eva matthews

Eva, I don't agree with this. According to a pretty good source, "cooperative altruism" is a synonym for biological altruism (see here in Animal Behavior Desk Reference: A Dictionary of Animal Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution by Edward M. Barrows). There are other places in that book where cooperative altruism is directly called a synonym of biological altruism. In teamwork, there is no inherent decreasing of the fitness of one to benefit the fitness of the other. Maybe in a chain gang, but not in normal productive teams. On the contrary, specialization is usually the meat and potatoes of teams, and that means the fitness of each team member has to be increased, not decreased, individual by individual for the task at hand. Otherwise the team fails the productive endeavor. In other words, in this kind of synergy, each individual is not diminished, but instead, needs to become qualified (increased) in order to fit in the team and do a job correctly. This use of the term "cooperative altruism" is one of those cases where it is introduced to describe teamwork because "cooperation" sounds kinda cool and stuff. But since the term actually has a legitimate technical meaning (albeit in a different discipline), credibility get "loaned" to it from the biological use. But the concept is not applicable to marketplace teams. In the market, this meaning is nonsense. Maybe you can make a case when there is a strong vision or sacred story unifying the team on a mission from God (or something like that with other ideologies), or the cannon fodder of armed forces in war, but generally people work hard at improving (increasing) their abilities individually to be able to qualify for a team because of the benefit they will receive from doing their share of the work. In other words, they work on a common team goal in order to benefit themselves individually. There is no decrease in that case. There is only increase. That is one of the marvels of capitalism. (btw - Don't ever say Ayn Rand was crazy about Hayek like you did over yonder. That's embarrassing. You almost made me want to go post there before people popped up and corrected the error. You are sassy and I like sassy. But it doesn't work when you stomp all over your own feet that way as you strut your stuff. ) Michael Michael, My taking of 'cooperative altruism' from biology might seem a bit of a far-fetched neologism when applied to the social sciences. Nevertheless, our hard-wired, biological sense of alturism does match up into culturally- learned situations of cooperation in which one or more member is given the short end of the stick. So yes, at one end you have the direct sacrifice of war, at the other a market rig-up in which there are positive benefits for all team players. Most every other situation fall in the middle, from cookie-baking volunteers to subordinates getting fired for taking the hit for their boss (Oh, so that's not 'pure' capitalism--just the way things work out!?) Re markets: people are attracted to the idea of introducing marketing concepts into daily life precisely because no one gets sacrificed...uhhh...at least when things go well. Otherwise, just watch the finger pointing! Sadly, but typically, the fusiles at 'SoR failed to see my sarcasm in the Rand v Hayek affair. For giggles, kindly consult the on-line marginalia of Rand in her copy of Roads'. Normally, there's an ancedote attached as to how she behaved towards him in public. Even the venerable old Machan snivelled on, blithely unaware that there's far more at stake than a personal 'dislike' on her part. Oh, well, he's a 'philosopher', therefore unconcerned with economics as a theory. In short, Rand refused to pay her intellectual debt to the only school of economics that insisted that all government intervention into the market created negative outcomes. Kindly remember, as well, that Hayek represented the entire Austrian School in the debate with Keynes, the Neo-classic. Here, unlike the Rand rant, the differences were precise, and manifold. Here, both parties behaved with respect --although much was at stake. OTH, the Rand stuff was a triviality. her hissyfit was all about Hayek never having uttered a philosophical statement on the metaphysical value of private property, and freedom. Doubtless he would have shuddered at the suggestion that taxation without personal permission is gang rape. But again, the main issue by far is the development of a coherent economic theory as to why governmet participation in the market is bad. This was Hayek's baby and the real bread and butter. Without his work, Rand's metaphysics would not have even been published. Eva ,

Thanks, Peter, for the research and answer. Hopefully, i did not come across as defending her; rather i only wanted to remark on the poverty of the original article as such. As a 'blue-eyed', i have no problem with racial retaliation against those who would label me a 'devil'. For the record, then, anyone of African descent who uses such a term is a fucking nigger. In other words, either we all are polite or no one is--no slack, no quarter given. One racial epithet deserves another, period, end of conversation. Kindly note my reputation as a viper. i'm as nice to others as they are to me. Cheers, Eva

Comte was just writing like the father-figure of modern sociology that he was. The 'service' of which he speaks is the network of obligations that envelop him/her from the day of birth.EM Eva, This is unworthy of your undoubted intellect. A "network of obligations": to whom? To his/her parents, sure- to some point or degree in the future. From the extracts I've read of his, I think you are making the same error A.Comte made. i.e. "See all this? Well, other people built it! To fit in, you must pay it back to the past, forwards to the future, and to anyone who 'needs' it presently." It's the old story of the metaphysical 'given' and the man-made. In many ways they coincide or overlap. A child born in New York City realises as he grows that it was all the doing of man -as individuals and voluntary groupings of individuals. But for all intents and purposes, NYC was then, and is still, a metaphysical 'given' to him as much as a mountain range. As with his culture and language and so on. Millions of individuals in concert or alone have 'given' to what we have today. To the ones we know of and value, is owed no more than our admiration and respect. Mostly, they're anonymous (as I for one will be one day). However, I think it's their selfishness and independent minds to be most thanked: Can you really believe they did it all for you or I? Whether personally or in the abstract? What network of obligations? whYNOT, First of all, I do disagree with Comte's philosophical understanding of his own work. Because he clearly saw society as an interactive network, he was more or less blinded by what we now agree to be personal accomplishment. Or to reverse the maxim popular in mid-19th century french intellectual life, "the individual exists". Indeed, one is correct to state that Comte coined the word 'altruism' from "other-ness", or "Think of the other" as a cult phrase. My point is that Rand does no one any favor by simply stating the opposite. This, moreover, is the same tendency of 'false antinomy' that Kant had already denounced. It's a genre of bull-conversation left to late-night frat parties over the last bottle of Jack and cola, once the band has gone home. Moreover, In terms of modern sociology, it's common to say that Comte does, indeed, see society far more as a real thing than a concept. To this end, his work fails to connect proposed social laws to real behavior, or what Elster called 'nuts and bolts'. Yet to try to find the nuts and bolts is not to reduce it to a petty dualism of motive---altruism versus individualism. As a Comtian would say, 'Look at what they did for you!", a Randian would reply back, "Yes, all for the justifiably high status and commission that such grand architecture demands." Neither are correct. Unstated motives are always somewhat moot, and even stated motives can be insincere. So if we're left referring to an interior state because of 'phenomenal ambiguity" (one of my research themes) what we find is...more ambiguity. In short, the Randite preference for selfishness is matched by Comtian altruism. A curse on both of your houses. Neither is supported by evidence. EM

Peter, i have many disagreements with EvoBio. Following Leowentin and Gould, I believe that much of their work is a just-so tale. In any case, the discipline reeks with counter-narratives that break down hopelessly into antinomies, hence useless polemic. A good example of this would be how altruism became an evolution-adaptive trait. In other words, our distant ancestors learned that cooperation and high-risk sacrifice of young males (war, hunting) permitted the society to flourish. This I accept on face value. We'd be far better off as a society had many of the fissiles over at SoR sacrificed themselves overseas, in an attempt to secure economic resources for the collective good. But I digress.... Yet Kant's observation that we're hard-wired cuts across this grain, as well as that of Rand. Our altruistic tendency must not be ignored, per Rand, nor glorified, per Comte, but rather understood as competing with our natural desires and sense of uniqueness. In other words, our interior capacities fight it out and come to a negotiated balance; it's useless to speak of one 'winning'. So even in the 'ought' category as defined by Hume, rand is clearly wrong to call for a one-sided victory for the self-interest side. To this end, much of modern research psychology --the stuff that I'm already beginning to do!-- sharply contradicts the "more-self esteem -is-better" assumption that dominates the popular version. All we can say in this regard is that Branden's 'Pillars' is consistent with Rand's vision of altruism as secondary. Again, as Rand said, "Look at your assumptions". I find hers, in this instance, severely lacking. EM

>>>>>Both empathy and productive achievement are important to human life (in my world, at least), but rational ethics helps keep them in a proper hierarchy<<<<<< If 'productive achievement' in any particular case calls for team effort, then cooperative altruism becomes more important. To the extent that tasks can be broken down and measured on an individual basis, then individualism is prioritized. EM

Come on Eva. You've used this metaphor a gazillion times now. The lipstick is wearing off and the pig lost interest. I know you have better stuff in you. Michael Michael, Perhaps I'm belaboring the point with a tired metaphor, or perhaps i'm using the same metaphor for the same situation which occurs over and over. Lots of the language employed by hard- core randites dresses up patently wrong ideas in philosophical drag in order to appear high-minded. By doing this, they bunker themselves against common, factual observations with beliefs of purportedly high principle. Then, they proclaim these beliefs to be 'axiomatic', thereby untouchable. In other words, reading Atlas, i was duly impressed to t he extent of pondering, yes, this author is capable of writing real philosophy in a non-fiction format! So my position is not 'dissent' from Rand's writings; rather, a questioning that first involves the stripping away of the useless rhetorical gestures to find both agreement and disagreement. After all, pigs are an excellent source of meat. My point is the lipstick doesn't make the pork chop any tastier. Eva

Not only is it not obvious that a photograph cannot reproduce the depth of oil paintings, but it's also not true. It would depend on who was taking the photograph and how much they knew about the medium. If, say, you, Ayn Rand or Diana Hsieh were the person taking the photograph, then I'd agree that it would most likely not reproduce the depth of certain oil paintings, but if the photographer was knowledgeable and skilled, he could reproduce the depth. Who are you referring to as "et al"? All artists? Some of them? Only the ones who were like Vermeer in some way? And what do you think you mean by the term "glossing the surface"? Do you mean varnishing a finished painting? Do you mean using the technique of glazing colors over others? How have you determined that "glossing the surface" is what achieves or enhances the sensation of depth? By what means have you eliminated other possible explanations? J The physiology of optic depth-reception is interesting. A small part of the eye (macula, i believe) constantly makes micro-adjustments of focal length relative to the ontours of a rough surface, the result being a slightly-out-of focus 'shimmer'. No camera can alter the focal length in this manner. Rather, depth is understood by the mind as shadowing that occurs with rough surfaces block light. And because the optic system is far more detailed and needs no shadow, it's far more precise--as anyne who's actually been in a museum can testify. Re glossing techniques of various artists who've worked in oil: feel free to do your own research, and then we'll discuss. EM

Comte was just writing like the father-figure of modern sociology that he was. The 'service' of which he speaks is the network of obligations that envelop him/her from the day of birth. Born Hungarian or Greek, etc, the neonate will learn how to speak, act and understand greek-ness, hunrarian-ness, etc. As part of the regimen, he/she wil also learn how to be altruistic (when its proper to give), and what behavoral space is permitted for individual growth. Rand is interesting because she stressed the importance of personal growth, or the becomming of an individual. Her fall-down is to have given an apriori assertion that the individual is 'primary', which clearly isn't the case (That she tosses in 'axiom' belabors the point). Babies don't raise themselves, and it's absurd to speak of a philosophy that cuts against the grain of what we clearly understand to be reality. Even Hume's fork and Kant's transcendent speak of 'ought' as tangental to reality. Rand's does not because she has no idea of the reality of the social 'is' to begin with. Making this fundamental error seem otherwise by gussying it up with philosophical-sounding prose is like putting lipstick on a pig. EM

A better word than system would be doctrine, but Rowland's using system is not unprecedented -- link. Indeed, Rowlands, like Rand, used altruism to mean what Auguste Comte, who coined the word, did. So it is not a straw dog and your meaning of altruism above is beside the point. If the SoR capo can't get his words right that's not my problem. A system is not a doctrine; doctrine isn't a 'better word'. My disgust with you peeple, in any case, is that words over there mean exactly what you want them to mean at the time that you say them. OTH, to Rand's credit, she always sought clarity. My personal feeling is that while she'd have argued with me in public (and I back to her!), behind your backs she'd be calling you a bunch of useful flunkeys. So if you and i agree that, historically speaking, Comte wrote of the doctrine of altruism as the glue that holds society together, we're still at odds with the meaning of Rowlands, who sniffs up the bitche's tail. Rand clearly wrote that societies can hold only one ethical system, which involves choosing selfishness or altruism. My point is that to accept the observation of Comte drives a stake into the heart of the egoist bloodsucker. According to him, we cannot possibly reap the benefits of a society without a 'doctrine' that involves mutual support. That I agree is simply a matter of common-sense. In other words, working societies are not either-or affairs. Rather, they've found the practical solution of combining elements of both alturism and self-interest. Conjuring up an either-or 'philosophy' that says that on a metaphysical level one must choose between the two is doing nothing but giving bullshit a bad name. EM

The orthodox randian position says that religion is the cause of altruism through its teachings. Otherwise, humans would express their natural self-interest.To this extent, religion is said to work against reason. OTH, the socio-anthropological position states that all religions ultimately refer back to a larger belief -system of a particular culture. Religion just expressews the altruism that's codified into 'correct; behavior. In other words, we're generally altruistic in ways that correspond to what society expects of us.. Yet Rowlands, perhaps following Rand, claims altruism to be an 'ethical system' --as if a person actually had to choose helping others or helping themself.on a 'philosophical' basis! Surely, the incoherence of this position would give any philosophy so claiming a reputation for infantalist reducto ad absurdam... But how would Rowlands possibly know that? after all, he goes on to describe an altruistic 'system'....say what? Well, again, within any society, there are ways to be altruistic, and ways to be individualistic, both ostensibly meeting with approval. No society has ever been 'systemically' one or the other. My hard-wire point is that altruism is simply part of who we are, at least for the most part..Yet certain crazies who were known to verbally abuse a taciturn Hayek in public might want to convince others that altruism is only a 'non-objective' falsehood, because that's who she was. By consequence, she spawned groups who behaved in the same manner. So if altruism is hard-wired (and not trivialized into an items list), we would say that it must be a part of any ethical system. Our personal ethical system is how we adjudicate the personal and the public on a scalar: what we feel that we owe others to what we owe ourselves? Rand & Rowlands devise an either/or scenario that cannot possibly correspond to real life senatrios and decisions. In other words, to sane, reasonable people, the issue of studying or helping an old lady cross the street is not a philosphica l questions of absolutes. Rather, an existential decison upon which we might later ask, Did I do the right thing? EM

We can safely say that you object to my sobriquet, 'Stillbirth of Reason', yes? But no, it's not a 'good thing' to have a 'tone and direction' that resembles nothing more than testosterone freaks fishing with their hands. Or rather, do you seriously think that comparing high taxes to gang rape is indicative of anything othe than that? Perhaps you're blind to this-- offering them quid pro quo sympathy because of political sympathys? I stayed over there 'till i found you.guys. Kindly, therefore, offer me names of 'respected' people to whom I might apologize. I can name one: Machan. He's free to write; I'll sincerelly tell him that he, of all people should not associate whith such low-lifes. Otherwise, yes, i adore his stuff... EM

Kindly note, Michael, that I began posting on your forum at the same time that i was active over at SoR. My choice is to post with you because the people here are intelligent, sensible, and tolerate disagreement. They are not. A former member of SoR called them a bunch of 'fissiles'.. In short, i was not aware that I had been kicked over to 'dissent', nor do I care. I would assume, moreover, that I was placed in dissent because I had chosen to post at OL, instead. Re Rowlands: in short, he's nothing but a hopeless randite regurgitator of banal dogma-- as my reply indicates. He's moreover precisely the type who would even have a 'dissent' posting category to begin with. EM

Well, does the starting line add anything to the race? Now we have something to talk about. --Brant In the math of geometry, 'axioms' are starting points for everyone because they're acknowledged as deductively sound. For example, seeing any triangle, we can deduct 180 degrees because we've set as an axiom that 180 is always true. And because Euclid wrote 2200 years ago, the term has simply carried over as one of convenience. But consciousness, identity, etc aren't 'axiomatic' because these are precisely the things that real philosophy examines. In terms of your own expression, philosophy has no clearly-defined starting line. Eva

I believe that my point was that because the Mexican army would be unable to seize American terratory, the comparison with Putin's Russia is moot. In any case, the last time terratory was an issue (1848), they might as well have been using guacamole for gunpowder. Moreover, being half Hungarian and half Greek--three and two generations removed, respectively--- the familial humor is rather biting, to say the least, with no concession to cumbaya- anglo sensitivities. Q What's the difference between a Russian and an American? A Both will sell you their own sister, but only the American will deliver. Q If three greeks are arguing, how many opinions will they always have? A Four. One in every three Greeks is a philosopher. Rest assured, moreover that anglo patronizing kindnesses are not recriprocal: the nicest thing they're called behind their backs is 'chingacista'. Eva

Here's an article from the Stillborn site by 'Rowlands' that offers the party line on 'altruism'.my response follows. Since OL readers more or less agree on the 2500 year old truth that philosophy is about open discussion rather than a postured, pre-labeled dissent or agreement, you might find this interestingly amusing..... Altruism Against Freedom by Joseph Rowlands Politics is a branch of ethics. It is defined by the ethical system at its root. You can't just pick and choose ethical standards and political systems. Some are necessarily incompatible, and others are mutually reinforcing. The combination I want to focus on is the political system of liberty and the ethics of altruism. Altruism is the ethical system that holds the well-being of others as the standard of good. Your actions are moral to the extent that you benefit other people. This can be seen clearly by the use of the phrase "good deed". Taken literally, it means an action or achievement that is morally praiseworthy. But in the conventional sense, which is dominated by the ethics of altruism, it only applies to actions taken in order to help other people. A good deed is helping an old lady cross the street, not learning a new skill. Under altruism, your own happiness and well-being come last. There's nothing morally praiseworthy about getting an education, or making money, or starting a business, or increases prices to raise your own profits. Further, your motivations are considered suspect if you benefit from the actions at all. The ends result is that the only morally good actions are those that benefits others at the expense of yourself. So is individual liberty supported by altruism? If it is, what are the qualifications? How principled is the position, and how secure is the conclusion? Does it support violations of rights as well? And is it fundamentally compatible with freedom? The first question to answer is how altruism allegedly supports freedom. How can a system of self-sacrifice lead to a system of individual liberty? The first possibility is that if freedom leads to prosperity, it could be considered good for others. Notice that this is not a principled support of liberty, though. There's nothing about freedom itself that is being supported in this example. Freedom is just a means to the prosperity. It's at best a partial defense of freedom, and only to the extent you can prove that it will lead to prosperity. Social freedoms, for instance, would not be justified here. Even economic freedoms would hinge on the debate over whether freedom leads to prosperity. It is not a principled position. If you could help people through the use of force, this argument for freedom couldn't stand in the way. There are other problems here worth noting. For instance, what happens if some people cannot make a decent living under a system of individual liberty. Or what if they choose not to? In both cases, freedom would have to be violated. Once you start with the assumption that everyone has a right to be fed, freedom is a luxury you won't be able to afford. Furthermore, freedom does often lead to prosperity, but only because when people pursue their own interests in a free-market, others benefit from it. If you assume a system where everyone is acting self-sacrificially, is the assumption about prosperity true any longer? And is it moral to have a society that encourages and allows the rewarding of self-interested behavior? Altruism would seem to be in conflict with a society based on liberty. What about the fact that altruism is about self-sacrifice, and that hurts the people the practice it consistently. Reality doesn't reward self-sacrificial behavior, it punishes it. Governments have usually stepped in to remedy this metaphysical 'oversight'. Again, freedom and altruism are opposed. Of course, if making people well off was the goal, the altruist should preach rational self-interest to everyone else. Instead, the focus is on self-sacrificial action. The extent to which you help someone is not the extent to which an action is morally praiseworthy. The degree to which you sacrifice is. A poor man who gives every cent to charity is a better than a billionaire who gives twice that (but still just a fraction of his wealth). So this justification through prosperity is not really supported by altruism. What's really important under altruism is that people sacrifice themselves for others. It's the means that are important, not the ends. This brings us to the second possible justification for freedom under altruism. Morality requires choice. Freedom is a necessary requirement for real moral action. Does this hold up to scrutiny? Is it a solid defense against invasions of liberty? The answer is no. Although it may be true that you need freedom to act morally, there is no reason others should respect your rights under a system of altruism. If they believe violating your rights will help you or others, they have no moral reason to not violate your rights. Altruism fails to support liberty in another respect. Since altruism is a code of action that is judged entirely by the result of other people, your own individual rights are unprotected. If someone want to initiate force against you, how can you justify using defensive force to protect yourself? Your own well-being is secondary to everyone else. Even if you recognized that you have rights, it would call for you to sacrifice them for the benefit of others. A system where people can't morally assert their rights can hardly be considered a system of secure individual rights. Along these lines, if the violence against you is in the name of helping someone else, you're doubly disarmed. In an example of a man mugging you for his relatives, your defensive actions would not only hurt the thug attacking you, but whoever he is intending to share the loot with. This would be considered an appropriate use of force within an altruistic society. Once again, altruism is opposed to liberty. The conclusion is that altruism is not a firm foundation for liberty. The support for freedom is at best partial and tenuous. In addition, it is compatible with violations of rights if done to benefit someone else. In fact, because it starts with the premise that others must be helped, it easily comes to oppose freedom directly. Further, your own rights cannot be asserted or defended on moral grounds. It should be obvious that we need a moral revolution if we're ever going to have a lasting political revolution. ........................................................................................................................................... Response by Eva Matthews >>>>Politics is a branch of ethics. It is defined by the ethical system at its root<<<< Only if you stretch 'ethics' to include an exotic, pragmatic means version of Utlitarianism. In other words, I can easily define the US Constitution to mean , "Because the ends of life are incommensurate, all we can do is to devise, politically speaking, a useful, user-friendly format upon which citizens might peacefully debate and decide which ends serve them best". In this document, no ethical 'good' is prioritized as an end. All we can hope for is a usable "means". The 'system' is moral to the extent that it allows full expression of divergent ends that its citizens clearly possess. In passing, those who desire to find an ethical end within the constitution are normally found on the usual Founding Father easter-egg hunt, thereby uncovering such nuggets of profundity as 'Govern best=govern least!!" Or, 'We love liberty! 'Self-evident truths!" Governing least means leaving our slave prop-tee alone, we love our own liberty, we were just kidding about equal creation. >>>Altruism is the ethical system that holds the well-being of others as the standard of good.<<< I've never heard of altruism being called a 'system'. Rather, it's a personal ethical reflection that says we should help the needy. How this might get morphed into a 'system' is beyond my comprehension because it's never happened, anywhere, at any time. Is this some sort of a straw dog? So thank you, Michael, for having pointed out the Kantian observation that we are hard-wired for altuism, based upon an innate empathy. So I suppose this is why he was called a 'witch-doctor? That being the psychological case, I would suggest that it would give bullshit a bad name to argue out philosophical principles that are not grounded in what we know of human behavior and motivation. In other words, philosophy must reconcile itself with pysychology. Kant, for his part, would have returned the witchdoctor barb of Rand by simply labeling her a sociopath. In the Critique of Practical Reason, he makes it clear as to why we are all innately altruistic--hence,, the basis of obligation to others as categorical. then, there are the exceptions.... For his part, 'Harry', another Randian acolyte, is capable as well of complete misunderstanding of psy 101. After all , as I noted on OL, he totally fucked up 'perception' and sensation'. So expect anything from someone who can't even get the psychobabble right. My point here,of course, is that fundamental ignorance of human psychology seems retrofitted into a dogmatic understanding of rand. Of course to say we're hard-wired for altruism doesn't exclude that we're wired for greed, too. This, I suppose, it what permits us to fight it out and assess 'merit' and 'deserving' of assistance--in other words, the truly needy by whatever standard. In this sense, the political system of need is really a negotiated middle--ostensibly not the struggle of opposites because each of us has two sides to begin with. So no, you can't realistically say that you're against altruism, because it's a part of who you are. The best outcome, then, is to understand that others will employ your altruistic side against your own self-interest. EM

First of all, regarding oil paintings, it's obvious that a photograph cannot reproduce the depth associated with the medium's use of various strokes, from smooth to blotch. Moreover, the sensation of depth and shimmer that Vermeer, et al, achieved was enhanced by glossing the surface. re Book: 'Knowledge' seems to be reduced to 'information'. In this sense, yes, human brain function is one of many kinds. The real issue that doesn't seem to be addressed by the article, however, is that ultimately the only 'form' of knowledge that is accountable for information is the aforesaid human brain. This means we 'think' To think, we have to be 'awake'. But calling these 'axiomatic' consciousness and knowledge fails to add anything meaningful in terms of real.insight. Rather, it's merely a philosophical gloss that Vermeer might have thought amusing. EM

In the late 1900's, Durkhein observed that religion is nothing but the expression of the societal collective in terms which tie the society to the supernatural. God is always, 'our' god in he sense that it's understood by a particular group. A few years later, Weber's students, Glock & Dine, devise a scale of religious intensity and found, not to their surprise, that for many, believing was a matter of social acceptance. It's just what people did. They also developed a 'secular-religious continuum' to widely place so-called believers as to how two genres of attitudes effect daily behavior. To this extent, religion and belief in god does not cause altruism and charity. Rather, the behaviors are caused by the social obligations within the community, and therefore only confirmed as the community's god's command to 'be ethical. not selfish'. Part of what all societies do is to create 'deviant-space' for the expression of individualistic behavior. In This sense, everyone feels themselves to be 'free'. In other words, Blake and Auden got it right, and Orwell got it partially wrong: it's the 'mind-forged manacles that should be feared, not an absurdist version of de-personalization. Rand, for her part, was writing hollywood stuff that accidentally got transformed into a novel. Nothing to be taken seriously, as real strategies of control remain hidden elsewhere... EM

I think that your USA- invaded- by- Mexico analogy misses the mark. Rather it would be like Mexicico occupying parts of the USA that were by huge% of Mexican ethnicity. Also, of course, it's a question of balance of power. Russia is armed to the teeth---Mexico? throwing unripe avocados and cans of Corona?

Fred, 'Nice to hear from you again. Lots of tests are routinely done with optical illusions in other cultures to see if the illusion is innate or learned.many Indicate learning, particulary in cultures in which rigid corners are not taught as geometrically 'axiomatic' --rather, variants of a curve. The classic example are the Xhosa, of South Africa (Nelson Mandela). Kahneman describes the susceptibility to illusion as yet another 'heuristic', to be overcome by type2 slow thought, or what is called 'reasoning'. It is nice to know, however, that MIT graduates have no such problem. Eva

Specifically the space between galaxies appears to be expanding. Your head is safe for the moment. The accelerating rate of expansion is what got me thinking about different ways of looking at what we measure, and I then starting this thread to begin exploring possibilities. The questions that popped into my head were, "Why is acceleration considered unusual and unexplained in the case of the universe's expansion? Is it because expansion from an explosion center normally involves deceleration after the initial bang? If so, is there any possibility that we are misinterpreting the effects of something else as expansional acceleration, like, say, the rate of galactic condensation?" After all, just thinking intuitively based on our current knowledge of how the physics of systems work, gravitational compression/condensation is usually associated with acceleration: the closer one gets to a massive object, the faster one will accelerate. J Explosions on earth encounter two drag coefficients that cause deceleration. Namely, resistance from atmospheric gas and gravity. OTH, Big Bang obeys the law of general relativity, which requires acceleration per equation. In this sense, general relativity describes a situation in which the observer is not priveleged to know the inertial fram of reference. In other words, in as much as gravity accelerates so does every other cause of motion... EM

Thank you , Peter, for the welcome & response. Western Ukraine simply bleeds into Poland, witht the extreme west being historically defined as 'Galicia'.. Most history agrees that russian migration into the Ukraine began with Stalin's policies and subsequent famine; Since the Russin highlands curve southwards from K'arkov, it's obvious that the point of migration would have started from Kursk. Crimean Russia seems to have dated from the earlier time of Catherine--Stevastapol as a major port. So in terms of demographics, it's important to note that the pro-russians in the Ukraine are passionately pro-Putin. Moreover, about half the Russians in Russia population actively supports him, too. Bizarre as it is to us, said supporters of Putin do so under an openly authoritarian ideology that, in our lexicon, would be called 'fascism'. tose that do not (pussy, etc) are pro-democratic. So the situation for the entirety of Russia/Ulraine is volitle, as Putin opponents are as pro-weestern as the ukraine-Ukranians. From this perspective, the entirety of The West should use moral force against Putin by encouraging and supporting his opposition. OTH, military suggestions should be taken off the board, tas they only harden the opinions of the fascistic, anti-west idiology of his supporters. Eva

The issue is rather huge, By sentiment and culture, west and central Ukraine are 'ukrainian', while east and crimea are 'russian'. The main issue, then, is whether or not the nation should be pro-west or pro-russian, ostensibly involving trade. Since the divison is so neat, Putin is able to seize pro-russian areas with relative impunty, as he can assume that the population will support him. For precidences, of course, we have the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus, German occupation of the Sudetenland and Kashubia, the British hold on Ulster..perhaps even the zionist presence in Palestine. In other words, people want to form their own government based on ethnicity all of the time, thereby creating smaller minorities within the new borders. My prediction is an east + crimean vs west breakup with an eventual re-integration of the former into Russia. Therefore the Americans can do nothing because east+crimean sentiment is so passionately pro-russian--a fact that takes precidence over the understanding that Putin is a thug. In other words, he did what he was able to do ... Eva.

Michael, Although at the end of the day she represents no one but herself, I'm still curious to know what anti-semitic comments she's made that have nothing to do with Israel. Kindly elucidate, please. I hate Spielberg. The novel was historically important (as it's approached in Lit as an artifact) because it reveals the male brutality towards women in 'black' culture, so conceived. Eva

This unreal physics predicts accurately to 12 decimal places for non-gravitational phenomena and processes. However it is busted since it does not deal with gravitation which is the force that holds the Cosmos together. Ba'al Chatzaf According to every middle schooler, including my niece, it's gravy that holds the cosmos together. Of course, QM does deal with 'gravy'; it's just that the equations for said substance do not integrate into a general master-equation, or 'Theory of everything', short of a Lie-8. But that's like saying that the universal geometric object, holding all coefficients by definition, can naturally enough find a differend that would correspond to any hypothetical entity. So give the Lisi model a close look , and that's what you'll find that he did. My niece, oth, feels that Peyton List is holding out. No graviton in sight. Any quantum account of gravity is devoid of an empirical basis. I am old fashioned. I do not believe in "post empirical" physics. I don't care how pretty the math is. Without laboratory corroboration what one has in nice mathematics or metaphysical speculation. Ba'al Chatzaf The issue is the postulated exestence of the gravy-tron as a particle not, obviouly what it does. It other words for the 11-D string, mathematical model to be correct, the particle must have such-and such qualities. This working from math is not unusual, as was the case of Higgs for some 30 years or so. That being said, the Higgs was proven by virtue of physical data; it's not old-fashioned to demand the same of gravy. An interesting comment in this regard was made by Freeman Dyson, who worked out the math for Weinberg's 'electroweak'. We have enough math ,said he; it's now time to experiment! EM

This unreal physics predicts accurately to 12 decimal places for non-gravitational phenomena and processes. However it is busted since it does not deal with gravitation which is the force that holds the Cosmos together. Ba'al Chatzaf According to every middle schooler, including my niece, it's gravy that holds the cosmos together. Of course, QM does deal with 'gravy'; it's just that the equations for said substance do not integrate into a general master-equation, or 'Theory of everything', short of a Lie-8. But that's like saying that the universal geometric object, holding all coefficients by definition, can naturally enough find a differend that would correspond to any hypothetical entity. So give the Lisi model a close look , and that's what you'll find that he did. My niece, oth, feels that Peyton List is holding out.