several million others is also documented. I'm talking about the Northridge earthquake in the early morning of January 17, 1994. I lived 7 miles from the epicenter of that quake. If I'd had any inkling of the true geological context that lay under my bed as I slept that morning, I very likely would have taken books off the shelves, put glass out of harm's way, etc. But not only did I not know of the impending disaster, neither did the geologists with all their sensitive equipment and then-current theories. Beyond that, there are the practical actions one is faced with going forward. One does not wait for all the data that could make one truly secure in a future major quake before rebuilding. One does not wait for engineers to know enough before buying a new home in an earthquake zone that is virtually guaranteed to have another big one. "One has to live." This seems so utterly clear to me. We make do with the best information we have. We hope that those with whom we deal (the carpenters, the brick layers, the architects, the inspectors, etc. etc.) are operating out of good faith and actually have the ability to put "best practices" into play; knowing all the while that ultimately it may not be enough to shield us from disaster. Buildings that are supposedly earthquake proof still come down in a big enough quake, or in a quake that creates unanticipated sets of vibrations, etc. Does any of this make sense? Or do you view me as living off in some kind of head-trippy la la land? B) I appreciate the interesting discussion. I don't have too many people in my day-to-day life with whom to discuss topics like this. - Bal

Hey Peter, Who could dispute the notion of proof as George specified? I wouldn't use the word "hierarchical" without also suggesting the "heterarchical" underpinnings too. Also, I would add into the mix the neurological and the linguistic aspects of assertions. But all in all, the view synchs up with mine just fine. However - I know I'm going to open up a thicket here - our senses can mislead us. I do not deny the "transducer" quality of our senses. A photon hits a rod or a cone in my retina, and assuming no organic damage, it "responds" per whatever "its structural specifications" are. But I note that my vision is not what it used to be. Nor is my hearing. Nor my sense of touch. Unfortunately, IMO, these are all subject to the vagaries of age. Add to this that my knowledge2011-05-04 differs from my knowledge2011-05-03, and sometimes "what a difference a day makes" can apply to the state of my knowledge, or more appropriately, my beliefs. Certainly my beliefs2011-05-04 or more likely to be correct about a good many things than those I held when I was 5 years old. There are things when I was 5 years old I never even thought about. And there are things today that you think about which would never cross my mind no matter how long I live, and probably vice versa. Who determines the fidelity of the correspondence of belief to facts? How is this done? In many cases, I think it takes man-years, maybe man-decades to get at the facts. In the meantime we live our lives, and cannot wait. I submit that we make "intellectual dodges." (To the best of my knoweldge, Teilhard de Chardin is the originator of that phrase.) We make educated guesses and act on them. We live with "as-if-true" estimates and, if we are acting in good faith, I think that this is the best that I can expect. One more very quick, very extreme example, and then you can tell me if I've gotten your meanings all bollixed up. Several years ago, a very good friend of mine had a severe, lower brain stem stroke. Apparently, the lower on the brain stem a clot or an aneurism occurs, the more severe a stroke is likely to be. One of the results of this was that the left half of each eye was "blind." Oh - the retina was fine. The rods and cones behaved just like the good transducers that they are. But their signals were not reaching my friend's brain/consciousness (I don't know where brain ends and consciousness begins. That's a whole 'nother discussion.). One of the results of this symptom was what is called "left neglect." A consequence of this was that he could not be allowed to sign contracts without someone he trusted to be at his side to read the contracts for him. His ability to scan a page was severely impaired. He would read the right half of a line, and upon reaching the rightmost word, would go down a line to about half-way to the left. He treated the mid-line of the page as the leftmost point. Imagine a sentence which had the word "not" in the leftward portion of a line. Changes the entire meaning of the sentence. Eventually, he was able to be retrained, but it took months. How do I know that I don't suffer from some other less severe kind of "neglect" in my evaluations of things. My friend was absolutely certain of what was in reality his mistaken understanding. It took time to convince him that he had a problem, and it took a lot more time still to retrain him. I don't see any way out of this kind of situation we humans find ourselves in. We do the best we can with the best tools and methods we have available at a given time, in the most sincere effort to apply those tools and methods to get at the reality of things. But, as I see it, there is no certainty that I can get it right, though for the most part I act "as if" my beliefs are good. - Bal

Hi Chris, Why, exactly, is this obvious? When he was a lad of about 5 years old, I began telling my son, ------------------------- "There are 4 things you need to consider when evaluating whether you should hang out with someone (besides just liking him or her). 1 - Whether they have and use the brains that God gave them. (I do not mean God as God; it's just a colloquialism, OK?) 2 - What is in their hearts. (Another colloquialism, yes?) 3 - Who they hang out with. (Hang out with idiots and you set the bar for yourself far too low. Hang out with geniuses (if they'll let you) and you will find opportunities to excel that won't come any other way.) 4 - Whether they have communicable (especially airborne) diseases. (Family and others close to your heart form an exception to this rule as might professional responsibility.)" ------------------------- The ability and performance of "thinking" does not guarantee good, high-fidelity, accurate thoughts. (GIGO still applies - and I think that is more obvious than anything this study might tell us.) But even with good, high-fidelity, accurate thoughts, IMO the other three factors still count bigtime. I'd rather hang out with an ignorant, superstitious, out-in-the-sticks rube who happens to treat people decently, with honesty, has a light sense of humor, and a sense of the square deal than with some high-fallutin' gun-slinging, barbarian who happens to "think" original thoughts, who tells everyone "no" instead of "yes," has steely, shifty, beady little eyes, and wouldn't know how to square a deal if his mother's life depended on it. (Fortunately, most of the time, our choices aren't so binary.) If you are saying that a "thinker" wouldn't do that, then I believe there's a semantic issue you need to address; namely that your definition of "think" and the definition of "think" used by the people performing the study (who likely are not Randian O-ists) probably are very different, meaning you can't get to your conclusion from their definition without some translation of their definition into your philosophical system. - Bal

Since we've made a side-foray into Nature/Nurture Free Will/Determinism, let me present one more nice little factor to make the matter even more complicated. Enjoy. Humans have one additional source of "mind control" other than the kind shown in the video. We also have memes (I'm aware of the irony where I criticized Dawkins as a pompous windbag and now use a term he invented. Sometimes he makes sense; sometimes he seems arrogant. What can I say?) I think one of the great things that Rand brought to the table, though she didn't have the word "memes" at her disposal, was the idea that ideas can be self-destructive; e.g., the idea that we MUST live for other people's benefit is a form of mind-control by others; especially others who do not live by that idea. - Bal

Great advice, Michael. Here are some of the science venues I frequent. And even then, I do so with a skeptic's eye because (1) they are not the 1st hand reports of scientific journals and more importantly (2) in the "mind" sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.), political correctness has a way of rearing its hideous ugly face and skewing the reporting of the data - sometimes to the point of lunacy. Next time I come across such a beast I'll try to remember to post it here. Here's the list: http://sciencedaily.com http://scitechdaily.com (they also have a wealth of other science links: http://scitechdaily.com/resources.htm) http://sciam.com (Scientific American) http://www.scicentral.com/ http://www.popsci.com/ (Popular Science) Just for fun: http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/ One of the questions I would have of the authors, assuming the effect is real, is whether the effect "out in the wilds of normal society" is determinative or marginal in its effect. I suspect the answer would be marginal for most people and extreme for some cases. Then, of course, would be the follow-up question of the factors that move one from being marginally influenced to being highly determined by the effect. (Nature? Nurture? Evil Spirits? What?) - Bal

Thanks for the laugh! Kind Regards, Bal

Tony (and anyone else), Maybe you can clarify something for me. Are "details" and "contexts" really O-ist synonyms? If so, why create a special term of art for a word that works well for non-O-ists? In any event... The lexicon that Peter pointed me to does not define "details" though it does seem to provide a reasonable explanation of "context." I say reasonable because I come at context from a kind of "general semantics/gestalt psychology/taoist" mutt-mix of understanding. Namely, no matter how well I get at a "context" there will be a meta-context that I am not paying conscious attention to. I may or may not be able to consciously access any given meta-context; but at some point I will not be able to do so. As you know by now, I like to provide examples. So here's one. I write these words. There is a vocabulary context for it. There is also a syntax (rules? context?) that makes the words line up in a "proper" way. I am free, within this context, to manipulate the words in many different ways, but if I want to maintain the syntactical context, I have to use them in certain ways, or I have to make clear the deviation, as now I words these write to a point a make. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to make out the meaning of the italicized words even though they don't fit the culturally accepted syntax. Behind that syntax is another context: my neurology. I might, with some help from neuroscience, be able to have a partial understanding of this context, but I have no conscious awareness of my or anyone else's neurology. I have no idea why the color "green" appears the way it does to me. Nor do I know the neurology behind my disliking rap sounds and loving classical music. Nor do I know, first hand, my evolutionary context. I don't even have access to family tree data that might give me some clues. My grandparents came over during the Russian pogroms and their town was burned to the ground. So in a "family tree" sense (would you use the word context instead of sense?), I'm something of an orphan. Beyond this, you have contexts that interplay with great complexity. Culture/nurture affects nature and vice versa. I don't currently have any way of teasing out much of the "nature" context of my life from its "culture" context. Indeed, I can't even wrap "my mind" around the boundaries that would make up either context. "But so long as and to the extent that his mind deals with concepts (as distinguished from memorized sounds and floating abstractions), the content of his concepts is determined and dictated by the cognitive content of his mind, i.e., by his grasp of the facts of reality. If his grasp is non-contradictory, then even if the scope of his knowledge is modest and the content of his concepts is primitive, it will not contradict the content of the same concepts in the mind of the most advanced scientists." - Rand in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology found at the Lexicon. I'm kind of vague about what Rand means here. So --- Questions... 1 - How does one know without an exploration of meta-contexts (and see above about the limits there that I believe exist), whether one's "grasp" is non-contradictory with the facts of reality. Does O-ist epistemology require one to painstakingly examine non-self-evident facts? (Self-evident fact: I exist. Non-self-evident fact: the moon is 240,000 miles from the Earth.) How big a priority would this be? I can see it taking a very long time depending on how deeply you want to drill down into the facts. I could write a 500 page book about one of my fingernails with enough motivation and time. Human participation seems to have very real constraints - time, energy, attention span, insight, creativeness, etc. One's ability to have confidence that his or her (hir) grasp on non-self-evident facts about reality is non-contradictory seems questionable at best. 2 - So let's take another historical example: Consider how people thought about diseases prior to widespread knowledge of the germ theory of disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease#History). Prior to this, many people believed that diseases were caused by evil spirits (which is where "Bless you" comes from when you sneeze). The knowledge was indeed primitive by today's standards, and as near as I can tell, it is contradicted entirely by the facts as we know them today. I interpret this to mean that while my contexts do indeed provide an intelligible framework around what I know, they are also every bit as fallible and susceptible to being mistaken as any other data. As always, I'm open to being shown where I err or if there are other things I should take into account. - Bal

Hey Peter, Got it - will look it over. Thank you. Regarding Rand tweeking definitions and confounding people, I understand the spirit of that. There are times I playfully try to confound people, and I truly enjoy when there is an "aha!" so that's what Bal meant. But without that "aha!" it is not all that fun for me. I live for the "aha!" And it's not an "aha!" for anything profound. It might just be making a connection between two very loosely related points. One small example: I'm a fan of the current series Doctor Who. There are all kinds of "bad guys" in that show. And nearly all of them have dialogue that repeats over and over and over again. Most famously the "Daleks" say "Exterminate" over and over and over again. Watching the show with my wife, I commented that this dialogue was handed off to the "in-betweeners" so that they could save money by having the main writers only write real dialogue. (For those who don't know, you can find out about inbetweening here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbetweening.) But - if my effort is to be deeply understood, I find it important to make sure that my meanings are clearer and that my tweaking is done only in the service of being better understood. If I have no deeper desire to be understood, then tweaking for the "aha!" moment is very enjoyable. - Bal

I couldn't agree with you more, Michael. Not quite on point, but related - the old show, The Twilight Zone had episodes where someone sold his soul to the Devil, only to find out that the details of the deal weren't covered. With virtually any "rule" I can think of, "details" matter greatly. - Bal

Hey Tony - I just purchased Virtue from Amazon. It's now high in my stack of stuff to read. Thanks. What I would find helpful, if you're up for it, are either commonly experienced examples or counter-examples to those I have provided that demonstrate the choices we have from your point of view. - Bal

No - I have a sort of confused understanding of this because of the way that the movie Atlas was discussed on various message boards, etc. That movie has largely been presented as an antidote to Obama-ism and to many other isms as well. I guess I sort of conflated the more intellectually casual discussions outside this forum with the more intense discussions within it. Also, I have now realized that there is no stated relationship between the movie and this forum other than to the extent of whether the movie met O-ist's expectations or not. So - to the extent I didn't make these differentiations before... apologies. Perish the thought. I would hope that NO ONE ever "joins me" or my approach to anything. I'm not a "joiner." I would find it very disheartening indeed for others to join me other than to discuss things from his or her (hir) own point of view. How else do I have any opportunity to learn. And just as I don't quote Rand (Korzybski or the Bible for that matter) chapter and verse as the authority for what I believe, I would find it even more disheartening for anyone to say something like, "As Bal Simon said..." Ugh - I can think of little that would be more intellectually hideous. This is not false pride. This is avoidance of boredom. Are we good? - Bal

Oops! Thanks for the correction. - Bal

Probably not. For the Objectivist interpretation clashes with the usual, accepted meanings of terms like 'selfishness', 'selflessness', 'sacrifice'. Therefore a person not familiar with Objectivism would not understand why an Objectivist would e. g. call a looter a 'selfless' individual. If what you say is true, or even mostly true, there would seem to be a problem, or perhaps a contradiction that should be acknowledged and perhaps addressed. The problem is that most people, not being Objectivists, must think O-ists to be loons since they don't understand that they're not hearing Standard American English when they believe that they are. Yet O-ists seem to pride themselves on being able to communicate. So is it merely within-group that such heightened communication takes place, as in some kind of precious high-school clique, or is it with the world at large with which O-ists (in general) desire to communicate? If the latter, how will this be done if you use homonymous words that mean something different, and perhaps even opposite of what the usual meanings are? Presumably, O-ists would like to live in the kind of world that that they envision Objectivism would bring if more widely understood and accepted. (If not, what's the point?) But how will this be done if ways are not found to express at least the basics in language that others might understand, consider and perhaps even agree with? Consider, for example this: You say a looter is selfless in O-language, yes? I take that to mean (correct me if I'm mistaken) that the looter, not having any real understanding of himself/herself (hirself) cannot act in hir own self-interest, which if s/he could, would ethically self-force hir to act in ways that stopped hir from looting again. Yet this could be expressed in common English with a little effort: namely: looters are people who don't understand that their self-interest goes far beyond their immediate desire for ill-gotten gains. A person wants to go to nice places with hir money. A person wants the people s/he loves to be seen by competent doctors. But how can any of that exist if looting is the method everyone uses? If your doctor is a looter, same as you, does it not follow that s/he will give your child bogus medicine to make an ill-gotten "profit?" Your child will not improve from such pills. And you might say that the doctor got the better of you. But did s/he really? Now s/he has money to buy food. So s/he goes to the grocer - who cheats as well. The grocer finds ways to cut corners and to make sure that the food you get is as cheap as possible without care about its value to your health. So the grocer gets more money, but what will s/he spend it on? If you want a society of value, you cannot be party to a society that has looting as its basic value. Assuming that I'm somewhat close to Objectivist meanings in my example, I would say that my language is more accessible to the layperson. If that is true, and I come to this game as one of the least versed in O-ism here, then surely people who've made this their life's work can do better than me. And if so, then the question is one of whether anyone wants the world at large to understand O-ism. I don't know if this makes any sense to you or anyone else reading my words. But I'm sure I will be told. - Bal

I watched the video, and I have to say that Dawkins comes off kind of Prichettesque, as in Dr. Prichett at the party in Chapter 4 of Atlas. I'm not saying that Dawkins is or isn't correct. I'm saying he has the same smarmy attitude of Dr. Pritchett, an attitude that makes me want to push him into the shallow end of a pool and maybe soak his money. What a pompous windbag Dawkins seemed to me! Mount Improbable - well there are lots of things that are improbable. And I dare say that "why" questions (even if Dawkins thinks them meaningless) have led to scientific inquiries that might otherwise not have been made. But since the man is not here to defend himself, and since I'm probably not even "worthy of a flea's fart" to someone in his vaunted position, let's leave him at the side of our road and just continue the discussion directly. I would differentiate the questions about abiogenesis from that of "why is there anything at all?". I would say that "how" questions - and abiogenesis is almost certainly of that type - are almost always within the purview of science. If a process happens in Nature, it ought to be describable and perhaps even capable of simulation with some degree of accuracy and justified confidence. We describe hurricanes, but not yet with sufficient precision to see where they start "at the butterfly level" so that we can rather easily stop them before they start. The why is there a universe at all question seems to me a different kind of animal. When I ask it, I am suggesting a source of wonder that is currently incapable of being rendered mundane by our scientific knowledge. When I ask this question, I am not suggesting that there is a God. That would simply push things back to the question, why is there a God? Wouldn't it have been simpler if there was nothing at all? Maybe this is indicative of a mental disease on my part. But I just can't drop that question and call it meaningless. There is something about the very presence of a universe in the first place that just amazes me, that I find truly astonishing. If there is magic, it is in the very existence of something rather than nothing. I hope I've put this to rest. I neither believe nor don't believe in God. I have no data upon which to form a belief. The astonishment caused by my "why a universe" question forces upon me the possibility of this: "the answer could be - could be - simply fantastic!" In that possibility I find room for the possibility of the existence of God. And since that's at least as inaccessible to me as what preceded the Big Bang, I have no idea what such a God would be like. Call me an extreme agnostic. Very well, your interpretation of the image is different, there’s little point belaboring it. When I pictured a patchwork, my thinking was of the possiblility that one patch will clash with the others. But yes - the patches in my patchwork philosophy/understanding CAN conceivably conflict with one another. When that happens, I have to make a choice about which way to proceed. This need not be as "bad" a situation as you seem to be making it out to be. Physicists have dealt with incomplete models of light. In some situations light behaves like a particle. In other experiments it behaves like a wave. To my knowledge, no one has developed an "integrated theory of light" that explains how this can be. Why should a person's understanding of life, which is likely at least as complex as an understanding of light, be given an unfavorable status just because it is "patchy." I think that the goal of integration is a fine one. I think for me to declare my philosophy integrated before it is would be a big mistake. So, since I don't know everything; since my philosophies (plural) haven't been acid tested in ways that demand testing (not that I want them tested as the tests would likely be extremely unpleasant), I cannot declare victory on the integration front. I do the best I can and make do with a less than ideal situation. Think of it as a kind of philosophical/epistemological MacGyverism. Using what tools one has at his or her disposal to reach a goal. - Bal

Yes and no. I am aware of my own lack of integration. And I do accept it as current status; not as the ideal situation. <....> And yes, of course, I don't like guru-ism. Something stands or falls on the merits; ideally, it shouldn't matter who the personality is behind it. This isn't always true, of course, but in terms of guru-ism, I think it nearly always is. As for me, I don't connote 'lack of integration' with patchwork, for when you think of a patchwork quilt, it is an integrated whole composed of different elements: Example: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blog.craftzine.com/RIckRackBlock.jpeg&imgrefurl=http://blog.craftzine.com/archive/2008/08/how_to_rickrack_patchwork_quil.html&usg=__3C5deKVAWia62VlR8ntkN1p8GNs=&h=375&w=500&sz=218&hl=de&start=25&zoom=1&tbnid=JC12JTlYycijmM:&tbnh=151&tbnw=198&ei=ASi9Tc2tNMvtsgbC9ZWHBg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpatchwork%2Bquilt%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DH2m%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:de:official%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D832%26tbm%3Disch0%2C876&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=835&page=2&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:25&tx=75&ty=68&biw=1280&bih=832 But patchworking also connotes 'work in progress', so the philosophical quilt is continually being worked on. So while it may never be finished, the effort to integrate the elements is defitinely there. As for the 'rejecting guru-ism' issue, practicing patchwork philosophy can indeed be pretty resistent to guru-ism because the focus is on working out one's own philosophy. That was very good - you get very close to my meanings here! Your articulation of this is much appreciated. - Bal