Mikee

Covalent? As in not able to unbond? "Selfish" is not irrational. Sometimes we need to prune our "tree of friends" to keep it healthy and make it grow. You are the center of your own universe. If you do not thrive your universe cannot thrive. Other people do not NEED you, they sometimes simply USE you.

Chris! "I helped pick up bales of hay on my aunt's farm a couple of summers." Me too! My Uncle's dairy farm in Idaho. Learned to drive a tractor and use the manure spreader (yuck). I hated getting up in the wee hours to help turn the water. My Uncle just grabbed the blankets on the way by and just pulled. Damn. Bucking hay makes you strong. My first early workouts. The wet bales on the ends of the rows weighed as much as I did.

Bruce Lee described running as the King of Exercises and he wasn't wrong. Brisk walking and hiking are a close second. If you haven't done it or are starting after a long layoff (perhaps have a few extra pounds) be sure to strengthen your leg muscle first. Lunges, one leg squats, stair stepping are some options. Do plenty of reps, start with small movements, (short steps, shallow lunge), work your way up as you get stronger and more confident. One leg squats, same thing, dip just a little, do plenty of reps, go deeper as you get stronger. Try not to hang onto anything while doing one leg squats, keeping your balance works the muscles around your ankles. Just improving your balance helps prevent injury. A good source of advice and ideas for fitness exercises for running and walking are triathelete magazines, ballet magazines, skiing magazines. Every so often they have an issue devoted to strengthening the muscles around the knee to prevent injury. There's nothing wrong with being strong, it doesn't make a girl look less like a girl and it doesn't mean you will be less flexible. Reasonable weights, slow reps, good form. Try to pick the exercises that use the most movement and involve the most muscle groups. I used to teach fitness and self defense for several years to kids and adults, both sexes. I noticed young women who had kids were much stronger than the girls still in school. They got strong by lugging their kids around! For fun, read this: http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle.do?art...04-046-training

Jeff, Damn. "If I'm ever the moral equivlent of Barry Bonds....etc". I think Barry was a superstar before he every touched steriods. When he is in his groove his home run swing is simply ballet to watch. I stlll like the guy. Of course, being an old guy, I'm a little more sympathic to someone who tried to extend their career a little when the aches and pains started to set in. The temptation must have been pretty hard to resist given the fuzzy line between the muscle building "proteins" and "amino acids" and the new formulations of "steroids?" being pushed by his trainers. The rules were also a little fuzzy in baseball a few years ago I believe. He's being investigated for lying to a grand jury not actually for what he took. Anyway, I STILL like Barry Bonds. I don't care if he doesn't get along with the press either. So shoot me.

Definitely: cats. I don't hate dogs quite as much as Dragonfly but I certainly don't think of them as man's best friend. Walking running or biking or hiking a strange dog can be your worst enemy. And I've watched a dog kill a cat, perhaps the ugliest thing I've ever witnessed. Most dog owners are too dumb to learn how to control their dogs. Otherwise, I like all animals. Anything I could capture when I was a kid I was fascinated by. I raised tadpoles, kept cocoons in a jar until they opened to see what they became, had an antfarm, raised crickets, captured snakes of all kinds (not the rattlesnakes we have around here), chickens, rabbits, we had several cats. Where I grew up we had these tunnel spiders. One summer I fed one with flies I caught out of the air and threw into his(her) web. By the end of the summer it was about half dollar sized, had a huge "pantry" of wrapped up flies stored away and used to run out of his tunnel to the middle of his web and wait when I walked up. Most animals (even very primitive ones) have an innate learning capacity. I had a small microscope that I examined insects and parts of plants with. It had a little mirror used for illumination. It was perfect for outside on a sunny day hiking around finding things to look at. Nice topic.

Baseball is my favorite sport to watch though I was never any good at it. It's complicated enough to be interesting. Some people call it boring but I find the transitions from stillness and waiting to intense highly skilled action to be a rush. It is an analogy to the hunt in nature. It appeals to my predatory instinct. Unfortunately, I seem to be a jinx to my favorite team, the Giants. They can be ahead by nine runs, if I turn on the TV they can find a way to lose. Sob. My sports in high school were gymnastics, wrestling and cross country running. Wrestling came after gymnastics when I got kicked off of the gymnastics team. I was never very good at taking orders. I wasn't motivated by competition as much as working out. I really enjoyed using my body to the max. I was close to school records in push-ups and pull-ups and rope climb, decent in long distance running, but no awards. After high school and the Navy martial arts were my "sport" of choice. Ten years of competition in open karate tournaments here on the west coast. I still enjoyed the working out more than the competition but I got a few trophys. After the lower belts, no more first places however. It's a bit hard on the body. I gave as good as I got but I broke my leg one time, another time broke my hand. I've had a couple of concussions, innumerable stiches over and under both eyes, incapacitated with kicks to the groin a couple of times, some nerve damage to my left arm, separated my shoulder. I walked into a side kick once that I swear the guys foot connected with my spine from the front. I probably bruised every internal organ. I fell down, got up, fell down again. Yeah, it gets old after awhile. As you go up the ranks the competition gets much harder. How well you can absorb punishment counts as much as skill. The top ranked individuals can all take an unusually hard blow to the head and still fight. These days I run a little and walk a lot. Plenty of pushups and pullups and lift weights a couple of times a week. I have a nice workout on my heavy bag two or three times a week. If I ever get the chance I enjoy a fast game of ping pong. My wife and I enjoy watching figure skating (favorite: Michelle Kwan). The winter olympics are a big deal at our house. We also watch golf occasionally. I enjoy watching golf even though I've never played it. I find it absolutely amazing that they can knock a ball with those weird looking sticks and make it go where they want. Favorite: Tiger Woods.

There are probably no perfect catagories that people can be pigeonholed into. My understanding is that even among "pure" physicists there are at least three types depending on the personality of the physicist: 1. Theoretical 2. Experimental 3. Integrator. I would imagine the experimental physicist would have a lot in common with engineers. I remember two outstanding electronics engineers, both analog circuit specialists. They solved problems completely differently. One was very mathematical, everything was an equation, the other was very intuitive and visualized everything. They didn't get along because they didn't understand each other very well. But they did the same thing! The mathematical guy would be more like a physicist and indeed his master's degree was in applied physics. The intuitive guy's masters was in electronics engineering.

Smokers should wear an old fashioned diving bell type of helmet in public. A one way valve would let air into the helmet past the burning tobacco which they would breath into their lungs. Another one way valve would let the air out but though a charcoal filter which would remove all of the smoke. It'd be a little tough to eat wearing one of these but they could suck on a straw for drinks. A new look for "die hard" individualists. I'm with you Fran. Tobacco smoke makes me a little ill. I do think that people who want to smoke have the right to. But personally, I'd rather be stuck on an elevator with a bunch of farters than be around a smoker. I would leave it up to the establishment owners of restaurants, bars, etc., whether smoking was allowed or discouraged. Then let the market decide. Places of commerce having nothing to do with recreation I think an argument can be made that harm caused by smokers polluting the air is actionable and can rightly be discouraged by law. The harm has to be proven which is the province of the medical establishment. This is the process that has been ongoing for nearly half a century. I suppose the market hasn't been very good at providing smoke free restaurants and bars on their own. I think it's very hard to make a success out of an establishment like these if you limit your market. Perhaps non-smokers don't go out as much as smokers? The proprietors of these places would rather let the legislators be the "bad guys" on this issue.

Good story. I like your quotes. They hit you like a brick don't they? BAM! Best wishes, -Mike Erickson

I REALLY wish I had more time right now to read and try to understand this thread right now but it will have to wait until the weekend. I hope the conversation between Paul and Shayne is still ongoing. In the meantime: I see nothing at all wrong with statements of the form: "When you say this [etc] is sounds as if you think this [etc]. Given the complexity of the human mind and language sometimes I think it's a miracle that anyone understands someone else ever. Think of two alien races, both highly advanced, meeting for the first time. Perhaps the only thing they have in common are math and technologies which they agree on. Anything at all they tried to converse about other than the most basic things would be completely baffling. There might be decades of developing a common language. A "meeting of the minds" can be difficult and require a long feeling out period of question and answer for it to happen. Please let it happen. I really like where Paul is working now and I can't think of anyone better than Shayne to bounce these ideas off of.

The natural process is to try to integrate. Of course this is a life long process and no one is truly fully integrated. However, I don't think we are all "full of" contradictory ideas or a is it a good idea. I think the process of trying to integrate seemingly contradictory ideas is where creativity comes from. I believe John Galt was Ayn Rand's romaticized representation of a fully rational (and fully integrated) person. This explains John Galt's answer to the question of which to choose, mind or emotion. But as Ayn Rand said: John Galt does not exist. As Bruce Lee said: "Don't mistake the finger pointing to the moon for the moon." Integrity consists of the continuous effort to understand new information and new experience and to act consistently in accordance to your principles. It doesn't mean to wallow in the joy of being full of contradictory ideas.

Regarding "Reason" vs "Emotion": The situation is a little more nuanced than our arguments so far have taken into account. People can hold ideas in their minds that are not fully integrated. Rote learners do not even try to integrate. People who don't think independantly can be full of catch phrases which sound good to them but they don't really understand. Not everyone, perhaps not very many people, try to understand things on a very fundamental level, the basic principle level that hopefully most people who call themselves objectivists do. I think it's important to understand, if we are going to analyze every statement that Nathaniel Branden ever said, that he has dealt with in his therapy many people who hold contradictory ideas in their heads. Take a person who has a fairly good backround. By this I mean, came from a fairly rational culture or family of successful people. But this person has problems. Is a non-integrator. Is infatuated with "catch phrases". It might be very good advice to tell this person "If you feel conflicted, go with your emotions." Their pre-programmed "emotional" response to a situation may be more rational than their conflicted "reason". I think that fully integrated ideas do not cause reason-emotion conflicts. But not many people are fully integrated. Following an idea that you don't understand blindly is more like following a religion than reasoning.

Michael, "My example of using a narcotic was not a red herring. I have been saying from the beginning that emotions can be controlled by chemicals." You cannot compare a powerful addictive drug taken externally and argue that conceptually our "hormones" do the same thing. The feedback systems that exist in our bodies, including the chemicals naturally produced, are part of our life's experience. We have acclimated and adapted to our bodies and minds over decades and used our rational faculties to finely discriminate our feelings relative to our internal and external perceptions. You cannot purposely throw a monkey wrench into the works with a powerful drug and call the result consistant with human nature. The decision to behave irrationally in that case happened before the drug took effect. That's why I called your example a red herring. -Mike E.

Shayne, Thank you!

Paul, "Emotions just are." True. But insofar as emotions lead to actions [that is what they are for, spontaneous action to deal with a recognized situation] they can sometimes be inappropriate. A simple example is a person who is deathly afraid of bees. He's driving 70 miles an hour and a bee buzzes by his head. He reacts wildly in panic focusing entirely on the bee and crashes the car killing himself and someone else. His emotion "is", but his reason should have taken over to control the situation. I am personally of the opinion that it is a moral issue whether or not we take steps to reprogram ourselves if we knowingly have phobia of this kind in order to be able to control our reactions if an unexpected situation comes up. The fellow that crashed the car and killed himself and someone else is morally responsible for that act. Please don't hate to disagree. I value disagreement. -Mike E. Victor: http://www.extropy.org/

Jeff, I did not say that it's impossible to control strong emotions. I did say: "The character (will) and intelligence (ability to reason) of a person governs their ability to control their emotions." That is, not everyone has the same abilities. By the way, not everyone thinks that death is inevitable. See "Extropianism".

Michael, "Would you say that the irritation and emotional swings present when a woman is menstruating are due to "spontaneous response to a perception"? Or is the issue hormonal?" Our internal environment is part of our perceptual input so your example fits the definition. As for this: "Fill a pipe full of crack cocaine and smoke it. Then see of you are "rational enough to not be overtaken by strong emotions." (Especially paranoia.)" That is akin to saying "pick a fight with the present heavy weight world champion and see if you can be rational enough to not be overcome by unconsciousness." If you purposely choose to place yourself in a situation out of your control then "in control or not" is not a debatable issue. Your ability to reason is what's debatable. I agree, red herring.

Emotions: Q: What is an emotion? A: A spontaneous response to a perception often accompanied by physiological changes. Q: How are emotions programmed? A: As children we learn emotions by socialization: observing the reactions of others to situations and by experience. Some rudimentary emotions are innate, i.e. sexual attraction, fear of falling, etc. Q: What is unique about humans with regard to emotions? A: Adult humans have the ability to reason. Emotions can be observed for appropriateness to a situation and the response overridden or modified. With practice irrational and inappropriate emotions can be reprogrammed. Discussion: The character (will) and intelligence (ability to reason) of a person governs their ability to control their emotions. Question: How much of our emotion baggage is innate (part of our individual nature) and how much is "socialized"? By socialized I mean instilled into us to adapt us to the needs of "society". I think to override the "socialized" part of our emotional baggage may be in many cases a good thing. In any case, no emotion is exempt from rational analysis as to appropriateness. Definitely if an emotional reaction has negative effect on your personal thriving it needs to be examined and modified.

Mr Boydstun, I missed this on RoR, I don't know how. I am sometimes very busy. http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Boydst..._of_Place.shtml I am in wholehearted agreement.

"It's akin to glorifying a country that has abandoned its founding principles, throws thousands of innocent non-violent people in jail a year, confiscates nearly half of all the wealth its citizens create, etc., right?" I'm certain this is a reference to the United States.

Victor, "It is a common mistake to think that the vital source of pleasure in art is beauty." I suppose our next step is to get into a 1000 post thread about the meaning of "beauty", and what is "beautiful". I'm afraid I'm beginning to regard your ramblings as a sort of "mental virus". Jeff, We have a common language. This means words have accepted meanings which the majority uses to communicate with each other. We can discuss conceptual things without arguing semantics. I can't think of an example where Ayn Rand tried to change the meanings of words. In fact, she complained about people who engaged in propaganda by changing the meaning of common words over time. Such as the word "liberal". Take the word "epistemology": the philosophical theory of knowledge. We could discuss and contrast objectivism and mysticism. But we wouldn't claim that mysticism was not an epistemology, we would simply point out that it's the wrong one. Otherwise we would be in danger of people eventually not having any idea what the hell we're talking about and writing us off as crackpots.

If an object is created by man for the sole purpose of esthetics it is, by definition, art. From freedictionary.com: "The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium." Why must everyone's definition of beauty conform to Victor Pross's definition of beauty? Or are you trying to prove that everything you don't approve of in the world of art was created by unconscious people?

"The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production . . . Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones . . . All old-established national industries have been destroyed . . . They are dislodged by new industries . . ." Everything he's complaining about are either very good things or unalterable facts of nature. I.E.: "everlasting uncertainty", tell me when that hasn't been true. "Constant revolutionizing of production", wouldn't this be called progress? The irony is that the granddaddy of all liberals sounds like an ultra conservative, complaining about change.

Shayne, "Since Paul has been popping in to insult me this entire thread and has never owned up to it, and given that I had just criticized this behavior of his in my post, I assumed this quote of his, given without comment, was just another of his insults and responded in kind." Given that Pauls' NB quote fits perfectly with his previous post containing the two links regarding different views of the nature vs nuture argument, and that post itself followed a 24 hour gap where there were no posts on this thread I doubt that there was any intentional insult towards you or anyone contained in the NB quote. You do take some getting used to. I suggest a cease fire and a wait and see attitude. What Paul is engaged in is called "synthesis". "I don't know what you mean by this." Suppose there are two explanations of the same thing, both of which are incomplete. Taking elements from both of the first two explanations and creating a third more complete explanation would be synthesis.

Shayne, I find myself mulling over this remark of yours re: Paul's NB quote: "That is an apt quote for what you indulge in. You are quite rigid in your tolerationist attitudes, nothing I've said so far has been able to awaken you from your passive slumber: you are quite unconscious." This is possibly the most aggregious insult that it's possible to give someone on a website engaged in philosophical discourse. What is your purpose in posting it? Or is it purely gratuitous? What Paul is engaged in is called "synthesis".