Strictlylogical

This raises a few interesting questions for me. Back in the day (prior to paper fiat currencies), store of wealth/value, exchange of units of that value, the long term and the short term were all in a sort of harmony. At times populations, cultures, and technology were "static" enough over a single lifetime or perhaps even a few generations such that a thing could serve all these purposes: one COULD choose to store wealth long or short term, and exchange value with a single thing, money (e.g. gold coins). Any IOU based on units of that money was as good on an IOU on units of wealth itself. So in essence what was CHOSEN to be exchanged WAS wealth. In today's world we see that the value of financial instruments, currencies, various "mediums" or "mechanisms" of exchange are, as you note, NOT a store of wealth. Modern money functions only a medium of exchange (having itself an eroding value) which is good only for daily, monthly, short term exchanges (that is until we have hyperinflation, and that might be reduce to seconds...) I find it incredibly frustrating that the whole idea of "saving money", especially in the long term, is practically an incoherent idea as such. Modern money, (particularly in our modern economy) is now guaranteed to devalue against reality. [I find it insulting that through inflation, governments essentially force us to gamble with our savings, invest in others "for the good of society" I suppose, because we face continual erosion of wealth if we try simply to save money.] Ships and shoes and sealing wax, haircuts and legal fees... although they change relative to each other according to the market, are all much more expensive in terms of units of "modern money" than say 50 years ago... everything is worth more.. money is worth less. What does that say about the "unit" measure of modern money? I don't see instantaneous and extreme value fluctuations of burgers, lawn mowing services, hair cuts, and vegetables, as measured in the effort and time of productive work which went into them.. as against the effort and time of productive work exchanged (through specialization in a complex network) to purchase them. Why use a unit whose measure is sure to fail at any long term stability? As for an honest person's word, I have no argument with you that there is nothing nonobjective about the IOU in agreements/contracts as such, however, the economic objectivity of that agreement is in part affected by the "units" used to make that agreement. If honorable persons unwittingly contract in units which are subjective in terms of any long term value, I cant help thinking that somehow they have been shortchanged, one or both. So then assuming both parties should not be unwitting... they should price their exchange based on the fact that the medium of exchange IS short term... and IS completely subjective against long term human values... use it nonetheless, and then as soon as possible exchange that "money" for some store of wealth until one needs to convert it back into money for an exchange. So in the end we have to cut what real money previously was into two, and retain only the temporary medium for exchange as a use for that money, and relegate the store of wealth or long term store of value to other things which that money may be exchanged for. I wonder, if the state did not dictate what passes as currency would we now have two main units of money, one short term (unhinged, possibly subject to fluctuation, inflation, deflation, etc.), and one long term (tied to some objective standard)? In that free economy, I would think contracts for anything greater than 10 years should use the second kind of units. So what is the upshot, the final take away, NEVER save your money?.... and in fact, we never should have done so or even thought to do so?

A value to a human being, like shelter, food, art, something which provides you some value from use, possession, etc. or which you could decide to trade, for something of a different kind but which to you has the same or greater value. Something that has value itself, to human flourishing, other than its use solely to trade with others, for OTHER stuff which actually has objective value to humans.

I might be way off base here, but isn't crypto, as such, purely and completely devoid of any objective value? That's not to say it's impossible that it might have some advantages in our current mixed economy (euphemism alert... it's a litany of misdirection and a tyranny of regulation, taxation, and surveillance, a well worn and comfy, increasingly brazenly naked tool of slavery... but I digress)... advantages over our so called "money" which the state guarantees is continually drained of value over time... advantages perhaps on the way toward (or even helping towards) a truly free economy (dream on?) (I hate it when I have to use so many "our"s or "we"s or "us"s... I'm really seeing how overuse of these terms clown-make-ups reality into a kind of infantile parody of the world.. which has become so popular in modern times) BUT once in a truly free economy why should I want to have anything to do with the stuff?

I have often thought of the fundamental asymmetry between Marxist collectivists and classical liberals / radical Capitalism. The former relies on and is rooted in proactive force and cannot countenance the latter in any way, but instead must overthrow it, eradicate it. There can be no harmony with the latter's existence. The latter is pacifist like nothing the hippies would ever have dreamed up, with non-initiation of force at its base. Rather than outlawing collectivism as such (while of course outlawing collectivist use of force) the latter is perfectly harmonious with any voluntary collective. The one leaves no one be, even those who would choose to be left alone. The latter leaves everyone alone and equally leaves them free to choose to live in whatever level of collective promiscuity they wish. The Liberal (Classical) has no place in the Leftist's world view, whereas the Leftist's would have a place in the Liberal's world, only their use of force would be impermissible. This stark contrast, this asymmetry I find fascinating and inspiring, it may be the greatest example of the benevolence of freedom as a foil in the face of naked tyranny and yet it get's little to no attention. Perhaps there are so many who only "group think", who almost always and ever consider themselves, society and government only in terms of "we" (and "them"), and never think of themselves, their lives, and their freedom's in terms of "I" or "me". There is a great mass of lost souls, adult children, so mortally terrified of solitude and independence, ... that they must annihilate any solitary minded person or any ideas of individual liberty. Perhaps those who would be left free and would leave others also to be free are at a disadvantage... or perhaps not? I suppose as long as they are not naive to the naked will to power which possesses the lost cravens who seek oblivion for all, liberty minded persons can survive. But we must be vigilant. Anyway. Why is this asymmetry not more directly spoken of? Why don't Freedom lovers tell the middle-left (non violent progressives), you could organize yourselves in our world, you just cant use guns to threaten us, or anyone?

Sorry, I was almost tempted to repeat myself.

It means, witch hunts against lawyers having particular legal theories based (at least in part) on philosophical or political ideas or beliefs, deprive individuals whose case may depend upon those legal theories, from having any possibility of a fair proceeding before an adjudicator, because strong advocacy for his position has been abrogated. Were law societies in a "free democracy" to require a yearly solemn affirmation in the rightness and propriety of Affirmative Action, how could a lawyer morally represent a citizen who wanted to overturn Affirmative Action law? If law societies in religious states disbarred lawyers who proclaim their support for Rights to Abortions, what happens to that right? and if it were currently illegal, what would happen to the right to challenge the constitutionality of that law if you could not hire a lawyer who would be willing and able to argue your case? Little is as much a threat to the rule of law and democracy as interference with the free practice of law on behalf of citizens wishing to exercise their rights and freedoms before an adjudicator.

Michael, I've noted you have a certain amount of optimism, here as which is repeatedly shown elsewhere and throughout your posts. If I were to imagine we were in Germany, in the early days of Hitler's rise to power, rare proponents of individual rights and free will having a chat over coffee... would it be safe to say you would not have had the same optimism, and for specific reasons? If we were having coffee now... what is to say we are not is a psycho-culturally analogous situation? (I suppose this depends on how much of the true American spirit has atrophied) I'm not sure if its my overly cynical view of the "others" out there in general, or whether I am being fed too much negative information about what appears to be some kind of tipping point... but I cannot see what you see. Why? Why the optimism here and now, when here and now feels and seems so bleak... Hoping to see things more like you!

I'm sure some of you have been updated by YouTube's algorithm on Maricopa county goings on over the last weeks/months, but in case not, I have found this channel informative: https://www.youtube.com/user/scottsdalestudios/videos Good premises!

With the metaphysical threats of China, the wuflu attack on western civilization, the rise of a brazen global oligarchy, and totalitarian ideas like the Great Reset, and the recent elections and kangaroo impeachments... I’m starting to feel like Ayn Rand’s overwhelming focus on altruism was slightly misguided, in the sense that it is not the evil (out there) as such, it is a misdirection and a weapon used by the naked will to power and domination by the tyrannically inclined, targeting our weaknesses to obtain obedience. But that will to power the tyrannical powers of the psyche seem now to have been unleashed in the powerful and in the sheeple. The absolute monarch, the oligarchs, the totalitarian they do not hold altruism or community or equality as principles, but as tools of control. When there are few evil doers we protect ourselves from the ideas they try to use against us, but once the evil doers become prevalent or the majority we few must protect ourselves from them not just their ideas. The primary external evil is no longer the internal moral failing of the individual, even though it may have been its primary agitator and may have derived its primary power from it in the form of a population who has fallen to and the joined the ranks of the enemies of freedom. We see the will to power using against us everything we hold dear, peace, harmony, family, our own sense of empathy and benevolence both as threat and as alms. Granted, Ayn Rand knew of these dynamics and warned us all that this might happen, but the overwhelming focus of warnings against altruism seem out of balance now. That was primarily a preventative, and not enough people listened. In her lifetime perhaps it was best to try to stem the philosophical tide toward oblivion, to warn the culture running for the edge of the cliff, but now that it or a large part has careened over, what message or warning or exhortation can be made to those few sane left, perhaps clinging to the edge of the cliff and straining with the dark insane evil mass of suffering still dangling from their feel by some sharp claw, what kind of advice can be given to them who still wish to save themselves? I begin to feel that a philosophical rejection of Altruism is insufficient now that what it focused on to avoid has come to pass... the power hungry disdain all such ideas, the masses form a new mob of the power hungry, and freedom lovers have no fight with their own ideas as they do with existential threats to their freedoms, their values, their very lives. philosophy perhaps has run its course? sigh Just starting to feel something...

Thank you for the compliment. I think you are right, “the entirety” does explain the acts of consciousness... (although we know not of the how and the details) but that is no less and no more than what a brain is and does. I begin to think the “quantitative” invocation of “more” in our minds when we ponder the imponderable concept of“mind”, is a psychological intuition. A feeling simply born of an amazement which arises due to an erroneous implicit assumption: an assumption that a living brain being and doing “should” amount to less... less than what a living brain eminently and evidently, undeniably and indentically, actually does amount to... a conscious complex natural system.

You use the words “magic” and “miracle” to designate consciousness. Why? I assume you take “mind” to be natural and not supernatural... now surely that one is a mystery in nature born of our lack of knowledge but there is no need to invoke shades of mysticism to color our amazement and wonder. We still have much to learn and reality is a stunning thing to get to know. Newness does not quite invoke “miracle” or “magic”, causation has been making firsts since the beginning of time, like the first supernova or the first heavy elements. True all new things had not literally existed prior, in all their glory, but the potentials exhibited or possessed by the natures of the constituent things that eventually would come together to form those new things were always there “inherent” in the identity of those constituent things. I take well your observation that we have much to learn about the nature of consciousness, my main point is that it is not supernatural. Given enough time, higher order complexities exhibiting consciousness may be the most natural and ubiquitous outcome in the universe. But I speculate.

I understand your fear of such a presumption, I have encountered others who implicitly hold a false dichotomy (bordering on mystical) between mind and ... let us call it "nature". Without going too much into a discussion, I am of the view that mind is what a brain does and is. There is no mystical stuff which is somehow more than the sum of the parts and "emerges" like a infant ghost from the womb of brain to somehow stand outside and beyond reality... mind is, is of, and is by, the natural complex system functioning in reality, which is the human nervous system and brain. Conceptualization and the formation of mental concepts are tied to reality through perception and causation. My pointing out reification is NOT to cleave the universe in twain, inside and outside, mind and matter... consciousness IS embedded here, in natural reality, minds are functioning complex natural system, they are capable of forming and holding concepts (which means brains structured and functioning in certain complex and repeatable ways) which correspond, in noncontradictory and useful ways, to reality due to their origins being caused in and by reality. We observe that reality is not some arbitrary chaos, existents have identity, and behave lawfully, but "the laws" we deduce are not edicts written in some intrinsic fabric of space-time, imposed upon compliant and eager actors who might otherwise have been free to do anything... such would be fanciful projections of our own psyches. Things simply are what they are, specifically, and behave accordingly, simply because they cannot be what they are not, and cannot do what is not in accordance with what they are. The claim that somehow all things (shoes and ships - and sealing wax - cabbages and kings) including everything which is not part of a mind, are "made" of concepts such as "numbers", "magnitudes", "principles" (mental contents which we use to understand and think about everything), is quite simply erroneous, and confuses and/or conflates the referents of conceptualization with the concepts themselves.

I'm not sure about making "a lot more" sense. Conceptually, it is equally incorrect to claim that the universe, i.e. each and every entity which exists, is made of "number", "magnitudes", and "scientific concepts" or "scientific principles". Reification of conceptual content as external entities is the error. Principles, quantity, magnitude, are concepts by which we conceive of, understand, and predict what we observe about entities in existence, they do not literally make up entities. Things are no more "scientific principles" than they are "numbers".

I unsubscribed from ARI some time ago... but if I got that in my email, I mean really... W T F ? After that "performance" does Yaron expect an award? I can see him tottering on chair-backs with a wide smile before going up to the stage to accept his award... oh yes "Life is Beautiful"...apparently pretending is wonderful... exhortations to completely ignore the overarching political and socioeconomic upheavals in America... the dire divisions and the threats from China, the Radical Left, and Big Tech?.... well "It's the New Objectivist way!!" (Neo-Objectivist? ...that is no Objectivist) again W T F ?

Glad to hear people of influence or accomplishment are actually open to the ideas discussed here. I understand and respect their privacy. Rand discussed a great many things... she identified single State corruption, a swamp on a small scale... but without an inking of the technology of today could she even have in her wildest dreams thought of such a global elitist oligarchy attempting to enslave the entire world as it is today? Had she ever thought these petty technocrat busy bodies in government, big tech and the media would ever be so bold as to proclaim to all, their ideal two class system... the government-media-tech-illuminati and the quaking yet trusting sheeple whom they "tend"? The "elimination" of "property" for some while those in power keep to themselves the "right" duty and privilege to consume, alter, share, redefine, rent, mortgage, pawn, sell, exchange, transfer, give away or destroy all things, or to exclude others from doing so... There are those who would say it has been so for many decades, others would say always, but for it to be in naked sight and as brazen as it is now... it disgusts me.

Ok I'm a bit clueless here.. you've said "be involved" more than once. Can you divulge the nature and/or extent of your "involvement" in this phase of history?

I'm not a member of scribed but... Links to past president's websites are kept here: https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/archived-websites Some digging on that site gets you to here, a direct (hopefully permanent) link of the PDF document: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf This link should be spread far and wide!

In the wake of the "achievement" of your "idea" in the OP, if only for consistency, you yourself should do what you suggest.

In the wake of the "achievement" of your "idea" in the OP, if only for consistency, you yourself should do what you suggest.

When looked at in terms of progress, and how USA is doing well for itself, the stats could be useful and informative. BUT the funny thing is, if it's deaths/case then the stats mean little to nothing AS a comparison to totally different countries. Comorbidity includes things which factor hugely into the risk of death per case, e.g. heart conditions, diabetes, high blood pressure, and others which are causatively linked with obesity. Obesity is linked with, to put it colorfully, a population possessing an abundance of means accompanied by a dearth of self-discipline... so a large portion of the population are statistically at "risk" for obesity... and those risks manifest themselves in the actual levels of obesity. ALL things otherwise considered being equal... (capacity and quality of medical goods and services) IF some foreign population statistically has either a lower level of abundance or a greater level of self-discipline... or both... then obesity will be lower there... and hence the rate of deaths/case will be vastly different. Aside from this... statistics of the outcomes in the collective.. are no justification or validation for any system, or for any response. Just as wealth is not properly any justification for capitalism, death rates, AS SUCH, are no indication of proper government action. Sure a population can "do well" in some particular aspect... and so survival per case is a measure of some import, but it surely is not a measure of "proper government". Short term prevention of death might correlate strongly with dictatorship and tyranny.

This went right over my head... can you let me in on the joke?

Social media, mainstream media, and the concentration of power in big data are creating a crazy left-wing suppression of anything ... well sane. "Aunt Jemima" is no more. The syrup itself will not change and will be just as delicious, but it will be sold under a new logo and name. (By the way, if sales TANK, this might turn out to be a perfect example of how brand name recognition actually... duh... IS important) Now buying Aunt Jemima in the past never meant I endorsed the so-called racial stereo type... if anything I liked the idea of a friendly smiling person providing me with trusted delicious syrup... and that was that. I certainly don't care about the color, religion or occupation of The Quaker guy on my oatmeal box, the cream of wheat fellow, or Uncle Ben (these also may change... with the exception of possibly the white guy in the funny hat)... they do NOT represent to me or any consumer ANYTHING about politics, religion, or socioeconomics... they stand for what they appear to be... a familiar friendly face identifying a product I know, trust, and love... beckoning me to purchase or consume. If anything, these faces (with one exception) increased visibility of smiling benevolent people of color in the pantries and tables of the homes of mainstream suburban white families. And now, they will disappear... to be replaced by what? (white smiling faces? or better yet the mug of a strong white woman who wouldn't stoop to "serve" you your syrup but is nonetheless humble enough to agree to glare at you from the bottle?) In any case, the products will not change, the syrup, the oatmeal, the cream of wheat, and the rice, will all be just as yummy, and the quality (assuming the "progressives" have not infiltrated the processing plants) should be just as good, but the absence of the friendly face I knew will be all too apparent... as will the knowledge that the "producers" are pandering to imagined problems screeched about in the Twitverse of clown world. The wallet is a very powerful tool, you trade for what is a higher value, but you also support individual players or actions within a complex interrelated economy, and affect, as with each purchase being a vote, the way the world is shaped one transaction at a time. So is it in your interest to taste the same quality of foodstuff you know and once were comforted by... or do you give a different producer a try.. one who has not become part of the circus? I think there are good arguments for both, but in the end it has to take into account the long term... and having a meal that tastes 5% better tomorrow, might not be worth losing your chance to vote with your wallet to live in a better world long range...

I have been having an ongoing "disagreement" with a friend of mine, quite well read in Objectivism. He is of the view that it is "incomplete". Like myself, he also has recently become interested in psychology and the subconscious, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell (and Jordan Peterson) and their ideas, and what insights about the human condition they might have. But he has begun to view Objectivism with some distain, because of it's incompleteness and "arrogance". I note its flaws, but point out that Objectivism is NOT a theory of everything. It is philosophy, not a special science, such as neuroscience or psychology, and should not be expected to encompass them, on the contrary it should only form a foundation for them. Those parts of the philosophy which did not stray (improperly) into armchair science, are IMHO correct, as a foundational philosophy. I tend to think he asks too much of the science of sofia... but I understand why he does. Somewhere along the way, the distinction between the actual core philosophy, and its application has been lost and muddled.

Thank you Michael, and perhaps I am getting too tangled up in terminology, particularly what we mean by "knowledge" and "to know". Certainly, human mind/brains at birth are not empty of everything... I'm wondering if there is more validity in restricting the definitions of "knowledge" and "to know" to explicit consciously held ideas or if there is more validity in expanding the concept to include the other psychological... I don't know... "contents" I listed above (urges, wills, subconscious stuff). IF the latter is more accurate, how important then is it to hold the distinction between knowledge and intuition? Is it that the hard distinction is some kind of false boundary which is more problematic than useful?

I have not studied this in detail, but I would assume that Rand would have known enough basic psychology to know that certain urges and capacities are "nature" rather than nurture. I am hesitant to get into what she thought when she used the term "tabula rasa" as it pertains to knowledge, but for our thinking today in view of what we know about psychology: Is it safe to say at least that explicit knowledge, i.e. consciously held ideas, originate from experience and hence at birth, a human is a "tabula rasa" of ideas and knowledge? [This is not to say there are not innate urges, autonomous reactions, and default emotions... perhaps even a whole Jungian subconscious full of wills and tendencies] Reworded conversely: Is the claim that "knowledge", for the purposes of the study of its attainment i.e. for the purposes of philosophy, consists of explicit or consciously held ideas, too narrow, and should it contain other "knowledges" (such as urges, feelings, subconscious wills, and tendencies)? EDIT: And to clarify, I use the term "philosophy" here to denote the field dealing with the techniques of Sophia, and not to (technically) include the special sciences such as physics, biology, or psychology.