MrBenjamatic

Yes. I hold I have the right to offer to trade that which is mine and no one else's with no one else's permission. If you care to see my full justification of individual rights (which is completely new and not the same as Ayn Rands) read the end of post #1. All "professional" regulators hold the commerce clause as the justification of their "right" to regulate trade. That violates my right to offer to trade that which is mine and no one else's without permission. The commerce clause in an enumeration in the Constitution. The 9th amendment clearly states, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". In modern and clearer rhetoric, the enumeration in the Constitution is not to deny rights retained by the people (made clear by the bill of rights which is made clearer by my logical, axiomatic justifcation of the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness). In order to call oneself an architect and accept a commission, one is forced serve the Altruist Architectural Collective (The American Institute of Architects (AIA), The American Institute of Architecture Students (AIAS), The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), The National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB), The American Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA)). As punishment for disobeying the laws forcing one to serve the AAC, one is forced to pay a fine and eventually will be forced into a prison cell; that is, of course, if one vocally calls oneself and architect to an audience of one or more persons and/or accepts a commission. I would not have served the AAC in college (it is NAAB that dictates what is to be taught in ALL colleges) had I not been forced to. My servitude was NOT voluntary. The 13th amendment states clearly, precisely and openly, "niether slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction". My Constitutional argument is not only bulletproof, I also have more founding father quotes than most plaintiffs have up their sleeve. My justifying individual rights directly, clearly and understandably with the irrefutable laws of logic is a bulletproof argument. The focus of the minds of the jury and the judge, however, are not bulletproof. The only thing which could possibly go wrong in court is the jury and or judge refusing to think.

I've been going at this speed this passionatly since I was 5. My spark has yet to go out even after knowing I have a 1-5 year legal battle ahead of me that I may lose due to others -not ignorance- but refusal to know. And I'm well aware I'm not a character in a novel, I understand why you would think I thought I was. Other than for school I never read more than three books (before discovering Rand) and, until a year and a half ago, I hadn't heard of Ayn Rand. Afer I dropped out of the architecture program and beginning on my court case, I was trying to find another architect who agreed with me by looking up architect quotes. I found Ayn Rands quote, "A building has integrity just like a man or just as seldom". When I first read that I thought Ayn Rand was a male architect and I had already began working on my courtcase and had already been in my virtuous architectural pursuit for at least 15 years (I started when I was five). The quote that sealed my dedication to discovering just who this Ayn Rand fellow was, “In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours.” Again, I can see why you would think I was trying to be Howard Roark as I have a great deal in common with him and have a lawsuit. But, again, I've been in the pursuit of architecture at least 15 years before even knowing that Ayn Rand existed. Incidentally I read The Fountainhead for the first time a year ago, half a year after I'd been working on my case; I was too busy with The Benjamin Suit to read a book. As for forgiveness: I regard it as evil. Ask yourself if you've ever forgiven someone for being good. What then is forgiveness if not the sanction and support of evil. Best, PBH *I looked up hyperfocus and this is what I found: Hyperfocus is an intense form of mental concentration or visualization that focuses consciousness on a narrow subject, separate from objective reality and onto subjective mental planes, daydreams, concepts, fiction, the imagination, and other objects of the mind. As I accept the laws of logic as irrefutable axiomatic absolutes, as I accept reason as an objective absolute and as I know this is an objective reality, I thereby am not, by this description, experiencing hyperfocus. I think, however, that hyperfocus is experienced by such artists as Salvador Dali and David Lynch and perhaps even Profokiev: all are surreal.

No lawyer will support my case in Ohio as there are no Objectivist lawyers or lawyers dedicated enough to the concept of freedom; a lawyer in Arizona wanted to defend but he is not allowed to practice in Ohio. I will be filing it in the United States District Court in Columbus, Ohio. All cases in which the plaintiff defends himself cannot, by law, be refused by the District Court. The defendent's will probably have a very costly and prestigious lawyer. As for defending myself in court I have to submit a single copy of my case to the District Court and memorize the procedure and the court terms in the book sent to me by the court. As I haven't officially filed suit yet there is not yet public access to the case. Fundamentally, my case rests on the grounds of two arguments: my justification of rights directly by the laws of logic (which can be found at the end of post #1) and my opening questions to the defendent which I'll post below: Let me begin by asking simple yes or no questions. Answer yes it would be cruel and unusual or no it wouldn't be cruel and unusual. Would it be cruel and unusual to punish a child who stole no cookies from the cookie jar for not stealing cookies but having the ability to steal cookies? Answer yes it would be stupid or no it wouldn't be stupid. Would it be stupid to allow teachers to flunk their students -not because they did fail their classses- but because they didn't but are capable of failing their classes? Answer yes it would be fair or no it wouldn't be fair. Would it be fair for a teacher to give a student detention not because he did skip class but because he didn't but could have if he wanted to? Answer yes it would be a cruel and unusual punishment or no it would not be a cruel and unusual punishment. Would it be a cruel and unusual punishment for a jury to sentence a man, who forced no one, to life in prison -not because he did go on a shooting spree- but because he didn't but could have if he wanted to? Answer yes it would be stupid, cruel and unusual or no it wouldn't be stupid, cruel and unusual. Would it be stupid, cruel and unusual for the government to start the use of force against a doctor who forced no one -not because he did harm his patient and violate his rights- but because he didn't but might by accident or because he is able to do it if he wanted to? Answer yes it would be stupid, cruel and unusual or no it wouldn't be stupid, cruel and unusual. Would it be stupid, cruel and unusual for the government to start the use of force against an architect who forced no one -not because he did build a building which collapsed- but because he didn't but might by accident or because he is able to do it if he wanted to? (The defendents have forbidden me to offer to trade my architecture because I haven't but might build shoddy buildings. Also notice I claim I have the right to offer to trade that which is mine and no one else's. If I had the right to trade, no one could refuse to trade as I would have the right to trade). Answer yes or no. Can you be guilty of doing something you might do and are able to do but didn't do? Answer yes or no. Should you be punished for committing a crime you didn't but might commit? Answer yes it is right or no it isn't right. Is is right for you to be consitered by your government to be automatically guilty and treated as a criminal for crimes you didn't commit? Answer yes it is right or no it isn't right. Is it right for you to be regarded by your government as innocent until proven guilty? (If their answer to the second contradicts the first I shall say: Either you are guilty of committing a specific crime or you are not. Let me ask two rhetorical questions. How can you, in regards to the same specific crime, be guilty and innocent at the same time? If you're not automatically guilty and not automatically innocent, what are you?) The purpose of government courts is to determine whether the defendent is guilty of violating others rights. It is right for the government to deny the rights of he who violates others rights. It is a crime to violate others rights. Any action that does not violate others rights cannot rightly be consitered a crime. When you commit a crime the government duly and justly denies you some of your rights; the degree you violate others rights is the degree the government takes away your rights. You are innocent until and unless proven guilty. You are innocent so long as you do not violate others rights. My point is that you shouldn't be punished for a crime until and unless you commit it. So long as you respect -not violate- others rights, the government has no right to take away your rights. You can only violate others rights by force. Answer yes it is just or no is isn't just. Is it just to punish by force a man who forced no one -not because he did force others- but because he might and is able to but didn't force others? Government rightfully has a monopoly on the use of force. Criminals can only be punished by force as force is the only way to harness their rights. If no force was used in prison the criminals could walk out without resistance. How could you violate anothers right to property without forcing them? They could walk away and you couldn't force them. Answer yes it is just or no it isn't just. Is it just to force a man for committing crimes he didn't commit? Answer yes it is just or no it isn't just. Is it just to to force a man for committing crimes he is able to commit but didn't commit? Answer yes it is just or no it isn't just. Is it just to to force a man for committing crimes he might commit but didn't commit? By what right can you knowingly force a man in retaliation for commiting a crime he is able to and might but didn't commit? If all crime consists of violating others rights by and only by force -as rights can only be violated by force- can a man who forces no one be a criminal? Is the man who forces the unforceful man a criminal? I say no, a man who forces no one is not a criminal; I say yes, the man who forces the unforceful man is a criminal. Your regulations say yes, a man who forces no one is a criminal; your regulations say no, the man who forces the unforceful man is not a criminal. That extrodinarily simple questionnaire is bound to point out their contradictions. If none of their answers contradict each other either they support my case or they admit that clearly their regulations are tyrannical. I will be publishing my book once I finish editing it for the last time. Its almost perfect. The cover of the book, I think, is bound to attract attention and more importantly I'm in love with it and have found three self-publishing companies willing, unlike some, to publish a book with tasteful nudity: The latest cover of my book of my case: The Benjamin Suit: The Diary, Testimony and Summation of a Fountainhead. Top left: Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of happiness. The Benjamin Suit: The Diary, Testimony & Summation of a Fountainhead - Philip Benjamin Hart. Middle quote: "All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come" - Victor Hugo. Top Right: The ... Laws of Logic: A is A, Non-Contradiction, Either-or. Bottom: In Reason I Trust (will be changed to: By Reason I Think, On Reason I Act). Don't Tread On ME (Under the Liberty Snake). On Goddess Liberty's hand (sitting) is the sign of the dollar: the US monogram (a U overlapping an S).I've found publishers who will publish this cover as is, I refused to settle for another cover, this is perfect. I'm sure, haha, I'll be sued by a gaggle of misanthropes in which case I have a logical irrefutable case against them.

I hold rationality as the standard of mental health. I know I am able to be completely rational and it is my rational judgement that my work will stand. I know people may refuse to give me commissions as some might conclude mania, if I do in fact have it (my current psychologist says I don't), clouds my rationality. I hold others have the right to to offer me commissions. I also hold that if I am offered a commission I have the right to accept it as I have the right to offer to trade that which is mine and no one else's (my architecture) with no one else's permission. The Altruist Architectural Collective (the "professional" regulators of architecture with gov. help) hold I have niether have the right to offer to trade my architecture with no one else's permission nor the right to accept a commission. Others right to refuse to offer me commissions is the ONLY protection anyone needs against me.

Consciousness exists when your mind is focused. Unconsciousness exists when your mind is not focus (sleeping and refusing to think). Where have you reached a contradiction?

Actually, all things just "are". Existence needs no justification. Actually, it doesn't need anything. Isn't it that simple? Yes. Existence exists. That which doesn't exist doesn't exist. Things exist because they do. "Existence exists" justifies itself.

Now that I think of it, if I get a commission, I can create Benjamatic furniture. There might be red tape in my way which impedes nearly all my other endeavors. If I make decent money off my book my plan is to make at least perfume. I have one in mind (among a few others): deep deep base (pinot noir), deep base (lavender, peach), base (wintergreen mint, gardenia). The only thing that's in my way is red tape; once that's gone all I need is commissions (which I won't be entirely dependent on as if I win the case I'll be winning a VERY VERY large amount of money with which I'll immediately commission myself to begin the construction of Castle Benjamin). Again, I wish I had sensory evidence to give other than sketches and clay sculpture. You can, if your willing, see more of my work on my facebook (without even adding me as a friend): Philip Benjamin Hart.

Firstly, if, at present, under modern architectural law, I accepted a commission or even called myself an architect in public I would be fined $1000 at first and eventually sentenced to jail. I am filing suit against those "professional" organizations regulating the field of architecture with a government gun (the American Institute of Architects, The American Instsitute of Architecture Students, The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, The National Architectural Accredidation Board & The American Collegiate Schools of Architecture). Until and unless the case takes longer than an unbearable amount of time to reach a verdict, I will not commit civil disobedience. In the case that I do that, my case will be somewhat similiar to Hank Rearden's. Secondly, I'm not financially able to create anything 3d other than clay sculpture. Investment casting, which is expensive, is a precondition of my architecture. I crave for the day when I'll be able to construct it and watch my work come to life; that will be the best day of my life. I really wish I could show you a non-sculpture example: that would mean I would have earned the present.

Its always been adventurous. Only my Benjamatic adventure has long been heavily polluted by the adventure of fighting physical force and altruism (when I regarded myself as villainous).

There is no difference. Maybe the rich feel that "wealthy" sounds more genteel than "rich". Haha!

By the lower class or the upper class? --Brant if the working (middle) class took care of itself we wouldn't be in this sea of bullshit--instead it agrees to take care of everybody else first as long as it gets Social Security and Medicare second--two things it really can't afford any more and will be taken from them piece by piece and bit by bit while its children are enslaved by student loans and lack of employment Very well put.

You're welcome, very welcome. But know that the space in which you live and create is provided to you by others, anonymous or known to you, who care for you or don't, according to their values and not yours. Whoa! Phillip, do you live at home now? Or, do you have your own place? I live at home now which is very recent. I had my own apartment for a year. I adored my apartment: I filled it with plants as I consider the jungle the best architectural background and my walls were so covered with my work which I taped, that the walls were barely visible! It's a long and exciting story, and, as you seem interested, I'll tell it. I left home to attend Kent State University in '08. High school was unbearably boring and I was drawing during class constantly, and, as a result my grades weren't all that great. It's near impossible for me to memorize and learn that which is irrelevant to sustaining my life and gaining and keeping My Benjamin (which is what I've named my firm). My grades didn't cut the minimum for acceptance to the KSU College of Architecture and Environmental Design. Struggling with college classes demanding that I learn contradictions and that which is irrelevent to sustain my life and gain an dkeep my Benjamin, I eventually, with much effort, earned acceptance into the architecture program. For three years I lived in the dorms, by KSU orders Freshman year, by my parents orders for the two that followed. I often compared the dorms, as a result of being forced to inhabit them, to Aushwitz (the concentration camp section and, jokingly the death camp section). I was not allowed to smoke, I was not allowed to have candles to please my sense of smell, I need luxury (that which pleases my senses). This, I held, was unacceptable. Come Junior year, I made a plan to achieve an apartment of my own, something I've wanted desperately since a very young age. Keep in mind my beastly parents destroyed the 78,000 drawings I created from age 5 to 18, and, I have held I have the right to set the price of my work and that he who breaks it buys it. I did get a hefty allowance in college of up to $400 a week; my allowance all depended on my parents mood. By mid-junior year, it was clear to me that I absolutely couldn't stand the college of architecture as it forced me to learn mediocrity and demanded unbridled submission to my professors and the tribe of mediocrity worshiping students all very similar to Peter Keating. Collegiate architectural projects were collectively judged by no standard but the professors whom the students tried to copy and the professor tried to copy others. Projects were graded by the professors though we students were never told by what standards we were being graded. Some projects were quite literally impossible: one project was to fill in the missing measurements of a given floor plan and two elevations after which we were dictated to build a model; the measurements were intentionally illogical and thereby impossible- they were asking us to perform the equivalent of finding the missing measurement of a *rectangle* of 3" x 4" x 5" x ___. We students were assigned so much impossible or near-impossible projects that we lost so much sleep that hallucinations and delusion were not out of the ordinary. I called the architecture building the AMOM or the Architectural Monstrosity of Mediocrities (I think modernism's bosh and all arch. colleges around the globe teach only modern architecture). I absolutely could not remain in the program without literally murdering my professors, which, incidentally, I had to take Valium to prevent. The first thing I did, upon finding the Fountainhead speech online, was read it to my adviser whose instant reply was, "You're going to have to be a slave in order to be an architect". The dean, whom demanded I see him the day after my adviser's appointment (they had obviously talked as he knew about my reading him Rand), said a more "diplomatic" equivalent of the adviser's statement ending with: legally, there can be no such architect as Howard Roark. The only alternative to dropping out was suicide, which is absolutely as evil a decision as remaining in the arch. program. I dropped out without telling my parents. Before I left, I was so hatred-eaten by enslavement, I left my professor a note making clear my solid contempt for his worthlessness and mediocrity and that "the man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap". My last project was absolutely Benjamatic architecture, as opposed to the modern **sustainable** architecture I was forced to do and did beforehand. My quote section, which was required to, with "professional" and prestigious quotes, justify my architecture, was filled with Ayn Rand. Keep in mind I slightly knew and was subconscious of the fact that my parents destroyed all of my pre-collegiate work (so much, work in fact, that if I charged $25 dollars each they would owe me $2 million, and I charge more than that per drawing). (I wasn't completely aware that they destroyed them as they evaded the subject when I brought it up and I was always busy with my work to fully grasp and realize it was always disappearing). I had rightfully earned at least $2 million as they had monstrously and consciously violated my rights. I asked Mom and Dad for permission to move into my own apartment, which, incidentally, would be cheaper than the dorms (they didn't care). They said no. I knew then the only way I could achieve it would be necessarily drastic. I made sure the dorm management caught me with alcohol and cigarettes in my room complimented by the odor of having smoked them in the dorm (which I did). In the meeting with KSU dorm supervises I offered a deal: if they told my parents they were kicking me out of the dorms, my parents would continue to pay them in exchange for letting me leave and I even bribed them with further money to let me leave. As I was enslaved by the University as my adviser stated clearly (if I didn't graduate I'd be fined and eventually imprisoned for calling myself an architect or accepting commissions) I knew I was justified in my response: if you don't accept, I have no choice but to destroy the dorm room. They kicked me out, I told my parents and I found an apartment. By that time my parents had already cut my allowance to $100 a month plus food. What I was doing was obliterating any and all financial dependency on my parents; such was the purpose of this pursuit. I desperately looked for a job and eventually found one. I had furthered my life-long pursuit of permanently un-bridling myself from the despots (my parents). But eventually I was fired by Gabriel Brothers as they caught me in a Starbucks when I called off sick (I was actually sick); I also think I was fired as my hatred-driven boss, who clearly regarded himself as a sacrificial animal, was scared of me and hated me for it. Anyway, I didn't find another job and my parents eventually had to take me back home. I'm diligently looking for a job and publishing my court case which I'm about to file (against the gov. collective regulating architecture) and advertising my work in hope to make extra money so to wipe my parents hell out of my way. The story of my collegiate experience is much longer than that and much interesting than this but I'll be publishing it very soon.

It cannot be valid, of course. Selfishness is not a self-evident, stand-alone symptom of a disease Philip, we can first make reference to the actual syndrome described, variously, as anti-social personality disorder, dissocial personality disorder, psychopathy, sociopathy.. Two large diagnostic complexes form the 'holy books' of psychiatric providers. The history of each is too long, but the ICD is from the World Health Organisation ("Intenational Statisticial Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems") and the DSM is from the American Psychiatric Association ("Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders"). Here are the criteria from the ICD: It is characterized by at least 3 of the following: Callous unconcern for the feelings of others. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society. Here are criteria from the DSM: A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following: failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead; irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; reckless disregard for safety of self or others; consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations; lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another; B) The individual is at least age 18 years. C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years. D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode. "Selfish" is not a word used in either official classification scheme, as you can see. When you ask if a psychiatrist would not need 'proper terminology of symptoms in order to properly diagnose,' you go to the heart of the matter -- and you also expose the grounds for much of the controversy that has dogged the DSM. But, put aside the cogent criticism of the DSM formation, or the sprawl of conditions, disorders and illnesses that could be nothing but a folie-a-plusieurs among clinicians. Go back to your original question and decide what you were trying to get at. As far as I can see, you wanted to challenge that one particular diagnosis (anti-social), and for good reasons: what if the 'symptoms' were not anything particularly damaging or indicative of problems? What if 'selfish' and 'arrogant' people were being needlessly and cruelly labeled as mentally defective, simply because of an altruist prejudice? What if the clinicians employed to diagnose anti-social disorders could not reliably tell the difference between a dangerous (to others) sociopath and a standard achiever (in business, sport, military, politics, what have you)? Return to 'selfish.' The ICD criterion that comes closest to 'selfish' is "callous unconcern for the feelings of others." Not quite 'selfish' ... but within the ballpark perhaps. Yet, what does callous unconcern mean? What might it mean to you in your own situation? Let me ask if you felt your mother and father callously destroyed your artworks, without concern for your feelings about the destruction? Is there a point at which your parents should have been concerned about you? Also ask yourself what kind of parents could not only harm their children deliberately, but could also feel nothing at the harm: no remorse, no guilt, no sense of responsibility. Have you ever met or known someone like this, someone who fits the profile? See where I am going with this? If your parents, gawd forbid, either of them, fits the pattern of an uncaring, unduly selfish and disempathetic brute who lies, manipulates, cons and otherwise treats people like boxes of cheese, does this mean you might change your mind about the utility of such diagnoses? Over to the DSM. Here, again, no 'selfish' plain and simple. But "pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others" ... the key words being pervasive pattern. So, what can we do with the rest of the information in the two diagnostic lists? What kind of activities lead to a diagnosis? As you might suspect, it is the criminal justice system that most often meets acts that seem sociopathic, for sociopathic behaviour harms people. A con is a fraud. A fraudster is a criminal. A sociopathic fraudster is one who does not give one shit about the pain or suffering the fraud caused to real persons. Moreover, the sociopathic criminal is one who persistently shows a pervasive pattern of not giving a shit about other people -- to the point of callous disregard of their safety (and of their lives). All this to say to you that the closest you get to another person's claim is the closest you get to understanding it. Now that you have seen the criteria, and that they do not simply describe an arrogant, successful, 'selfish' Randian person but a stone-hearted monster, can you see that at least some of what is described as 'sociopathic' is not the kind of person you want to be, and not the kind of person you will be safe to befriend? In this sense, the DSM/ICD are eqivalent to Four Sure Fire Signs That Dog Is Dangerous. Mad Dog Syndrome. For your protection and mine. The social norms noted in both criteria should not, I think, be smudged into mere 'social conventions' -- I think they should be seen as moral conventions: if you contract a debt, you are bound to pay it back. Normal in all societies. Same with Assault, robbery, rape, extortion, kidnapping, murder: these are things that are against all moral conventions, they are common to almost all societies as crimes Here we are very very far from the notion of 'selfish' (Rand's new meaning) you have in mind, I think. In her newly-coined version of 'selfish' there is no downside -- she acknowledges and trumpets the truism that every person has a right to think of themselves, to consider their own feelings, to reach for their own goals, to be concerned primarily with their own health and achievement, dreams and plans. The 'selfishness' we celebrate in Randian heros is not callous disregard, inability to take responsibility for ignoring the rights of others. A truly and properly selfish person in Rand's coinage does NOT disrespect or disregard the rights of others. And a properly selfish Randian hero would not commit murder, extortion, robbery, kidnapping, torture, rape or other violations -- and most definitely would not exhibit blaming behaviour, denial of responsibility, disdain for their suffering, or enjoyment of cruelty for its own sake. To recap, 'selfishness' is not a neutral term, not simply, not completely, not for all time. And it is by no means a 'symptom' of the disorder you take issue with. A callous disregard for the rights (and feelings) of others is not selfishness. Inventor Thomas Edison may have been selfish (in the Randian term) but you cannot use the same word to imply the same scale as you scope out the personality of sex-killer Bundy. The word just can't do that much work on its own. On to psychosis, psychotic, crazy, having lost touch with reality. What 'dubious' reason do you think led to that 'invention' ? I mean, did it describe a real danger (to self and others) or did it describe something else? If I warn you against a psychotic person or a dangerous agressive dog, am I helping you in one instance avoid harm, but not in the other? Follow on your own the rest of the criteria, the actual criteria, and see if you have been fair. If a person known to you actually had the same suite of behaviours cited above, would you trust them to treat you fairly, according to norms like honesty, non-initiation of force, and so on? Now that you see the Dx (in its short form), which describes Bundy and which describes Edison. Carol, despite her crippling socialism, is a very nice and understanding woman. She is not trying to trip you up, but helping you to sharpen your perceptions. ____ PS, your drawings and sculptures are wonderfully manic and creative. Something is urgent in you to create, and no parent was able to quash it. No one here will be able to quash it. Please be trusting to the degree that you might accept some of us here will actually help you think things through, and by so doing, help you get where you want to be in life -- realistically, and with least wear and tear on your heart. I unknowingly made friends with sociopaths. I took the altruist philosophy on faith but broke it as I wanted to be evil so to gain and keep my values and avoid sacrifice at any price (an obvious contradiction). I considered myself a brilliant villain so I made friends with another villain. I eventually discovered that we are opposites and he really is a villainous sociopath (in respect to the negative aspects). I wanted to discover the differences between us and I most certainty did. It was too funny when he would always say angrily, "Why don't you ever believe me (take me on faith?" -especially after studying Rand for 1.5 years. Without initiating physical force, they can only destroy you if you take them on faith, act on emotion and accept unearned guilt and I don't regret for a second knowing those sociopaths as they were so eloquent examples of true villains; it very much helped, while studying Objectivism (especially upon just discovering it), to have examples of pure evil on tap. As for Carol, we both know we're civilized enough to have a respectful disagreement. I joined this website for the purpose of showing my work and having my premises checked- and rigorously! I know I have to be right in order to remain in existence and to gain and keep My Voluptuous Benjamin (that which I call them empire which is my work). If I am wrong and don't know it yet, what better place to be corrected than an Objectivist philosophical conversational website! Unlike most, I very much enjoy having my premises checked. Its no longer stressful to correct my premises as proved and accepted my epistemological contradictions as being wrong; now the contradictions I hold, if any, are small enough to correct without stress. Philosophical conversation is utterly intriguing! And as for damaging my heart, it must be made of Buckeypaper!- which will be available in 5 to 10 years and is proven to be 500 times stronger than steel and 10 times lighter)!!! Lastly, *THANK YOU* for your compliments to my work and romantic pursuit! I know I deserve recognition but seldom have I ever received it- at least the recognition of complimenting my ability, talent and virtue; not that much of a hassle and once pencil is put to paper I forget their hatred and ignorance completely. *P.S. I notice your interested in psychology as it says under your name. I think I might have mania and I think I know the solution, which, incidentally, I've been acting on. Mania, it seems to me, is very similar to an emotional rush. I always construed it to be an excitement sparked by existing and by my knowledge that I can draw and create whatever I want within the bounds of reality- which is very, very exciting. I hold, as my solution which I've, to a great degree, been using all my life subconsciously, is to treat all mania as an emotion- I don't act on it but I express it (as opposed to holding it in). It has worked wonderfully. I haven't a single regret. Like I once said to my room mate in college, "If I were ever to wake up as someone else, I'd kill myself".

MrBenjamatic, Without getting into the merits of your condemnation of psychology and keeping only to the epistemological method of your question, I suggest you open any dictionary and look on any page. You will usually find more than one definition for each word. That's how a "neutral term" can have a different meaning with other usages. Using the same word with different meanings is a universal human habit. In fact, let's do it backwards--and here is something to think about. How can there be different languages (like German, French, Portuguese, etc.) all with different words and different grammars that stand for the same concepts? Michael You're right and I agree. The point I was trying to get across was that the modern diagnoses' are wrong in not being clear enough in regards to which specific definition(s) they're using. As I said Ayn Rand would be diagnosed as having Anti-social personality disorder. None of the definitions of disorder can rightfully apply to any creator's virtuous pursuit. That was my point and the grounds on which all my condemnation of psychology rest.

It cannot be valid, of course. Selfishness is not a self-evident, stand-alone symptom of a disease Philip, we can first make reference to the actual syndrome described, variously, as anti-social personality disorder, dissocial personality disorder, psychopathy, sociopathy.. Two large diagnostic complexes form the 'holy books' of psychiatric providers. The history of each is too long, but the ICD is from the World Health Organisation ("Intenational Statisticial Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems") and the DSM is from the American Psychiatric Association ("Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders"). Here are the criteria from the ICD: It is characterized by at least 3 of the following: Callous unconcern for the feelings of others. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society. Here are criteria from the DSM: A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following: failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead; irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; reckless disregard for safety of self or others; consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations; lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another; B) The individual is at least age 18 years. C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years. D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode. "Selfish" is not a word used in either official classification scheme, as you can see. When you ask if a psychiatrist would not need 'proper terminology of symptoms in order to properly diagnose,' you go to the heart of the matter -- and you also expose the grounds for much of the controversy that has dogged the DSM. But, put aside the cogent criticism of the DSM formation, or the sprawl of conditions, disorders and illnesses that could be nothing but a folie-a-plusieurs among clinicians. Go back to your original question and decide what you were trying to get at. As far as I can see, you wanted to challenge that one particular diagnosis (anti-social), and for good reasons: what if the 'symptoms' were not anything particularly damaging or indicative of problems? What if 'selfish' and 'arrogant' people were being needlessly and cruelly labeled as mentally defective, simply because of an altruist prejudice? What if the clinicians employed to diagnose anti-social disorders could not reliably tell the difference between a dangerous (to others) sociopath and a standard achiever (in business, sport, military, politics, what have you)? Return to 'selfish.' The ICD criterion that comes closest to 'selfish' is "callous unconcern for the feelings of others." Not quite 'selfish' ... but within the ballpark perhaps. Yet, what does callous unconcern mean? What might it mean to you in your own situation? Let me ask if you felt your mother and father callously destroyed your artworks, without concern for your feelings about the destruction? Is there a point at which your parents should have been concerned about you? Also ask yourself what kind of parents could not only harm their children deliberately, but could also feel nothing at the harm: no remorse, no guilt, no sense of responsibility. Have you ever met or known someone like this, someone who fits the profile? See where I am going with this? If your parents, gawd forbid, either of them, fits the pattern of an uncaring, unduly selfish and disempathetic brute who lies, manipulates, cons and otherwise treats people like boxes of cheese, does this mean you might change your mind about the utility of such diagnoses? Over to the DSM. Here, again, no 'selfish' plain and simple. But "pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others" ... the key words being pervasive pattern. So, what can we do with the rest of the information in the two diagnostic lists? What kind of activities lead to a diagnosis? As you might suspect, it is the criminal justice system that most often meets acts that seem sociopathic, for sociopathic behaviour harms people. A con is a fraud. A fraudster is a criminal. A sociopathic fraudster is one who does not give one shit about the pain or suffering the fraud caused to real persons. Moreover, the sociopathic criminal is one who persistently shows a pervasive pattern of not giving a shit about other people -- to the point of callous disregard of their safety (and of their lives). All this to say to you that the closest you get to another person's claim is the closest you get to understanding it. Now that you have seen the criteria, and that they do not simply describe an arrogant, successful, 'selfish' Randian person but a stone-hearted monster, can you see that at least some of what is described as 'sociopathic' is not the kind of person you want to be, and not the kind of person you will be safe to befriend? In this sense, the DSM/ICD are eqivalent to Four Sure Fire Signs That Dog Is Dangerous. Mad Dog Syndrome. For your protection and mine. The social norms noted in both criteria should not, I think, be smudged into mere 'social conventions' -- I think they should be seen as moral conventions: if you contract a debt, you are bound to pay it back. Normal in all societies. Same with Assault, robbery, rape, extortion, kidnapping, murder: these are things that are against all moral conventions, they are common to almost all societies as crimes Here we are very very far from the notion of 'selfish' (Rand's new meaning) you have in mind, I think. In her newly-coined version of 'selfish' there is no downside -- she acknowledges and trumpets the truism that every person has a right to think of themselves, to consider their own feelings, to reach for their own goals, to be concerned primarily with their own health and achievement, dreams and plans. The 'selfishness' we celebrate in Randian heros is not callous disregard, inability to take responsibility for ignoring the rights of others. A truly and properly selfish person in Rand's coinage does NOT disrespect or disregard the rights of others. And a properly selfish Randian hero would not commit murder, extortion, robbery, kidnapping, torture, rape or other violations -- and most definitely would not exhibit blaming behaviour, denial of responsibility, disdain for their suffering, or enjoyment of cruelty for its own sake. To recap, 'selfishness' is not a neutral term, not simply, not completely, not for all time. And it is by no means a 'symptom' of the disorder you take issue with. A callous disregard for the rights (and feelings) of others is not selfishness. Inventor Thomas Edison may have been selfish (in the Randian term) but you cannot use the same word to imply the same scale as you scope out the personality of sex-killer Bundy. The word just can't do that much work on its own. On to psychosis, psychotic, crazy, having lost touch with reality. What 'dubious' reason do you think led to that 'invention' ? I mean, did it describe a real danger (to self and others) or did it describe something else? If I warn you against a psychotic person or a dangerous agressive dog, am I helping you in one instance avoid harm, but not in the other? Follow on your own the rest of the criteria, the actual criteria, and see if you have been fair. If a person known to you actually had the same suite of behaviours cited above, would you trust them to treat you fairly, according to norms like honesty, non-initiation of force, and so on? Now that you see the Dx (in its short form), which describes Bundy and which describes Edison. Carol, despite her crippling socialism, is a very nice and understanding woman. She is not trying to trip you up, but helping you to sharpen your perceptions. ____ PS, your drawings and sculptures are wonderfully manic and creative. Something is urgent in you to create, and no parent was able to quash it. No one here will be able to quash it. Please be trusting to the degree that you might accept some of us here will actually help you think things through, and by so doing, help you get where you want to be in life -- realistically, and with least wear and tear on your heart. I unknowingly made friends with sociopaths. I took the altruist philosophy on faith but broke it as I wanted to be evil so to gain and keep my values and avoid sacrifice at any price (an obvious contradiction). I considered myself a brilliant villain so I made friends with another villain. I eventually discovered that we are opposites and he really is a villainous sociopath (in respect to the negative aspects). I wanted to discover the differences between us and I most certainty did. It was too funny when he would always say angrily, "Why don't you ever believe me (take me on faith?" -especially after studying Rand for 1.5 years. Without initiating physical force, they can only destroy you if you take them on faith, act on emotion and accept unearned guilt and I don't regret for a second knowing those sociopaths as they were so eloquent examples of true villains; it very much helped, while studying Objectivism (especially upon just discovering it), to have examples of pure evil on tap. As for Carol, we both know we're civilized enough to have a respectful disagreement. I joined this website for the purpose of showing my work and having my premises checked- and rigorously! I know I have to be right in order to remain in existence and to gain and keep My Voluptuous Benjamin (that which I call the empire which is my work). If I am wrong and don't know it yet, what better place to be corrected than an Objectivist philosophical conversational website! Unlike most, I very much enjoy having my premises checked. Its no longer stressful to correct my premises as proved and accepted my epistemological contradictions as being wrong; now the contradictions I hold, if any, are small enough to correct without stress. Philosophical conversation is utterly intriguing! And as for damaging my heart, it must be made of Buckeypaper!- which will be available in 5 to 10 years and is proven to be 500 times stronger than steel and 10 times lighter)!!! Lastly, *THANK YOU* for your compliments to my work and romantic pursuit! I know I deserve recognition but seldom have I ever received it- at least the recognition of complimenting my ability, talent and virtue; not that much of a hassle and once pencil is put to paper I forget their hatred and ignorance completely.

Yes! And look what innocent selfish, greedy, virtuous industrialists are consitered as and convicted of being criminals! Their (the inventors of the diagnosis of psychopathy) purpose is now clear: to "justify" the arresting of and court room arguments against industrialists & business owners.

Thanks!

But how can it be valid to use neutral terms such as selfish as symptoms for diseases? Also, I've actually been studying Objectivism for about a year and a half. I made a point to understand the entire Fountainhead speech and the John Galt speech and I understand them both now with the exception of minor details in the Galt speech which I'm working out now. I've made mistakes but I'm ironing them out. What made you think I was new to Rand? I've always been enthusiastic about philosophical truth, I'm suprised I didn't stumble upon her before researching for my case. Medical terms are not about precise semantics but about observable symptom patterns.m In medical context they serve as shorthand for these patterns. It is philosophy that seeks to rightly define, or redefine words. I repeat, Rand was a philosopher with little interest or knowledge in medicine. The speeches in her novels were about philosophy, and somewhat about economics and aesthetics. Not about medical science. But would a psychiatrist not need proper terminology of symptoms in order to properly diagnose? Philosophy applies to everthing in existence as the laws of logic apply to everything in existence; Objectivism is based on reason and the laws of logic and axioms. For instance selfishness, a neutral term, is used as a symptom of anti-social personality disorder also called psychosis. The first man who discovered how to create fire was selfish and so is a burglar. Thomas Edison was selfish and so was Ted Bundy (It was in his interest, as a psycho, to kill). Psychosis, I strongly believe (not in pertaining to faith), was a term invented for dubious purposes.

Yes. Ritalin at the age of six I think. It was the worst feeling. I was hyper concentrated on unimportant things such as unimportant minor details and concepts completely unrelated to that which I wanted and had to do to sustain my life and my work. Due to ritalin I had nervous ticks. I was forced to take it in school so I devised the means to make it appear as if I had swallowed it, which only worked sometimes. I'm prescribed to concerta and vivance though I don't take them; just as with ritalin, I stay up for nights on end and can't focus on that which is important: that which I must do to achieve and sustain my life and my values. My first psychologist tried to prescribe me to a manic pill which she said, upon my asking, would harness my thinking to a degree and relax my mind. I regard anything that does that to be monstrously contemptible. I've been diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder (due to my selfishness, egoism, "grandeoise" sense of self worth (Dad compared my ego to Louis XIV and he actually believed that pretentious man had an ego), and my not having any friends till college and my (habitual) inability and reluctance to follow "social norms". Do you think anti-social personality disorder is a valid disorder and why? I'm curious as you're not an Objectivist. (In case it's not clear I am an avid Objectivist and a civilized person capable of having a respectful disagreement).

But you are not a non-fiction human equivalent of the Good, either. At some psychological point you will have to deal with them, sooner or later. There are sadistic people who I personally refer to as destroyers. They're called sadists but I sometimes refer to them as destroyers: people who intend and vigorously pursue the destruction of virtuous people for pleasure. I've known plenty and my parents are the worst of them. Unless they use physical force I can be immune to their methods (of which they create MANY) by merely not acting on emotion, never taking them on faith and never accepting unearned guilt. They constantly (to the degree of their sadistic ambition) try to get you to act on emotion, accept unearned guilt and take them on faith and they always are frustrated when you don't; frustrated, I think, to the degree of their sadistic ambition, as well. Those are their only weapons save physical force. I learned that in Atlas Shrugged. Before I grasped that I took their morality on faith and accepted unearned guilt: I am pure evil according to their philosophy (I'm scrumptuously and rationally selfish, endlessly ambitious, feverishly greedy, I'm VERY strongly in love with my life my self and my work and I reject altruism). I accepted the unearned guilt of being pure evil and my view of evil was actually almost Rand's view of the good. Although I never felt guilty for my architectural pursuit, for drawing and researching, as I think many people wanted me to. I adore luxury especially the luxury I know I'm capable of creating and, luxury, say most people is irrelevent to life, is wrong, is evil. I regarded it as good to be evil and I wanted to be the most evil man in existence as if I was I'd thereby achieve my architectural luxury among my other values. That was a monstrous contradiction. Anyway, I was somewhat trapped in my parents honeypot during which I had to stay away from them as I didn't want to kill them aftering finding out they destroyed even more of my work. Now their existence does not move me to the slightest degree. A non-forceful destroyers methods can only work so long as you act on emotion, take them on faith and accept unearned guilt.

Haha well I'm sure his parents weren't non-fiction, human equivalents of the devil. I know Mozart would have loathed his parents had they destroyed his work. Any creator whose parents threw away all their work from the time they started to the time they left for college would, undoubtably, passionatly hate their parents. Though I only hate my parents when I have to deal with them. From my experience, hatred comes from dealing with those and that with which you strongly disagree. When I don't deal with them I don't think of them unless as motivation to escape them

I find myself having a lot in common with Mozy. He's the EXACT sort of man who I'd make best friends with. I've wanted for a long time to be best friends with a talented, ingenius composer and I've even designed a villa for one (though, obviously, due to modern architectural law and financial limitations, I can't build it). Mozy started his melodic pursuit at age three to five; I started my architectural pursuit at 5. Mozy was, by your description, bipolar in his inability to refrain from creating and furthering his melodic pursuit; I'm the same way with architecture, I find it utterly difficult to stop creating for more than two or three days. I'd fall into a unbearable depression if I waited three days till furthering my architectural pursuit and the only way to recover would involve pencil, paper, clay or internet (architectural research). Mozy and I are also messy. When I'm not forced to clean up after myself I find myself surrounded by sketches, elevations and architectural portraits in as little as a week; I go through at least 500 sheets a *month*. I wonder if Tchaikovsky was the same? I adore Tchaikovsky! Before Lionel Yu, Bogdan Alin Ota and Karl Jenkins, Tchaikovsky was my favorite! I remember blasting his Marche Slave and drawing after my work went missing or another of my parents horrid lectures. Marche Slave was what Rand would call an insolent no! thrown in the face of arbitrary authority. And words cannot describe the beauty of The Sleeping Beauty Waltz. Valse Sentimentale was, to me before discovering Yu Ota and Jenkins, the most delicious composition.

My second psychologist did not think I had bipolar disorder at all. My first psychologist said I was manic because she said there was no reason I should be happy. I've been happy because I gain and keep my values as much as I possibly can. I don't and can't focus on anything that doesn't pertain to that which I want to gain and keep (my architecture, my life, and even the boring things which my architectural career presupposes). I do experience the latter when I'm creating the esthetics of and the means to create my architecture (and other endeavors), but often I'll be working on a floor plan then switch to haute couture then switch to the exterior/interior of a limo then switch back to the floor plan then switch to the limo again, then work on the elevations of the floorplan.... You're an Objectivist and seem to have decent knowlege of psychology. Would you call my pursuit manic or bipolar? It is however difficult for me to clean my room and I used to hire people to do it as I consitered the cleanliness of my room a much much lesser value than my work and pursuit. But its incredibly difficult to clean. Would this be bipolar? I think you have mixed me up with Adam, I am not an Objectivist although I have read most of Rand's writings and I think I have a fair grasp of her ideas. I think to be taken from creative idea to creative idea,and never want to stop working on them, is fairly typical of bipolar behaviour in my layman's opinion, yes. I'm not officially bipolar but I hate to clean my place and will do anything to postpone doing it. Everybody is a little bit crazy, at least in my experience. I've read Mozart was the same. He seldom finished his pieces in one sitting; he wrote numerous pieces at once.

My second psychologist did not think I had bipolar disorder at all. My first psychologist said I was manic because she said there was no reason I should be happy. I've been happy because I gain and keep my values as much as I possibly can. I don't and can't focus on anything that doesn't pertain to that which I want to gain and keep (my architecture, my life, and even the boring things which my architectural career presupposes). I do experience the latter when I'm creating the esthetics of and the means to create my architecture (and other endeavors), but often I'll be working on a floor plan then switch to haute couture then switch to the exterior/interior of a limo then switch back to the floor plan then switch to the limo again, then work on the elevations of the floorplan.... You're an Objectivist and seem to have decent knowlege of psychology. Would you call my pursuit manic or bipolar? It is however difficult for me to clean my room and I used to hire people to do it as I consitered the cleanliness of my room a much much lesser value than my work and pursuit. But its incredibly difficult to clean. Would this be bipolar?

But how can it be valid to use neutral terms such as selfish as symptoms for diseases? Also, I've actually been studying Objectivism for about a year and a half. I made a point to understand the entire Fountainhead speech and the John Galt speech and I understand them both now with the exception of minor details in the Galt speech which I'm working out now. I've made mistakes but I'm ironing them out. What made you think I was new to Rand? I've always been enthusiastic about philosophical truth, I'm suprised I didn't stumble upon her before researching for my case.