MrBenjamatic

Phillip: Calvin does not speak for Objectivism. I suggest starting here...http://aynrandlexicon.com/ - for example: "Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life." I used that website, insted of Rand's books themselves, to learn Objectivism. It says "thinking is the process of defining identity and discovering causal connections." Do you know what Rand means by *causal* connections? Thinking is an action and the law of causality is the law of identifity (A is A) applied to action. So would this mean that thinking is merely identifying and integrating evidence of existence (such as sensory evidence) by the standard of the laws of logic? If so I have it right already, but please, please let me know! Also, do you know where I can find a description of the clear, basic difference between thinking and reason. I already know that reason is the ability to identify and integrate sensory evidence.... I won't discuss my epistemology. But if you know of any references I'd be grateful! What I've done so far is merely compare definitions (the ones I used in this post NOT MY ORIGINAL). I think I'm right.

I misconstrued Rand on the difference between reason and thinking and I'm trying to untangle my mistake and iron it out (fix it). Reason is the capacity to identify and integrate sensory evidence. And you say that you excersize your reason by focusing (and I agree with you). You define thinking as focus. Do you know where I can find a short Objectivist definition of thinking? I'm utterly desperate. *P.S. If focusing is not automatic and you have to focus in order to exersize your reason, how can reason (identification & integration of sensory evidence) be automatic? But then I'm sure I misunderstood you when I concluded that you implied reason (identification & integration) is automatic. -PBH

You are absolutely correct in your pointing out the difference between online research and subject study. And as I said, I know absolutely nothing about neuroscience, perhaps until now.

Manic bipolar disorder is not about psychology at all. It is a measurable physical condition based on neuroscience as well as observations of symptoms.. In many cases it is treatable by conventional medicine, sallowing the individual to return to a normal healthy self. Not to discredit you, as I don't know anything about neuroscience, but I read differently online (in regards to it being psychological).

You do, of course, recognize that if it were not for thinking, which is not automatic, that the spear could not have been created? Things like that are created by the identification and integration of sensory evidence (what I used to define as thinking until someone stated that they could identify an emotion).

Dad works at AEP, what he does there I don't know but I do know he makes good money. Mom started working as a secretary about four years ago. Phillip: Since I do not speak alphabet, I am assuming that you meant American Electrical Power? I am an only child, are you also? If you are, frankly, I am surprised that you do not know what your father does for AEP. Nevertheless, you commitment to your values is clearly undisputed. In many ways, it is admirable. I for one, am certainly not going to dissuade you from the path you have chosen. Adam Haha. Yes its AEP. He used to be a manager of something. He works at AEP headquarters in Columbus Ohio. He hates his job and he nevers talks about it and I have no interest in inquiring about what he does now. When I read your question asking if I was an only child, the answer that popped into my head was no. I have a sister but she hasn't amounted to anything and shes more worthless than my parents: she reminds me of Philip Rearden in a way. She's a girl scout (Mom was the leader of a GS troop and Dad the Scoutmaster of a Boy Scout troop; ardent altruists who adore charity so much that Mom used to be president of Twig's Bazaar for Children's Hospital), Sara, too, is involved in charity, she preeches sustainability (and has believed in it since early high school), she's liberal, and she's more vulgar than Mom and Dad and she does it on purpose. She makes herself look ugly for the sake of looking ugly. It seems to me that she wants to look ugly for the sake of making the beautiful feel guilty. Its repuslive and funny. Thanks for your support of my architectural pursuit -PBH

About two months ago I was researching modern psychological analysis and diagnosis and I was astonished at how many symptoms were neutral terms like selfish. Anti-social personality disorder (or psychopathy) is a great example of this; symptoms of this folly disorder include selfishness, lack of guilt, grandeoise sense of self worth, the lack of acting on emotions (described as being emotionally shallow), lack of empathy and pity (lack of altruism). I'd like to highlight the 'grandeoise sense of self worth'. That is, essentially, arrogance. Arrogance pressuposes presumptuousness; an invalidly high opinion of oneself. But to call anyone with a high opinion of oneself arrogant is a wish to wipe out of existence all those whose high opinions of themselves are valid: Ayn Rand, Coco Chanel, Henry Bessemer, Frank Lloyd Wright. I could discuss the fallaciousness of the Anti-social personality disorder and other modern psychological diagnoses' for a while, but I won't. Does anyone know of any other follies in regards to modern psychological analysis (manic bipolar disorder is one of them I think)?

I don't get 'automatic'. You mean subconscious? But then, everything subconscious had to come through the conscious. So can be introspected. You mean, like driving a car - habitual? The only 'automatic' in the brain is reflexive, and instinctive behavior, far as I know. Being aware of everything pertaining to one, is what we've been discussing with evasion. Automatic is for automatons. I don't get 'automatic'. You mean subconscious? But then, everything subconscious had to come through the conscious. So can be introspected. You mean, like driving a car - habitual? The only 'automatic' in the brain is reflexive, and instinctive behavior, far as I know. Being aware of everything pertaining to one, is what we've been discussing with evasion. Automatic is for automatons. Yes I think I do mean subconscious, But I don't think the subconscious is programmed consciously. It's not. The subconscious is automatic. Do you know if we are subconscious (not collectively, obviously) of knowlege? I was talking to I don't remember who on this forum and I have a theory that if one has set a value of that which they want to create, once one subconsciously knows how to create it a subconscious connection is made and immediatly thereafter the idea of how to create that value "pops" into one's head. I'd very much like to know whether I'm right on this. I like to further prove to myself that nothing is random!

This is appalling. What kind of monster hates a 5 year old child? I would guess that many members here were creative at an early age. MSK with his musical talent for a prime example. I used to make up stories and poems from about 5, I am sure many more did the same. I got some laughs and sneers from my "audience", sure, and I certainly was not praised to the skies, but never did I feel hated for my efforts. When I hit another kid on the head with a hammer in a sandbox at that age, I was hated and deservedly, but it had nothing to do with anybody's talent or confidence. It was about somebody's toy truck. You'd be surprised haha. My parents were and still are the most evil people I've ever known. They destroyed every drawing of mine from age 5 to 18 (except the 2,000 I hid). Why did they destroy your artwork? Were you drawing Grandma naked or something? Or did they have fanatical clutter issues? I did draw nudes but they were all of girls my age and the older I got the older were the girls I drew. Now that I think about it I made them older than I was and more sculptured (larger breasts mor heroic proportions than girls their age). My parents destroyed my work because they wanted to stop me. I finally got them to admit they destroyed my work this year and before that they always denied it. I know they did it out of hate. They constantly tried to convince me to go outside insted of drawing inside and when I brought my supplies outside they would make sure I had seen them shrug. They constantly told me I would be poor as an architect and an artist and that I wasn't fit to be poor. "He who is not capable of enduring poverty is not capable of being free" - Victor Hugo. They only once bragged about my work to their friends (I was in 2nd grade and drew a large portrait of Tutankhamen as I loved gold and adored the sensuous luxury of Ancient Egypt and Rome). That was when I was a toddler. As I got older they got angry and scared, I think. Mom told me she sent me to a mental doctor of some sort when I was 4 or 5 because "I marched to the beat of a different drummer" she said. I replied, "Yes. I'm the drummer". She shrugged and said I hadn't changed. She couldn't understand why her saying that made me happy. They sent me to all sorts of doctors to have me mentally checked after which I was diagnosed with ADD. I was diagnosed with that I think as I didn't and habitally couldn't pay attention to that which didn't interest me. They began trying to convince me that I was insane or mentally ill for not giving up my work. The extremes they went to to stop me are too stupid and too funny. Last year my old psychiatrist, whom my parents insisted I see, diagnosed me as psychotic (she referred to it as anti-social personality disorder) because I'm an Objectivist and because I'm filing suit against those damn Washington toddlers who create and enforce the red tape forbidding me from being an architect without being a mediocrity. Dad reminds me of this obnoxious diagnoses often and I can't help but laugh. The same psychiatrist/psychologist woman diagnosed me with manic bipolar disorder as she said there is no reason for me to be so happy. They, I think, are afraid that Objectivism works, that gaining and keeping ones values, not sacrificing them, makes one happy. If it's not already obvious, with my going through a ream of paper a month, I was then and have always been with pencil and paper in hand (only now I carry everything in my book insted of cheap notebooks, plastic bags and the plastic in which a ream comes). They were very clear that they thought my work was horrid and that I should give up immediatly. "The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the trash heap" - Rand. (Haha! I used that quote and many other Rand quotes in an architectural project before I dropped/flunked out of the Kent State College of Architecture & Environmental Design). I think they thought I would give up if I knew I couldn't keep my work. The dean of the architecture program was the same way; I told him I'm the greatest architect in the history of mankind and the dean looked at me like Jan looks at Michael Scott when he says something stupid in The Office. Susan Maxman, the '93 president of the American Institute of Architects, is quoted in a newpaper to have said, "Anyone who reads past chapter one of The Fountainhead doesn't belong in my office (because those who drop out of college are legally forbidden to practice architecture)". I eventually had to get paper from school and other places as Mom and Dad locked the computer paper drawer. And it's not like they were anywhere near poor and couldn't afford $5 a month to support my habit. I'd consiter them either the lowest upper class or the highest upper middle class. I asked Mom last Christmas why she destroyed my work and she said she did it because she loved me. I asked her, "So you destroyed that which I love more than anything in the world, because you loved me?". She ignored this remark and walked away, her face was blank. Mom reminds me of a Lillian Reardon and Dad reminds me of Jim Taggart except they're both vulgar for the sake of vulgarity (whereas Lillian and Jim were not, they had some level of elegance and tried to pretend to be civilized and so, it seems, they read up on Emily Post). Sometimes Mom says that she'd rather have a clean house and that's why she threw my work away; at least that's what she told her and my psychologist (who I now see to have philosophical conversation and who my parents insist I see to treat my anti-social personality disorder). When I told that psychologist that she told me she destoryed my work because she claimed she loved me, his face morphed into disgust in a way I haven't seen. My work was primarily in my room and I never had a single friend until college; no guests went in my room and it was out of view of the rest of the rooms. They most definently did it out of hate. My parents constantly, with sad angel eyes, tell me they love me as if asking for pity. When I ask by what standard they always walk away and hang up the phone and pretend as if the incident never happened. I'm not asking for pity; pity be damned! I'm long over my parents hatred for me. Beasts being beastly.

Dad works at AEP, what he does there I don't know but I do know he makes good money. Mom started working as a secretary about four years ago.

I know I joined yesterday and I've been warned that people may bite (which I'm used to) but I can't help but post this. This is a HILARIOUS example of the INSAINE epistemology of a post modern intellectual. Do you think he is neurotic or psychotic and why?

As evidence of non-thinkers refusing to know truth and thinking based on truth I offer two very funny videos.

I think you have to differentiate more here. For example, one can believe in ones ideal's, in another person's ability, and in much more without being insane, stupid and evil. Re "evil": It is true that certain beliefs may are irrational; being irrational means being in error about a fact, but being in error is something else than being evil. 'Evilness' would come into play if irrational tenets are consciously used to oppress others and stifle their independent thinking. It was a mistake to try to redefine believe. I made other mistakes in my original post which is now corrected and on view. Does my update make sense? *P.S. If you absolutely agree with the below we are on the same page and I agree with you: "Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life." _Ayn Rand

I explained it in the 14th post on page 1 which I wrote as a reply to Aristocrates. Does it not make sense? Oh! I see my error! I used the word reason in the wrong places as I thought that it was the same as thinking. I thank you very much for your differentiation of the two! I'll correct my response to Aristocrates. I think it will make more sense then.

I completely agree. Self-esteem is the result of achieving one's values, not the cause. I disagree. Rand said: "To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living." Reason, purpose and self-esteem are the cause of achieving one's values and virtue presupposes reason, purpose and self-esteem. Virtue, I'm sure you know, is the gaining and keeping of one's values and thereby gaining and keeping one's happiness. She also said, "Self-esteem is reliance on one’s power to think." One must rely on one's power to think in order to achieve values.

I remember in high school while in a language class, the teacher asked which economical class everyone (yes she said everyone) wants to be a member of. One girl answered upper class; she said she'd rather be rich than less rich. The correct answer said the teacher was middle class. I think that their use of the term middle class is a folly as not everyone wants to be middle class. They (the politicians) want to hold you down for the sake of holding you down; they steal your money, not because they want it for themselves, but because they want you not to have it. Politicans surround themselves with elegance and wealth and mansions because they believe that money gives value to individuals and not the other way around. No matter what economic class one belongs to, one has the right to use and dispose of offer to trade and give away that which is theirs and no one else's with no one else's permission so long as they don't initiate the use of force upon anyone else. Incidentally, I can't seem to find out why many believe there is a difference between being wealthy and being rich. I've always thought that saying that is contemptible and I don't know why.

But by thinking, even those who refuse to know (the evil), can earn the love of others. Earning others love should not be the reason for thinking and virtue. One should do it for one's own sake.

I agree with your saying that the evil are always evil to themselves and that that is why they're evil. And you can't do evil unto others without doing evil unto yourself (violating the rights of the innocent is ALWAYS wrong and irrational). And I only condemn those who commit breach of morality. But that is most of the globe. "It's not ignorance, it's the refusal to know. Not blindness but the refusal to see". (That quote may not be entirely correct word for word). I hold that it is insaine not to think. The difference between insainity and mental retardation is one is not born insaine, it's the life style choice of those who refuse to know- those who would rather pretend to be right that to truly be right- those who have no desire to know the truth when it contradicts their premises -those who know their epistemology is wrong but pursue it none the less. Yes, I think most people are not worthy of love.

You're right, brother. My definition contradicts the previous definition of believing, which is impractical. What if, I call non-thinking the evasion to exersize the mind and/or any attempt to identify and integrate emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith; and as an estimation of non-thinking rather than a definition? Do you agree with my new estimation? Do you agree with it being an estimation rather than a definition? What do you think? Being rational or thinking or using your mind creatively are all different things with some overlapping. You have to be very careful in throwing morality into cognitive processes so they aren't unnecessarily screwed up. Take responsibility for how you use your brain and what's right and proper will tend to follow naturally moral moral sensibilities. --Brant To the extent of my knowlege, all thinking is an act of reason. I hold that reason and thinking are the same thing as they both are the identification and integration of sensory evidence. Am I wrong? Creativity doesn't necessarily require ostensible thinking or reason. In fact not to just let it happen cognitively can stop it dead. You can certainly use reason to prime the creative pump or be consciously creative, but a lot of creativity seemingly just pops into your head, even in some dreams. --Brant Romanticism is that which can and ought to exist in reality, to the extent of my knowlege. A mind divorced from reality is not creative. In order to create in accordance to reality one must think. An individuals view of man is introspective. I am an artist among many other things. I always think in order to create. I'm glad you mentioned the popping of ideas in ones head. I have been, very recently, thinking of why that happens. Nothing is random; the law of causality is an absolute. An individual is responsible for choosing his values and setting his standards. About a year and a half ago, I wanted to move magnetically levitating objects. I thought for a long, long time about how to do it. I read that, so far, people have only magnetically levitated objects by magnetic repulsion (magnetic push). I knew that magnetic attraction existed. Though it did seem random, as the thought popped into my head without my conscious intention, I suddenly thought of counterbalancing magnetic attraction with magnetic repulsion. My thought was justified, I think, by my playing around with a circular piece of wood: I pressed down on opposite points and pushed up on the points in-between those points. By doing that I had a good enough grip on the wood to move it and I think I subconsciously (then consciously) realized that the same could be done magnetically by virute of magnetic repulsion counterbalanced by magnetic attraction. I hold, so far, that, as I set holding and moving magnetically levitating objects as my value, I subconsciously played with that circular piece of wood and subconsciously made that connection. I think that creators are in tune with their subconscious when an idea pops into their head. i don't think its random at all. I think it's a subconscious connection. Does this make sense? What do you think? Now that I think about it, I discovered the probable means to move magnetically levitating objects by subconscious connection. This is a very intricate topic and I'd very much like to discuss it with you or someone with great knowlege of Objectivist epistemology. Would what I did be thinking? Again, i was in tune with my subconscious (because a connection was made that was of value to me-I set the value) and so I had the idea. What do you think? Was I thinking. I had already identified sensory evidence, but was my integration of it thinking even though it was done subconsciously? I do know that that thought was not at all random.

Would you agree that it would be more practical as an estimation of non-thinking? I have done a 4 year psycho-epistemological study. I have made "friends" with, constantly observed (as I gained a high social standing in that social set) and had long, deep philosophical conversations with some of them (non-thinkers). I discussed epistemology the most. Some do, actually, try to integrate that which they take on faith. That is one of the causes of their belief that logic is impotent: they can't logically integrate that which they take on faith; the false can contradict the false and always contradicts the true. That is also one of the causes of their terror of logic: they're subconscious that taking things on faith and acting on the false is illogical, and, logically they're evil. I was talking with a very old post-modern intellectual; I discovered a piece of his philosophy, one time, by having him speak about the philosophy of the dictators he supported (and refused to accept as being dictators). He said no matter how hard they try, the politicians cannot completely evade the fact that they're lieing, that what they're doing is wrong. They try to pretend to themselves and to others, vigorously, that their actions are right and what they do is think, but deep down they know they're evil and logic proves it so; that is one of the causes of their terror of logic. As for the idenfication of faith, emotions, wishes and whims, the evil feverishly try only to identify that they exist. They try to pretend to identify their actions as being right and their faith-created beliefs as being true. They evade to fully identify what they're doing. I agree with you completely on the purpose of identifying your emotions. I will have to further my estimation of non-thinking as a result. The evil non-thinkers don't even identify their true emotions. They try very hard to pretend that they're not terrified. Optimism is an example of that. They believe (on faith) that pretending to be happy will replace the only cause of happiness which is virtue. Another example, very similiar, is the half-empty, half-full folly. They say that you can complain that you glass is half empty as if complaining, not vice, caused it to be so -or- you could (pretend to) be happy that your glass is half full as if pretending to be happy filled your glassand as if to thank the sacrifice-demanders (who likely originated this folly) for only demanding that you sacrifice only half the contents of your glass. A full glass being a metaphor for unbridled happiness. What do you think? Do you agree? In regards to freedom, here is my estimation of freedom (or would it be better as a definition?): the right to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. My justification of this statement is at the end of my architectural post. What do you think of that?

You're right, brother. My definition contradicts the previous definition of believing, which is impractical. What if, I call non-thinking the evasion to exersize the mind and/or any attempt to identify and integrate emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith; and as an estimation of non-thinking rather than a definition? Do you agree with my new estimation? Do you agree with it being an estimation rather than a definition? What do you think? Being rational or thinking or using your mind creatively are all different things with some overlapping. You have to be very careful in throwing morality into cognitive processes so they aren't unnecessarily screwed up. Take responsibility for how you use your brain and what's right and proper will tend to follow naturally moral moral sensibilities. --Brant To the extent of my knowlege, all thinking is an act of reason. I hold that reason and thinking are the same thing as they both are the identification and integration of sensory evidence. Am I wrong?

You're right, brother. My definition contradicts the previous definition of believing, which is impractical. What if, I call non-thinking the evasion to exersize the mind and/or any attempt to identify and integrate emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith; and as an estimation of non-thinking rather than a definition? Do you agree with my new estimation? Do you agree with it being an estimation rather than a definition? What do you think?

I do not claim new definitions, but I do differentiate between ethics and morality. I understand that we study "morality" when we take "Philo 304: Ethics." I get that. In common parlance, as with sacrifice, altruism, capitalism, reason, we use the words carelessly. I assert that "ethics" refers to specific codes of socially-appropriate conduct. "Morality" is the standard by which we establish ethics. Thus, professional societies publish their codes of ethics, but not codes of morality. Therefore, I accept your offering of "belief" versus "thinking" apart from their vernacular uses as valid. Just be aware that not everyone will understand your point intuitively. You will have to explain yourself -- and accept that Peter Reidy believes that he owns a Honda, which in fact, he does. He does believe he owns a car by one of the definitions of believing. One of the purposes of my coming to this site is to be corrected so to be right, as I must be in order to gain and keep my values. It just occured to me that it would be much more practical and clear to call non-thinking that which I've called believing. Do you agree?

Yes, sacrifice can only be the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. If you've ever read history, you'll know that the founding fathers giving up of their comfort and money (lesser values than liberty) given up for the sake of liberty is constantly referred to as a sacrifice. Rand wanted to make clear that sacrifice never results in true profit and is evil. Don't you think the word think would better (more clearly) describe rational thought than believe. Believe, nowadays, is used to mean both thinking and non-thinking (faith, wishing, whimsically deciding, emotions). The word thinking means only thinking (not faith, wishing, whimsically deciding, emotions). It would, I think, make it clear that your conclusion was reached rationally by means of reason if you replaced the word believe with think. Do you see where I'm coming from and why I want to differentiate the two? Have you seen my linguistic correction to my post? What do you think? Always a pleasure to offer reason for reason, brother Carpe Diem, Carpe Noctum, brother, PBH

MrBenjamatic, A little bit. I have to travel early tomorrow and I will only be back Thursday night. Have fun until then. Knowing the folks around here like I know them, you can expect to have some of your premises checked. btw - I am satisfied you are not a troll attacking the forum (like we sometimes get), so welcome to OL. Michael Michael, I very much look forward to having my premeses checked. I love it! I know I have to be right to gain and keep my vales and it is in me self interest to be corrected if I'm wrong. Unlike most I want to be corrected if I'm wrong as I love to be right because I love to gain and keep My Benjamin. If you didn't read the end of my architectural post, and if you're interested, my architecture is illegal by modern architectural laws and I'm bringing suit to the altruist architectural collective: what I've named the "professional collective" violating my right to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is mine and no one else's (my architecture) with no one else's permission: the AIA, AIAS, NCARB, ACSA, NAAB. Frank Lloyd Wright despised the AIA even before they illegalized greatness and now that they have I'm bringing suit. I've quoted, at the end of that post, my explanation of rights (which hasnt existed before) from my book which will contain my case and the practical political implementation of Objectivist politics (lassiez fair Capitalism) and a rational solution to socialism: court cases with my irrefutable justification of rights which is based directly off the laws of logic. Below, if you're interested, Ive included that which will be the cover of my book (I've found self publishing companies willing to allow it as is). My point of joining this website, aside from offering my work, is to correct any errors my case my hold; I must be absolutely right in court and offer only absolutely true and overtly irrefutable arguments. 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.