MisterSwig

On 5/14/2021 at 1:34 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

she essentially turned "standard" and "purpose" into synonyms.

I believe she was looking at an organism's life from different perspectives. On one hand your life is your standard of value, because you use your healthy states as the biological norm that you try to achieve or maintain. If you feel pain, you try to eliminate it and get to a pleasurable condition. And then on the other hand your life is your ultimate purpose, because without it you have nothing. You must always be acting to maintain your life. Or resign yourself to death.

That's my interpretation of what Rand meant. But like I said I think she had an incomplete formulation. So I recognize room for disagreement here. 

On 5/14/2021 at 1:34 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Why did you apply what you call the biological lens here? The particular? Were we not discussing universal values, meaning applicable to all humans?

You brought up the sea creature example which only applies to particular people who study sea creatures. A universal value would be something that every human requires, like food, water, air. And in adults: reason, self-esteem, purpose.

6 hours ago, anthony said:

Yes, that's an organism, a self-contained biological entity. "An organism's life is its standard of value; that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil".

It can't have an abstract standard of value because it does not and cannot abstract.

A human being is an organism. So there are organisms that can abstract.

Rand clearly included man in her idea of "organism."

Quote

...if a man's heart stops beating--the organism dies.

The problem is that Rand, in my view, had an incomplete formulation of the standard of value. Due to man's conceptual faculty, he has a complex standard of value which includes his proper biological functioning, just like any other organism on the planet.  

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

How about smoking?

I like that example. Smoking is complicated, however, by the fact that nicotine has a medicinal use as a stimulant. That's not to suggest every smoker uses it medicinally. And even for those who do, the potential or actual harm might outweigh the potential or actual benefit, particularly when there are safer ways to take nicotine now.

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I smoked for years to fulfill some kind of half-assed self-image, I guess.

What characteristic(s) did you think smoking fulfilled?

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't want to make this competitive, so please don't take it as such.

I don't mind if you do make it competitive. I actually prefer it, if that's your style. The primary reason why I post anywhere is to be challenged by people who disagree with something I believe. Life's too short to stumble around with wrong beliefs. I want to be right all the time, and so I seek out people I respect who disagree and aren't afraid to tell me so. 

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But there is so much more beyond a static view of identification and evaluation (which is how I used to see it and how your words come off to me).

What did I say that suggests a static view? The part you initially quoted?

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here is a great example: the value of stories to people.

Yes, I've always taken stories seriously, ever since childhood when I started writing fiction, then later when I focused on literature in high school and college. Also, I enjoy hiking, and my friends and I tell each other many stories on the trails. Every weekend now I Skype with a Christian and discuss the stories in the Bible. 

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For a hint at what is the main purpose of story, there's a little sucker in your left brain a neuroscientist, Michael Gazzaniga, calls "the interpreter." This part of the left hemisphere does nothing but compose narratives in order to fit things you perceive to causality, whether they fit or not.

Yes, anyone who dreams knows the brain is capable of inventing whole stories at a nonvolitional level. But even this process can be controlled. I've had a lucid dream where I realized I was dreaming and then assumed volitional control over it. It's hard to do though. I only did it once so far. Others are much better at it.

When you're fully conscious you obviously have more control over the stories your brain churns out. You can focus on your imagination and direct it volitionally, correlating it with observation and memory if you choose to do that.

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Gazzaniga discovered this when he performed a famous experiment where he surgically severed a patient's corpus callosum.

I always find such experiments fascinating. Thanks for letting me know about this one. Incidentally I often close my left eye while reading. I chalked it up to my poorer eyesight in the left eye, but maybe it has something to do with not wanting to fill my head with stories of chicken shit.

19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

They don't need to identify themselves correctly to have these different perspectives and values.

First, the pre-adults and elderly adults you mentioned must identify their own life sufficiently correctly in order to have any perspective and values at all. Otherwise they would be dead or comatose, incapable of sustaining their own life at the most basic level. Second, which innate values and perspective they have at any point in their life depends on their particular nature at that point, which includes their physical and mental condition and the effects of aging. It also depends on the choices they've made. Third, this isn't my main position. I'm mostly talking about what is required for a volitional being to make a moral evaluation. The identifications required do not need to be 100% correct, but they need to be sufficiently correct for survival of the evaluator. 

12 hours ago, anthony said:

MAN's life is the standard of value. Not one's own life.

I believe you're referring to the Objectivist standard of value, which is an abstraction defined by Rand. I'm talking about the biological standard of value, which Rand does identify in The Objectivist Ethics: "An organism's life is its standard of value." (VOS, p. 17)

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It's obvious (at least to me) that correctly identifying the nature of rare tiny single cell deep sea creatures is not all that important to human life.

Which human life? You're treating the standard of value generally and not applying it to the particular units from which it was abstracted. Correctly identifying a sea creature might be highly important to a marine biologist seeking greater understanding of sea life. Perhaps it would lead to a Nobel Prize or other career success.  

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If you are saying "identify yourself correctly" because that is a super-important identification to get right if the Law of Identity is to mean anything to you, I'm right there with you, If you say "identifying yourself correctly" has to happen before you can identify something else correctly, say, bitter melon as a food, this starts getting into the realm of deducing reality from a principle as one's epistemological foundation (which is the portal to the slippery slope and a wickedly deceptive form of what Rand called "primacy of consciousness").

I'm not saying either of those, though I do agree with the first one.

My point is about forming a normative idea about something's value. You do this by relating the thing to a standard of value, which is your own life. Your life is the standard, so you must identify your life before you can determine whether something is beneficial or harmful to it, or irrelevant.

This can be an enormous problem if you misidentify your life. Let's take an extreme, psychotic example where someone mistakes himself for a garbage can. If he tries to sit on the curb and eat garbage, he'll get sick and probably die or be rushed to a mental ward. Thankfully most people identify themselves at least as thinking animals and thus put a little thought into what they consume, maybe trusting the supermarket or restaurant to give them beneficial food. But then many misidentify other aspects of their lives, such as whether they're immortal, and then they value books that teach them how to reach heaven.    

On 2/8/2021 at 6:02 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

One has to identify something correctly before one can evaluate it correctly--that is, if correspondence to reality is the standard.

I'm just starting to visit the links you provided me, so I apologize in advance if you've answered my questions/points elsewhere. Regarding your post here, it strikes me that in order to evaluate something correctly, not only must you first identify it correctly, you must also identify yourself correctly, since any moral evaluation involves the object's relationship to yourself.

5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

A good treatment can be found here: 

Understanding Is and Ought - A Personal View by Michael Stuart Kelly

Thanks. I just read it. I like it so far. I'll reserve further comment until I have had time to read the other links Michael provided.

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It took me a about 3 hours to put those links together.

I appreciate it. I'll be able to devote substantial time to this next week. My next few days are booked.

Briefly, regarding this from your RoR article:

Quote

Often people skip the part about identifying "What is it?" and "How do I know it?" so they can get to the "What should I do?" part more quickly. A simple out-of-context phrase will trigger a strong reaction. An incorrect identification is made. This is because the cognitive integration was no longer present. But eliminating cognitive concepts is a completely incorrect use of reason.

This reminds me of how my quote memes trigger Objectivists on Facebook.

That one got me called several names recently, and I was accused of taking her words out of context.

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

If you get around to having guests, Michael would be a good choice ...

I agree. Scott and I have a couple more topics planned, then I think we'll get serious about bringing on guests.

Our second episode is about cancel culture. After some discussion about Leftism and the origins of cancel culture, we take a look at clips from Ben Bayer, Onkar Ghate, Stephen Hicks, David Kelley, and Yaron Brook, all giving their views of cancel culture.

On 4/29/2021 at 8:07 AM, tmj said:

Yaron Brook and Michael Malice were on Lex Fridman's podcast. Interesting interplay , very long , over four hours

Yeah, I need to carve out some time to listen to this. Though I'm not one who thinks a longer format necessarily translates to better content than a shorter format. I watched the first few minutes and already Brook and Malice have admitted to ignoring the list of prepared questions Fridman sent them beforehand. I prefer intellectuals who take ideas more seriously.

On 4/28/2021 at 3:55 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In my own way of thinking, I recommend a process I call cognitive before normative. In other words, identify something correctly before judging it. Besides, how can one judge something correctly if that person did not identify it correctly?

Do you have a thread or two on this process?

On 5/4/2021 at 5:59 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This photo of the Bidens and Carters came out yesterday.

Rosalynn reminds me of Zelda from Pet Sematary.

Thanks for keeping us informed. Do you think he'll write a dozen blog posts criticizing the Department of Education? I doubt it.

15 hours ago, Peter said:

I have gotten flack for this before but "Contact" is my favorite movie of all time

It impressed me so much at the time that I bought and read the book, which was also very good.

On 4/25/2021 at 1:32 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Rand never named Peikoff her intellectual heir. Peikoff named Peikoff her intellectual heir.

You're the first person to tell me this. After some unfruitful research, I don't know if she actually called him that. Since I never took the term very seriously anyway, the notion is easily cast upon the garbage heap. I wonder, though, perhaps she said it during a Q&A after one of Peikoff's lectures on Objectivism?

On 4/25/2021 at 1:32 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

My opinion is further bolstered by the fact that in the Mike Wallace interview, Rand did not call Nathaniel her intellectual heir in the singular. She called him her best intellectual heir, meaning plural, meaning she had in mind other intellectual heirs at the time.

If she considered the inner circle her "intellectual heirs," wouldn't Peikoff qualify as one? He'd been with her for several years by that point, while she was writing Atlas Shrugged.

On 4/25/2021 at 1:32 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Notice that Barbara does not correct or comment on the framing of the question. She just didn't consider it important.

Or maybe she knew it was true.

On 4/25/2021 at 1:32 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As a bonus to your efforts on schisms, here's a thread I created back in 2006 I think you will find interesting.

Thanks, I like timelines.

On 1/29/2021 at 1:05 PM, Peter said:

“Contact,” starring Jodie Foster.

Great movie. I distinctly recall being impressed by the serious tone of Contact. I guess I had been watching too many silly alien films at the time.

The rest of your list is full of winners, except I didn't like Starship Troopers because I was expecting an adaptation of the novel, but instead I got a complete farce.

On 1/29/2021 at 2:54 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

the first two Terminator movies were fantastic for me.

Terminator would have been in our top five but we decided to restrict the list to more recent films.

On 1/29/2021 at 2:54 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Another Arnie sci-fi movie I liked a lot was Total Recall. In fact, many sci-fi movies made from Philip K. Dick stories have turned out to be blockbuster classics. Including Blade Runner.

I liked those too. Blade Runner 2049 is in my top ten of more recent sci-fi. It's just about as good as the first one. And speaking of Philip K. Dick, have you seen Man in the High Castle? It's a really good adaptation.

On 1/29/2021 at 2:54 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In this vein of mixing myth with sci-fi (and TV series), I really, really, really liked Lost.

I got hooked on that show but hated the ending. So here's your chance to convince me that it makes a lick of sense.

On 1/29/2021 at 2:54 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here is a gem: the Homecoming series.

Haven't seen that one. Thanks for the recommendation. Sometimes I enjoy that artsy-fartsy stuff if it's sufficiently thought-provoking. And I'm a sucker for comeuppance flicks, though usually it takes the form of a great revenge thriller.

On 4/23/2021 at 12:37 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I watched and subscribed.

Thank you!

On 4/23/2021 at 12:37 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The schisms are fights over who are really Rand's heirs and progeny and who are apostates and outsiders--and who decides this.

Do you trace this back to Rand naming Peikoff as her "intellectual heir"? The term strikes me as a problem, because you can't inherit ideas. So what does "intellectual heir" mean?

Peikoff answered this question on his website. He calls himself Rand's "philosophic spokesman," which I think is poor phrasing. Rand is dead. She has no spokesman. Really, Peikoff was her favorite follower, her intellectual apprentice, to whom she bequeathed her property.

Peikoff says he's not naming an "intellectual heir." That's good, but it's quite unRandian of him. 

Scott Schiff and I have started a new podcast called Ayn Rand Fan Club. I met Scott on Facebook. We share an interest in discussing the Objectivist movement. Our first episode covers the issue of schisms and coalitions within Objectivism. In that context we play some clips from the Yaron Brook Show and offer our criticism. I hope you'll watch and subscribe to the channel. And if you have constructive criticism, I welcome your feedback. Thanks.

Where are you being held and who kidnapped you?

On 3/18/2021 at 7:37 AM, Strictlylogical said:

Perhaps those who would be left free and would leave others also to be free are at a disadvantage... or perhaps not?

It is a disadvantage to tolerate the left in public. We place too much value on freedom of speech. It's like some religious dogma we have. No, sometimes speech needs regulation. Let's recognize that when a leftist advocates for socializing property, he's initiating a process of force against private property holders. Left unchecked, we run the risk of losing everything to the left simply because we tolerate them and the loot-thirsty mob that gathers behind them.

It's like listening to a psycho rant about how he's going to rape a woman, and we do nothing about it. Then his psycho friends arrive and they all agree, "Yeah, let's gang rape her!" We just walk away and go home and watch TV. On the news later we find out that she was raped by that gang. The difference is that the left rapes people legally with the institutions of government power. Our tolerance of evil speakers is essentially the same, but it seems okay in the case of democratic socialists because they want to be evil with the permission of voters.

This is why we at minimum need to ban socialists from the government. I would also ban them from speaking on public property. Let them buy private property and speak there, but if they threaten the government they need to be stopped.

Unfortunately we have not banned them, and now they are terrorizing citizens and embedding themselves in our government. 

I lost interest in Milo some time ago. But I'll note that being sodomy-free is not the same thing as being ex-gay. Is he attracted to females now?

Sounds like the plot of Emergency! Season 1 Episode 5 (Dealer's Wild) from 1972.

Quote

Because John keeps losing at cards and being stuck with doing the dishes at the station, he creates his own card game. Off-duty, Dr. Brackett and Dixie spend time to unwind. Both also meditate on the people that want to die rather than live, and the people that want to live rather than die. Roy talks down a boy in a plane after the pilot (his father) has a heart attack. The paramedics respond to an attempted suicide, an overturned gasoline trailer tanker truck and a teenage overdose victim. Drs. Brackett, Early, Morton (semi-regular Ron Pinkard) and Dixie, take care of a husband who is suffering from a severe hemorrhage. Later on, despite being brought back the first time, the pilot goes into cardiac arrest and despite their best efforts, they're unable to bring back the patient and the boy cries as Dixie comforts him.

What are some important/favorite sci-fi films from the last couple decades? I discuss this topic with Lev on our YT channel.

Our top picks that we discuss in depth are:

*The Matrix - It revolutionized the style of sci-fi films with its "bullet time" cinematography and serious tone. The degree of drama reached a philosophical level that concerned matters related more to mankind's relation to machines than to his nonexistent experience with deep space travel and aliens on other planets.

*Ex Machina - a superior character study of three individuals isolated in a testing facility. It considers the deep questions of consciousness and motivations and purpose, from both a human and an android perspective.

*Arrival - a movie about first contact with aliens who come to earth for an unknown purpose. It incorporates unusual notions of time and language, which are cleverly integrated into the plot and character development. The film relies on determinism to explain events, which I think is a negative, but I like its thought-provoking, introspective aesthetic and attempt to apply the scientific method to a close encounter of the third kind.

*Looper - normally I don't like time travel movies, but this one stood out for me due to its mind-blowing story structure and appeal to free will. The characters are not bound to a predetermined fate, and the plot doesn't get bogged down by trying to explain the science of time travel. There's a time machine, it works, move on! Indeed the film isn't really about time travel, it's about breaking free from bad choices and consequences and realizing what's right.

*Inception - a wild, psychological film about sharing dreams and trying to sort out fantasy from reality. This is a well-made film that explores the nature of concepts themselves, as the plot involves trying to implant an idea into someone's subconscious.