MrBenjamatic

Does anyone know which dictionary Ayn Rand used? Did she use more than one? I can't find this out anywhere so I thought I'd post the question.

Do you know any violent songs by him?

More Lionel Yu: More Bogdan:

I can't understand your premises which lead you to believe that. Is it because you say ideas are uncertain and uncertainty contradicts objectivism?

I'm sure it's possible but I've never come across a printer that prints 5' by 5' by 5'. I don't know how many parts guns come in, but to make that possible they'd have to print out different parts then put them togather. To print a large gun in one piece, at present, to the extent of my knowlege, is impossible. What a great idea is 3d printing guns in parts (not sarcasm)! I won't talk the politics of printing guns as its irrelevent to this discussion; I'm sure you know I'm an advocate of this product. The 3d printing industry should increase the size capacity of 3d printers in order to make more money. When I first heard of them, and before looking them up, I pictured architecture being 3d printed (but investment casting is much much more practical and reasonable). 3d printers only work with a select set of metals; it would be much more profitable to expand the range of materials. Plastic is the main material that is 3d printed. 3d printers are awesome and the possibilities, once the material and size capacity are furthered, are great. I don't even want to think of how plastic was molded before the 3d printer. I bow my head to Charles Hall and Carl Deckard. Thanks to ThatGuy and DennislMay for pointing me in the direction of Carl Deckard, his work can be of use to me. -PBH

The only response I can offer at present is that Ayn Rand is absolutely Objectivist and not braindead at the same time. Until I understand at least 95% of Objectivism, I won't respond further.

Read Agenda 21 created by the United Nations, sanctioned and supported by 171 countries (out of 190, I think). Its less than 350 pages and states their plan; I call it the non-fiction Directive 10-289. It won't work, however. Their plan to abolish the 2nd amendment, for example, is ridiculous. To think that the UN thinks there won't be chaotic rebellion when soldiers or policemen go from house to house to disarm citizens makes clear how insane they are. There will most certaintly be a rebellion if and once they enforce the abolishment of the 2nd amendment, at least. Enforcing everyone to sell their houses to the government and from then on pay rent to the government is another intention of Agenda 21, which, when and if enforced, will very likely cause chaos too. I think that the dictators get dumber and dumber throughout the decades. It just won't work. If there ever is a totalitarian global government, there will indubitably be a rebellion and its highly unlikely there won't be a rebellion before its established. It just won't work. It's far too stupid.

His name is Lionel Yu and he's a melodic genius and aristocrat. He's a non-fiction Richard Halley. I have posted some of his work below. If you like it, please support him; he can't afford to pay for an album. His album can be pre-ordered here: http://www.indiegogo.com/musicalbasics Also, Bogdan Alin Ota, the only other young melodic aristocrat will be releasing his album on October 11, 2012. He can, however afford tom pay for his album. His boss at his old job of carry printers submitted him to Norway's Got Talent where he won second place to a mediocre dancer. None the less, he should be recognized and respected as a heroic genius. I have posted some of his pieces below. ]You can type Bogdan Alin Ota Norway and you'll hear his story and hear his auditions It's about damn time a great new composer made his way into the market. I won't be listening to Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Mozy or Chopin anymore on the iPod! Finally something new! ;D

What can you do - ya just gotta love this guy's spirit! Mr Ben, Now don't go putting yourself into that hero/martyr mould, you hear? "Repulsed"? "Infuriated"? - no way; irritated sometimes is all. See, you're rushing into Objectivism and getting ahead of yourself somewhat. It's not only about studying O'ism, it's about integrating the philosophy into you - who and what you are. Never shoe-horning yourself into IT. You've heard that already. Look on the principles and ethics as your own tool for life - not a club to use on people (which could be the way of the second-hander, not a rational egoist.) Me, I think you'll do just fine in future. Amidst your studies, pay some special attention to Nathaniel Branden's books, I strongly suggest. He makes all the difference, I believe. Ultimately - I think - if Objectivism ain't human (in the fullest possible sense) it ain't nuthin'. Isn't Branden, like Barbara, not absolutely Objectivist? Either ones an Objectivist or one is not, either one accepts reason as an absolute or one does not, either one holds the laws of logic as absolutes or one does not. One can't be moderately Objectivist just as one cannot be moderately dead; it must be recognized as a matter of either-or. I know Rand didn't like Barbara and called her an enemy of Objectivism and it's not hard to agree with her after watching The Passion of Ayn Rand, which highlights what Barbara claims to be "Ayn Rand's contradictions" as it says on the dvd case. I've also seen pictures of Barbara wearing a Jewish star brooch, in a somewhat recent photo, which is an utter contradiction of Objectivism. I wonder why Rand shunned Nathanial. As the creator of Objectivism, she has rational judgement (to the extent of my knowledge). I haven't stumbled into any contradicting premises of hers. Does anyone know why Nathanial was booted? According to The Passion of Ayn Rand, he was booted for... well I don't remember the claim, but I sure as hell didn't take it on faith. That movie comes off as a quiet smearing. It presumes that Objectivism will cause one psychological damage, is unhealthy to practice, it contradicts itself and it doesn't work.

You get to set your asking price. Someone else sets the bidding price. The interaction between the two is what "the market" is. Ba'al Chatzaf The only instance which comes to mind when you say that is auctioning. I also think of impoverished Mexico (Tijuana) where the asking price is not absolute. You can't walk into Brooks Brothers and bid a lesser price than what they asked and expect them to take part. This goes for most stores.

I've known about the 3d printer for a long while now. I wonder who created it. Does anyone know?

Soooo many people come to the conclusion that, somehow, the market sets the price of your work and not you. My parents claim that my work was worth zero dollars because no one bought them (and those who offered to I didn't sell to them as the pieces they wanted were too precious to me). That was my parents justification for being able to destroy my work without paying for it. I discussed that with a man who had no self-esteem (for philosophical purposes) and he said that my parents didn't owe me anything as he and my parents claim that I have no right to set the price of my work. By his and my parent's principle, you can walk into any store and destroy their products for free because you value them at being zero dollars. I told that man and my parents that and they claimed it was different as the store was probably established. Many need to be reminded of that old capitalist phrase: If you break it, you buy it.

Oh, and for all you who like my work, I have a facebook which I use for advertising my work and liberty. I'll be uploading new high jewelery which I've been working on that will blow Cartier out of the water. The only thing magnificent about the Hope Diamond is the Hope Diamond, the design and Cartier are bosh. Tiffany's, well, I won't blab about how mediocre they are and have always been. I've created a new tiara fit for a heroine as well as brooches, earrings, bracelets and cigarette holders all bearing the heroic patriotic sign of the dollar and my signature logo "B". As for my case, it and my book will wait till I read Objectivist Epistemology (which I just picked up 5 minutes ago), The Logical Leap (David Harriman), The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism. I'm in the passionate pursuit of understanding the nature of existence as I must to achieve the liberty to build. In order to win my case I know I have to be right and merely understanding all of Howard Roark's speech (which I understood 95% of reading it the first time), won't do. I won't be on, as I've said in my message, as much as I used to. But be sure to hear from me from time to time. Carpe Diem, Carpe Noctum, brother, Philip Benjamin Hart I've also been working on the vestibule of Castle Benjamin. (Castle Benjamin, to me, is what Atlas Shrugged is to Rand as the Castle and estate I've been long planning is my shining beacon of EVERYTHING Benjamatic including the foundries I require in order to create architecture, haute couture... etc). I call it (the main lobby) The Grand Aquatica. It's absolutely huge and boasts the greatest view of the gigantic aquarium which rests in the middle of the first tower. The aquarium includes coral, exotic fish and a whale shark. Whale sharks can grow up to, at absolute largest, 40 ft, which, I think highlights how towering my rooms are. My room heights can be anywhere from 18 to over 80 feet tall (which would have more than one tier). (My work integrates living animals into the rooms, for example my spa bath, "fluorescently" lit (with black marble and fluorite), is in a black aquarium inhabited by jellyfish lighted "fluorescently"). The (lobby) aquarium is surrounded by rooms (though not all to windows but instead tiled voluptuous blue gems which can long withstand water). One dining room and one pleasure room (for relaxation and smoking) are both (though separated) surrounded by glass (part-sculptured part flat) in the aquarium. The top of the aquarium (if the estate in in the mountainous Caribbean as I want it) will be a miniature lake at the top of the tower (which is surrounded by architecture-NOT FLAT). the water flows into towering waterfall to the bottom of the tower into the massive gardens (the waterfall consists of magnetically levitating pieces which counterbalance each other and which control the nature, lighting and flow of the water). I'm a great landscape designer, I'll have to post, on facebook, some of my newest work. I have been designing landscapes since a toddler when I used to make trails in the woods with bridges and views; they were as elaborate as a utterly talented 6 year old could make them and I did this till mid-middle school. Castle Benjamin sports two main towering towers: the residential tower and the Creators Tower. I won't have to leave home to create and when I wake up in the morning I can walk out onto my pleasure balcony or look out my window and see my Industrial Village. The rooms of Castle Benjamin, so far, are over 200 (some are small and that number includes bathrooms, storage rooms and "servants" quarters). My list of business endeavors is my means to afford Castle Benjamin; my cigarettes, perfume, haute couture, construction devices are among those I deem will be most profitable. I know that Chanel, the last great couturiere, made most of her money from her perfume, and, being as I have more great perfumes than Chanel (who only had two: #5 and Egoiste) (I'll prob have 20-70), I think I'll make a great deal. I will have competition with Creed, but they're the only non-mediocre perfumers today. Oliver Creed is a fifth, I think, generation perfumer and reminds me a tad bit of Francisco D'Anconia as all his ancestors going back into the 18th century were great perfumers, aristocrats. If you ever have a question about my work, please don't hesitate. I love talking about it, if I haven't already made that obvious.

If it isn't this one its the other on youtube. I remember watching this when I was starting on my case (or short after). Before I even knew who Ayn Rand was, I was looking for architects who shared my view that architecture presupposes liberty ( the liberty to offer ones work in exchange for money). I thought Frank Lloyd Wright would be the one, but I didn't find much and before I read up on him further than youtube I found an architects quote "a building has integrity just like a man and just as seldom". That architect turned out to be Rand. So I can't say I know much about Frank, other than I don't like his work but I still, none the less, know its great and romantic. Also, Frank didn't call them pretentious but it was implied. Anyone who claims the right to someone else's rights without their permission, a gangster for instance, is pretentious. I thought I'd ask you, as I've realized you've very much studied up on Wright, whether it was he who said that architecture begins where engineering ends.

I expected the unearned as I didn't prove virtue which is what makes love possible. I'm not the best at reading people but I do think people on this forum are repulsed by me (but as to what degree I don't know). I know at least some of them have concluded I have an overbearing sense of self-worth (which is arrogance). I always seem to infuriate people without knowing why. Objectivism is helping me understand why I've been hated (though I don't think anyone hates me here only that they're, to a degree, repulsed). Of course understanding that is not my reason for understanding Objectivism.

Yes. What I said was in reference to Rearden, Galt (I think), Francisco and Dagny and Dominique and Howard. When I was writing that I forgot about everyone else. The very existence of weird fetishes would wipes my theory away.

I have read some of Capitalism and it hasn't yet contradicted my justification of rights. I have discovered there is much I have to learn. I returned Capitalism to the library as I think it will be practical to read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, then David Harriman's The Logical Leap (on induction & deduction), then The Virtue of Selfishness before reading Capitalism as politics is justified by epistemology, metaphysics and morality. If your suggestion of humility regards the degree I post my philosophy at present before it's not completely Objectivist, I agree with you. I will be putting at least a year of thinking into Objectivist philosophy before having others check my premises again. That is the reason I joined this website, if I found I had a lot of contradictions, I would offer my gratitude to those who checked my premises and go back to studying. I took a break from studying objectivism to talk on Objectivist Living, I had always wanted to have philosophical conversation with an objectivist. You think I'm pretentious: that I pretend to understand Objectivism more than I actually do. I probably am pretentious in regards to understanding objectivism but I'm sure I'll be less so in a year. I thought I had a much better grasp on it than I did. I might stop by the website every once and a while and make posts, but not as much as I did till now. I'll still come here to remind myself I'm not the only one in the world at present who thinks. It helps knowing others do. Its what Rand called fuel just like listening to Lionel Yu, Bogdan Alin Ota and Rachmaninoff. I joined this website to have my premises checked by Objectivists after diligently studying Objectivism for 1.5 years. Non-objectivists asked questions, too, which provoked thought. I came to Objectivist Living because I love thinking. The questions you posters asked me I asked of myself. I answered them to the extent of my knowledge and I've posted my full answers- answers I intended for myself -answers bound only by my knowledge- and I thought no evil could come from honesty. But it was not honesty which has repulsed you, it was that I expected, without really thinking about it, others to take my knowledge of my architecture (of which I didn't provide sensory evidence) on faith. To the extent of my knowledge I am who I've claimed to be. To the extent of your knowledge, I'm not. You are just, PDS. Just as you have concluded that God doesn't exist due to the absolute lack of sensory evidence so you have concluded that my ability, talent, and virtue are not as great as I've claimed due to lack of sensory evidence. You are repulsed because I claim to be much more virtuous than I can prove with sensory evidence. It takes great virtue to create a new architecture and a new means of construction. After 17 years in my diligent pursuit of architecture, I know I am able to construct my architecture. I'm honest enough to admit that I needed recognition and respect for my virtue, talent and ability, and, if modern law were different I wouldn't be so desperate for it; I would have expected recognition once I could prove with physical buildings that my architecture and means of construction is new and I achieved it alone without help. I can't prove that I'm virtuous, talented and able enough to construct my work, virtue in the field of architecture is illegal, talent is forbidden and ability is bridled. It's pretentious incompetent gangsters doing it, as Frank Lloyd Wright said. I have claimed to be the great creator of a heroic architecture without offering sensory evidence that it can exist in physical form. I don't expect you to comprehend what my work will look like off paper in physical form by merely looking at my sketches which many people have referred to as scribbles. PDS, you said you liked my work. Almost instantly after reading your post (in the discussion: Metaphysical Argument Against Objectivism which I'm responding to) I was subconsciously driven to think of the reason why Gail Wynand did not want to meet the creators of the art he bought, hid and adored. It repulsed you that I who made those sketches you like, expected you to take me on faith and respect me for virtue without proving I have practiced it. You were repulsed by my claiming great ability as justification for my posts. I know I have a great mind, you don't; the only sensory evidence you can go by is my philosophical posts and I've reached contradictions on the website. I still hold that there are no contradictions in my justification of rights. You were annoyed at my bold conclusions. I know you think I'm pretentious. At first I thought you might think I'm immoral (which is why I thought of Wynand) but I know I'm not as I'm a thinker. I used to be immoral to the degree I took altruist morality on faith, accepted the unearned guilt of being pure evil and acted on emotion (as I did when dealing with my tyrannical parents). I have made more mistakes and have been more immoral in my past than Howard Roark, and perhaps that repulsed you to. I wish I could prove to you who I am; I wish I could offer you Benjamatic architecture to walk through because that would mean I would have earned the present. But wishing won't make it so and I will never again expect anyone to take me on faith. I should not preach to have great virtue, talent and ability without having sensory evidence to prove it and expect Objectivists to respect me. Taking what I've preached on faith would contradict the grounds upon which Objectivism rests. I expected respect from Objectivists for my virtue, talent and ability, especially after discovering that the creator of the philosophy wrote a book portraying an architect as a hero who created a new architecture. But respect and love can only be earned with proof of virtue. You were just to be repulsed by me: I expected love without proving that I deserved it. I know I deserve it but you can't know that as I can't prove virtue beyond sketches due to legality. Expecting love without proving virtue is expecting to be loved without standard. To ask you to love without standards is to ask to not to love the virtuous and thereby to love no one. Brant was repulsed by my post on the discussion Love and Ownership as to the extent of his knowledge I'm a grandiose pretentious worm pretending to be a heroic creator presumptuously struggling to learn objectivism while evading reality. WhyNot has reached the same conclusion and with justice. I couldn't fathom why no one respected me as I know I deserve to be respected. I couldn't stop thinking to understand why you, an objectivist, would call me a parody in mockery of Objectivism, why you, and Objectivist, would be repulsed by my immodesty, why you, an Objectivist, would be repulsed by me in the first place. I now know why. I will no longer claim virtue, talent and ability which I cannot prove you despite my knowledge of my worth. To you, PDS, to Brant to WhyNot and to everyone else repulsed by me, I sincerely apologise for expecting you to take me on faith and respect me without offering proof of my virtue, talent and ability (and thereby logically asking you to love no one). I laughed when I saw a boy on Piekoffs facebook pretending to be a creator. To you all, I must not be much more ridiculous and contemptible that that kid -except my profile picture doesn't include a photo of me with pretentiously wide eyes in attempt to immitate Howard Roark and a bath towel wrapped around my head, holding the DIM Hypothesis. I would have saved that kids photo for laughs before he deleted his profile but it was more contemptible than funny. Anyway, I'm going back to study Objectivism. Incidentally, as I already awared you of my epistemological process, I think you will agree that after reading David Harrimans The Logical Leap, Introduction to Objectvist Epistemology and after much more thinking, my epistemology will improve. I'll still be on the website but not as much and I won't really post much until my knowlege of Objectivism has doubled: I'm reading The Logical Leap, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness then Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal. Carpe Diem, Carpe Noctum, brother PBH

Still false: On the contrary, it is often totally rational and moral to willingly help others (i.e.strangers). Where do you get this stuff? If you don't understand rational selfishness, don't fake it. Ask. Read. There must be dozens of pertinent threads on OL. In terms of Objectivist ethics, the worst harm is to misrepresent something to yourself, only secondarily to others. And some people are not as honest and as forthright as you, and knowing your ignorance, will cynically use your statements against you (or against Objectivist ethics in general.) Helping others cannot be moral. It is right to sustain your existence. In order to sustain your existence you have to think and you can only think with your mind and no one else's. This is self-evident to me. You cannot think for another. As YOUR mind and no one else's is YOUR means of survival and NO ONE ELSE'S, how can it be moral to sustain anothers existence when they alone can think for themselves? If thinking is mans only means of survival, and he can only think with his brain and no one else's, how can it be moral to help another if you can't think for him and faith is evil. You cannot help another in any important way because you can't think for them. Thinking is the virtue upon which all other virtues must be based on as without thinking, you cannot sustain your existence. This conviction Rand said and I understand and know (knowledge being sensory evidence and reason based on sensory evidence). I do not take Rand on faith, that would be stupid, haha. I laughed after I wrote that. Independency is a virtue because you and no one else can think for you and no one else, because you must act on the judgement of your mind and no one else's and the only alternative is not judging and dying or death by faith (which is usually a slow death). It is right to act on the honest and rational judgement of your own mind. Depending on others to make reality-judgements for you (faith), depending on others to sustain your existence is an evil death wish. How can it be immoral to, in some cases, receive help, and, at the same time how can it be an absolute that helping others be moral. That is a contradiction. That being said, morality (virtue) consists of sustaining your existence. I've helped others but helping those others niether contradicted my life-purpose nor my reason nor that which is required to sustain my existence. I agree with Rand when she said that helping others is neutral and only evil so long as it is an irrational sacrifice (redundant but included because of the existence of altruists who hold death as a greater value than life). I know I'm rationally selfish, and, I think, so do you. Also, if helping others was moral, it would be moral for Dagny Taggart to have refused Galt so to continue helping her own destroyers destroy her. This borders on nonsense. Has it occurred to you that, on a thread where George Smith and other serious thinkers are posting relevant points about natural rights theory and history, discretion on your part would militate in favor of simply piping down? Have you found the time to finish Rand's Capitalism yet, in advance of these pronouncements of yours? People I respect tell me that you are not engaged in parody on this site. I suppose I cannot dispute that premise. In that case, and assuming you are not jacking with all of us, a little humility would seem to be in order--and please, in advance, spare me a speech about Randian heros did not have humility. You haven't quite established yourself as a Randian hero yet. I have posted my response in the discussion: New Architecture, Couture

Not to preempt Brant who always speaks for himself, but you have proclaimed your intent to hit your architectural regulator foes over the head with philosophically-based logic. Hahaha! You're right. My point was that it is constructive to stress the moral before the immoral and nonconstructive and probably damaging to stress the immoral before the moral.

Thank you

Running in their tradition? But I'm not traditional at all. I don't think I would have a brides arm be bare, sleeves or opera gloves would do. For anyone large, I'd give a sculptured wrap (not flat but architectural).

Brant, are you an Objectivist? I'm just curious. I don't remember your other posts so I can't say. Also, I think I stress the positive (the moral) before and much more than I stress the negative (the immoral), so I can't see how I've been metaphorically hitting people with philosophical clubs.

I'm working at a factory for 40 hours a week night shifts. I have, before robbery, a little more than enough to move from the despots house and into my own apartment and support myself. After robbery, I don't have enough and I refuse to be on welfare so I'll have to publish the book upon correcting every philosophical error I made after reading and understanding Rands books. Fashion might be regulated, I haven't checked yet. It didn't seem important. What you present as a major passion in your life didn't seem important? Any couturier of ability can create clothes in any fabric, just choose some legal ones, and offer them for sale. I can't imagine such an enterprise is regulated (it isn't here, in Socialist Canada). Nope, only the regulations are what I considered unimportant. Haha, my couture is utterly important. The last great creator in that field is Coco Chanel and Charles Frederick Worth before her who invented haute couture. You'd be surprised what they regulate, flower shop owners for instance have to have their arrangements approved by the government. Watch John Stossel's illegal everything.

Above, I've corrected the mistakes in my original post.

You keep self-referencing what you've said many times and reference and counter nothing anybody has objected to in your presentations. --Brant I countered the argument that a baby is not a parasite. I clarified which specific definition of parasite I applied to a baby as others used definitions of parasite other than the one I used to describe a baby. Which specific objections have I not countered? Brant: You say he who has definitions wins the argument. I agree with you. Have I misused a definition? I corrected myself and now hold that an unborn baby is a human. I haven't changed my mind that the baby, even though a human, has the right to be a parasite. Michael, I obviously misread what she said so easily due to not understanding concepts yet. Do you know of that Objectivist book written on induction and deduction? It was written, I think, by a man at the Falling Apple Institute. I'm also about to read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. I have only read that which is from that book and posted on Ayn Rand Lexicon. I know it will be worth my while Also, I thought I'd tell you that you misunderstood which definition of parasite I used to describe a baby: A plant or an animal organism that lives in or on another and takes its nourishment from that other organism. I read online that "Babies receive nourishment and oxygen in the womb through the placenta, which is connected to the inner wall of the mother's uterus. The placenta is connected to your baby by the umbilical cord through an opening in the baby's abdomen". I don't know much about anatomy but, to the extent of my knowledge, without the umbilical cord an unborn baby could not survive. In your argument against my conviction that a baby is a parasite you held a parasite as being harmful to the health of the host so we both agree that a baby is not that type of parasite as I recognize that a fetus does not harm the health of the mother even though she bores pain. (I'm not being sarcastic). And, for the sake of being just, I will say that I think you're very smart. I enjoy your posts.