ThomasHägg

That's a good thing I guess.

True. But the Hots can sometimes send people to where enduring love can be found. I was very hot for my wife. I still love her dearly after 57 years. Let me explain what I really meant by hot in this context; When I find someone sexy, I find them sexy for a reason. I value something about them. Mostly its an apreciation of a couple of things, such as how they dress and how they behave even before I've talked to them. I don't mean that in robotic way. And don't tell me I'm "just superficial", because I'm not looking for clues on who could buy me a better house; I'm looking for a sexual partner and someone who could possibly be my "better half". I may not be able to put words on it in that moment and I probably wouldn't point out every single detail to my buddies sitting next to me if it was in a pub or out socializing somewhere else. I would just say "that woman/girl is hot". On a surface level, I may not even notice "consiously" what was hot about her in particular. She may just have "fit into my template" of what a "hot" woman looks like. But if I decided to make explicit those details that were included in my template, I know I could. But if I'm not feeling well that day or "my head is in a different place", it's not guaranteed to happen. It is not entirely automatic. A "hot chick" could walk by and I wouldn't pick up on it, even if I looked straight at her. Some things we value are harder to explain than others. I know I can fall in love, only to find out way down the line that it wasn't the great love of my life. I can make mistakes. But it would still have been love. I honestly, and probably accurately, valued that person - what I knew about her to be specific - very very highly, she expressed she thought similarly of me and as a result we had a romantic sexual relationship. Feelings were strong as our naked bodies.... just kidding. But that's love. Isn't it? Here comes another Rand quote. I love this woman I'll spare you the full context, but this is from "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" Let us answer the question: “Can you measure love?” The concept “love” is formed by isolating two or more instances of the appropriate psychological process, then retaining its distinguishing characteristics (an emotion proceeding from the evaluation of an existent as a positive value and as a source of pleasure) and omitting the object and the measurements of the process’s intensity. . . . If one wants to measure the intensity of a particular instance of love, one does so by reference to the hierarchy of values of the person experiencing it. A man may love a woman, yet may rate the neurotic satisfactions of sexual promiscuity higher than her value to him. Another man may love a woman, but may give her up, rating his fear of the disapproval of others (of his family, his friends or any random strangers) higher than her value. Still another man may risk his life to save the woman he loves, because all his other values would lose meaning without her. The emotions in these examples are not emotions of the same intensity or dimension. Do not let a James Taggart type of mystic tell you that love is immeasurable. 1. Homosexual love is love. Perhaps. I don't know that for a fact. Working in entertainment over 25 years, I had a lot of contact with homosexuals, including private knowledge of how homosexual partners behaved with each other. Maybe things have changed. I certainly hope so. 2. Having children consumes parents and irreversibly transforms what was once a romantic relationship. It sharpens the contrary moral purposes* of men and women, when they become Mom and Dad. Some people handle it extremely well. Others do not. In the U.S., half of all marriages end in divorce; four out of ten children are born to unmarried women. * If you don't know that men and women have contrary moral purpose, we can talk about it another time. 3. Being hot for someone is not love. 1 Anecdotal evidence is not worth much unless you can base a theory on it and present it to me. But I do think things have changed. For example, back in probably the mid 80s, HIV ravaged the comunity here in Sweden. I would be surprised if it didn't also spread to or perhaps even originated from parts of The U.S. It not only wiped out a lot of people, it made everyone live either in fear or in spite of fear because the disease was not very well understood. Fidgety like animals, people don't use their reason well. Gay culture has also been plagued by behavior induced indirectly by society in general shunning, assaulting and the self-chosen substance abuse (of some but not all). That's not the standard of "love" or "homosexual love" though. If it does not live up to the definition of "love" it can not be love by anyone - homosexual or else. 2 We all handle having children differently, but sure there are changes. However this "what was once a romantic relationship" is not healthy. Be it normal and natural (which it isn't, unless a very brief period) or not, there is no reason to continue down this path. If you are in such a relationship, I would say either fix it or get out courteously. (I don't mean shunning, but don't make such a relationship your primary one for the rest of your life) I already wrote about the fact that the nature of men and women are different from one another I think, but both depend on the nature of human beings.

Precisely. Well almost. It (such sexuality, or other expressions of such romantic love) "disgusts" me personally, not because I in any way dislike homosexuals, but because I can't identify with that sexually, lust and in terms of gender identity in general. That's the feeling I - as a heterosexual person - can get because it doesn't correlate with my own nature. It would be fully natural for someone born a homosexual though and I've got no problem with the concept of homosexual love what so ever. Love is great no matter who expresses it. But I can't read minds, so your quote could indeed be a clue that Rand made a mistake. Who knows.

There we go again... You can trust a lot of people here are probably starting to wonder the same thing about you. But that's because of your antisocial behaviour, not because we disagree with you. Why would you need to state that? What does it matter to the topic discussed if he's married? Isn't fact a fact even in the face of not being married? Homosexual love is love. Anyone born a homosexual should in order to be moral, act according to his or her nature. Human beings don't need to be heterosexual and have children in order to live and live well. Even being "hot for someone" can be a level of love; If it at all includes valuation. And say you value nothing but physical proportions of a womans body, that would be disturbing but still implies values. (Not good judgement.)

This thread is addictive. I must say it makes a very convincing case for trump so far. He still seems like an egotist to me some times. If only he would sleep, just a little bit more I think he could make a great candidate (despite his nationalism). His doctor says his health is great of course and it probably is, at least on the surface, but I'm not so sure about his temper. It could be related to too little sleep. (However there is much suggesting he actually does need less sleep than most)

Sorry Thomas, that is my way of separating the "orthodox" Objectivism of Peikoff, the pitiful carrier of Ayn's flame...and taking the rational foundational parts of her philosophy and growing them based on NLP and eliminating her bizarre theory of art/aesthetics, etc. A... Which NLP ? Sorry So if I use capital O people here might think I'm a cultish follower basically? That's unfortunate. Not sure if I like the "orthodox" Objectivism or not. It should be clearer from the "Love defined in one sentence" thread. But it would seem some people react to statements that in my mind are not all that "hard core" and despite them being ideas I've seen plenty other places than the ARI. I think context can be huge when it comes to what Rand said and many other things. Not to say that she never made any mistakes. We all know she did. Sorry, I do not like when folks speak "alphabet" to me either...tried to rush that post... Michael's favorite topic, Neuro Linguistic Programming...which has made leaps and bounds over the last 2-3 decades... http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2436#entry15538 <<<< 2006 thread on cults and Objectivism... http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11703#entry155122 <<<< speaking of pitiful Pope Peikoff - this one is on date rape and had some of the great and problematic posters of that period on OL... A... Perfect. Thanks! I've heard of Neuro Lingustic Programming before, even "studied" it some because it's really interesting, but I never thought I'd find much relating to that here. Lol - this ain't your standard Objectivist forum... It is the only one that I have ever participated with and I went to NBI [Nathanial Branden Institute] in the 1960's. Yes, I have seen them in the flesh, Ayn, Frank, Nathanial and Barbara. You should poke around in the "corners of insight" in the forums section of OL, both Barbara and Nathanial have separate sections in the sub menu. Yes, I noticed that. All I can say is that at least in some aspects/respects, Nathaniel has made a very positive impression on me. In others not as much. Considering your (and Brants) time in "the movement" and perhaps I should say even The "M"ovement, I would be more than happy to gain some of your insights into potential problems with the way I construct my philosophy and how I try to adhere to "O/objectivism" as stated and expanded upon by Rand (and anyone helping her in the process) in her non-fiction books foremost, but also in her fiction provided they can all be understood to be congruent by me personally. (The last part of the previous long sentence where I described this wish of mine, would be a sort of "mission statement" or standard regarding my own philosophy, rather than a question. But I still wouldn't mind an answer to it.) You don't have to psychoanalyze me now or anything like that, I'm not asking that of you or anyone else. But just, you know... If you see me around the forum, don't be shy to challenge my thinking.(or correct my grammar for that matter) - As long as it's done without malevolence of course, but you seem to have better social skills than a lot of people I've had great conversations with before.

I offer many Internet posters* as a counter to this elitism. Some even post on OL. --Brant *too many to count Don't be unreasonable... Sorry couldn't resist it. There are indeed many levels to reasoning though and we don't all agree of course.

Sorry Thomas, that is my way of separating the "orthodox" Objectivism of Peikoff, the pitiful carrier of Ayn's flame...and taking the rational foundational parts of her philosophy and growing them based on NLP and eliminating her bizarre theory of art/aesthetics, etc. A... Which NLP ? Sorry So if I use capital O people here might think I'm a cultish follower basically? That's unfortunate. Not sure if I like the "orthodox" Objectivism or not. It should be clearer from the "Love defined in one sentence" thread. But it would seem some people react to statements that in my mind are not all that "hard core" and despite them being ideas I've seen plenty other places than the ARI. I think context can be huge when it comes to what Rand said and many other things. Not to say that she never made any mistakes. We all know she did. Sorry, I do not like when folks speak "alphabet" to me either...tried to rush that post... Michael's favorite topic, Neuro Linguistic Programming...which has made leaps and bounds over the last 2-3 decades... http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2436#entry15538 <<<< 2006 thread on cults and Objectivism... http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11703#entry155122 <<<< speaking of pitiful Pope Peikoff - this one is on date rape and had some of the great and problematic posters of that period on OL... A... Perfect. Thanks! I've heard of Neuro Lingustic Programming before, even "studied" it some because it's really interesting, but I never thought I'd find much relating to that here.

Sorry Thomas, that is my way of separating the "orthodox" Objectivism of Peikoff, the pitiful carrier of Ayn's flame...and taking the rational foundational parts of her philosophy and growing them based on NLP and eliminating her bizarre theory of art/aesthetics, etc. A... Which NLP ? Sorry So if I use capital O people here might think I'm a cultish follower basically? That's unfortunate. Not sure if I like the "orthodox" Objectivism or not. It should be clearer from the "Love defined in one sentence" thread. But it would seem some people react to statements despite them being ideas I've seen plenty other places than the ARI. (Which, on the whole, I'm not really that familiar with either. Although I've listened to Peikoff some and at that point he seemed intelligent about whatever he was discussing) I think context can be huge when it comes to what Rand said and many other things. Not to say that she never made any mistakes. We all know she did.

I gotta fix that one day. Try the simple smiley for now (colon and end parentheses ). There seems to be a problem with the wink smiley graphic on the server side and I have not mucked around over there for awhile. I'll get to it before long. Michael Good to know! Thanks!

We could ask; What is "reason"? What is "knowledge"? How do we "know"? - Axioms. Living by our reason is the only way of living that makes any sense to us. Fundamentaly, at some level it is the only way thinking animals can live. It is our "nature".

I don't know why asked anymore, but very well put.

Positive conclusions can be based not only on scientific evidence, but on reasoning as well. Existence exists, we don't need science to know that. I admit the rabit hole is deeper than most, but if "God" is properly defined as supernatural, then he couldn't exist within nature or in any way affect nature. If "God" is not supernatural, there would be no reason to call it "a god". All the gods I have run into so far in my life are "obvious" self-contradictions. They would be rejected in an instant were we all logical robots, but then again we are not. (And what fun would that be?) Then there are the semi-logical, pseudo-scientific add-ons, such as the arguments from Aristotle,Thomas Aquinas etc. But they are all built on a series of false conclusions or false pseudoaxioms in a similar manner. A teapot circling the sun in the asteroid belt is believable. It could be true and I wouldn't know without scientifc evidence. However, any reasonable person would avoid ordering his entire life around things that are unknown. (My whole claim/argument supposes of course, that we can know things. If we can not "know" anything, then everything including this forum and the text on your screen would be pointless.)

Yes. ;) All I'm saying is I'm not sure he was counciously threatening anyone. That would be a lot worse. Doesn't make this sittuation any better, but it could have been worse. And unfortunately, I have seen much worse examples already. I'm going to take what he said as a - perhaps irresponsibly put forth - warning. He may have the wrong solution to the problem, but that is to be expected. (Oh somone help me out here, is there something wrong with the way I do the ;) smiley? Should I switch browser from Chrome?)

Thomas, Two points. 1. The speaker did not use an overt a tone of threat, instead, he made it sound like a warning, like: "Danger! Be careful with that." But as he inflated when challenged, it was very clear that a spike in terrorism if Trump got elected would be an outcome that he would approved of. Sort of like, "We told you not to do this, but you did it anyway. Now face the punishment and wail about your fate. Next time, obey!" This was a subtext, granted, but it was there and pretty strong. 2. There are two parties involved in communication: the one with the message and the one who receives the message. When the message is conveyed, it goes out with a hidden load from the sender (with embedded intentions and meanings that are more than the words say), but it also gets received by a receiver who has a different default hidden load. The speaker might intend one thing and the listener perceive quite another, even though the words seem neutral. This happens all the time. So I admit there might be some of that in the mix. But I believe in the speaker's mind above, he thought he was only warning folks and was blind (or maybe partially blind) to any self-righteous threat he also conveyed. And, because of the escalation, I believe many listeners will only hear the implied threat and discount the warning as a ruse. On this score, the ladies who said no... no... no... perceived what he was saying (both warning and threat) and how it would be received by many. They knew. Boy did they know. They live with this crap on both sides day in and day out. They constantly try to keep their men from excesses, but they also worry about the effects of hostility from the outside on their children. In a sense, they are double victims caught in the middle. In the video above, they were a lot smarter than he was--and, to be blunt, I believe their intentions were a lot more benign and productive than his were. I sensed mostly good in the women. Sure, they hate Trump, but only because they feel threatened. In other words, if you leave them alone and they will leave you alone. I sensed good and evil in that speaker. I don't think he wants to be a bad person. I think he wants to be a good person as he understands it. But even if you leave him alone, I would never trust that one to leave me alone. I sincerely believe he would try to harm me one day and/or support those who would. At the very least, he would feel sanctimonious schadenfreude at my harm. Maybe even celebrate. Most definitely use my disgrace as a cautionary example of what happens if he--or better, his religious doctrine--is not obeyed. Watch it again and pay attention to his tone of preachiness, finger-wagging and so on. He didn't start out that way, he started out in a reasonable tone of voice, but as he went along, he escalated and the ugly part emerged at the end. Had conditions allowed him to continue, I think he would have put on quite a show. According to the current climate in America where people know that terror attacks come from the shadows and they are wary, they think all you need is one evil person among the Muslims to do enormous damage to everyone else. That's why Trump's approval numbers are growing. He wants to isolate the problem and figure out how to fix it, especially since the good people where the problem comes from either can't or won't deal with it. I can guarantee that most Americans would be very happy if the women, instead of saying no... no... no... to that guy, said, "I will not have you near me! You're self-satisfaction at the thought of killing innocents is disgusting and you do not speak for me!" And they said it to his face on camera. I think most Americans would trust those who spoke such things and actually did cut off their moral sanction like that. Instead, the women are trapped. Women could never get away with that in many of the Muslim subcultures, even in America. They would be beaten, or forced to leave behind everything they know and the people they love. I see that--I do. I feel sorry for them. But I saw that threat bubbling up from Mr. Self-Righteous. I know I am not alone. Michael Granted that there can be hidden agendas, maybee I view the context differently. I don't necessarily aprove of how he said it and why, but did he mean to "threaten", as in 'was this something he supported himself'? I'm not so sure that's what was intended. - He should have been more clear about his intentions none the less.

Right. But I'm sure we can also agree that this guys statement was not an outrigh threat, but rather a conclusion on how things work. Right? I just want to make sure. I've heard much worse things said by even "moderate" muslims though.

(I should have responded to this earlier) Because making mistakes is easy. You can't honestly say that you got everything you know only from first hand experiences. In anything, you need a theory of how things works. You think ahead all the time. You can make it explicit or you can figure out the details as you go along. Results will tell what you did and when. That doesn't mean that you can't revise a theory if it turns out to be innacurate in some regard. Rand did some great things, but she also made mistakes. She adjusted to reality, like we all do. (Some would say she didn't adjust enough, but that's a different story and one I couldn't tell.) Objectivists can make mistakes and re-adjust without necessarily having to reject Objectivism (or the congruent conclusions in Rands writing, if you prefer I separate the two). I think this would be the perfect note for me to end on for now.

You talk as if "values" are universal, no difference between men, women, children, dykes or dicklickers. I don't even know how to respond to this... But I'm pretty sure I never said that. You talk as if values are not necessary at all. So I guess our conversation ends here. That is unless you want to provide an argument rather than a picture. I'm not holding my breath.

Love is the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another. or To love is to value. The last one being the most logical, but perhaps the least engaging, as it doesn't mention emotions in particular. That's how babies are made? Joy received from the virtues of another? (facepalm) Dear blockheads, love is not good news. It empties your pockets. You and the loved one will be separated by death, if misunderstandings and hardships don't kill the initial flush of romance in the first couple years. It is emphatically not about values or moral qualities. The way you've framed this whole discussion is a rope-a-dope ringer for friendship or pet ownership. Best friends forever (BFF) in tween parlance. As long as it's also a romantic sexual relationship, BFFs sounds like marriage... There is quiet a difference between pet ownership and regular friendship isn't there? "It empties your pockets"? Is this some sort of requirement? And the death you speak of is not chosen. Death happens to us all sooner or later. If there are no values involved at all, then who needs love? I could just go see a prostitute. Sounds like it would actually cost me less.

Love is the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another. or To love is to value. The last one being the most logical, but perhaps the least engaging, as it doesn't mention emotions in particular. And that's how babies are made, huh? I was just about to post another message that included the line "Without questioning my past love life, if you don't mind". Guess I should have. I've got to be honest, you're not coming of as a very caring person so far. What kind of "exceptions" does your "love" imply? Exceptions to everything? And why could I not have a child with a woman based on my description of love? Does the penis really care? slapfacepalm

Love is the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another. or To love is to value. The last one being the most logical, but perhaps the least engaging, as it doesn't mention emotions in particular.

Take the Galt quote: "It is your mind they want you to surrender -- all those who preach the creed of self-sacrifice...Those who start by saying: "It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others" -- end up by saying: "It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others"." Of course selfishness and altruism are opposites - but more narrowly, I think the component of selfishness which most opposes altruism, is the virtue of independence (of mind). A consciousness which is ultimately its own authority and final judge, cannot be surrendered or ruled by an altruist doctrine which demands its sacrifice. The easy targets, those non-independent-minded, can be: "The doctrine of self-sacrifice does not offend them: they have no sense of self or of personal value--they do not know what it is that they are asked to sacrifice..." [selfishness without a Self, AR] Without an undermining of your convictions and sense of self, altruism and altruists can't survive, but it is the necessary precursor to controlling your actions, i.e., service to others. Well written. I think I'm detecting another subtle difference here, although I could be wrong because my morning coffee has not fully kicked in yet. It would seem that the independence that you are refering to is the mind itself, or at least a very early impulse to think? Then I can understand and agree with you. The definition of independence I was referring to was a more consciously developed characteristic in the life of a human being, that would still of course require an inherently" independent" mind according to the previous definition described above. I may have used both definitions in the past actually. I wonder if there is a better term for either one or if it would be better to more accurately describe them as "inherent" and "developed"? (It could also be that I missunderstood you, of course.) Anyhow, I think this has been very interesting so far. I'm very happy I joined this forum.

Noncontradiciton was what I was trying to imply. There can be nothing about a black hole that contradicts existence or if you will nature. But a black hole can still have its own specific atributes that - to somone who is not a scientist trained in this specific area - might seem to contradict existence, or contradict physics. The natural laws of existence don't change, "physics" if done properly doesn't need to change, but the knowledge about certain things in our universe - such as black holes - is likely to increase (change) and therefore, the knowledge in the area of "physics" is likely to increase (change) over time. I think I did it properly this time. This is as good as it gets for me right now anyhow.

Ah, that got through my blind spot. Just like your example. Thks Brant A... Can there still also be "affect of an effect"? (it sounds wrong to me already, but grammatically speaking I mean) By the way Selene, what is meant by "O"bjectism? (quotation marks around O supposedly makes evident the use of a capital letter?) I often don't know if I should be using a capital letter in "Objectivism" or not.

Thanks Thomas: Yes, that is the picture I had in my mind. We would call it "bucolic," or, the country. As to putting the number in parentheses, no, not common at all. I do it as a self discipliner. Additionally, my graduate school training and legal documents as a mediator cause me to do that. Lol, some folks would think it is affected/effected**** and be annoyed by it. You make some fascinating observations about Ayn, and/or, "O"bjectism, out of curiosity, how old are you? A... Post Script: English is an extremely frustrating language. I still get this one wrong. ****The misuse of the words “affect” and “effect” is such an epidemic that some folks are considering assembling regional support groups to deal with the problem. But while the words are often used incorrectly, deciding whether to use affect or effect isn’t as tough to as you may think. Let me explain. “Affect” is generally used as a verb: A affects B. The eye-patch affected my vision. In this sentence, the eye-patch (A) influenced my vision (B). “Effect,” on the other hand, is almost exclusively used as a noun: A had an effect on B. Acting like a pirate has had a negative effect on my social life. So the basic rule of thumb is that “affect” is almost always a verb and “effect” is usually a noun. There are deviations from this, but when in doubt, stick to the rule. If you need help remembering, think of this mnemonic device: The action is affect, the end result is effect. http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/affect-vs-effect-2 Thanks. Well I'm not that old, let's just say that. I think the use of smileys and the way I use language in general might give away my age sufficiently already. I'll make that official in the future, but right now I don't want to make my it part of any debates or flame wars that I'm almost certain to start.... Acting like a pirate would almost definitely affect my social life by the way... But I see what you mean. ;) Where are my ;) smileys?