JennaW

Her work on concepts and categorization. Ever since I came across concepts, categorization, etc. I've thought that it was more realistic to have a dynamic, fuzzy-boundary view. It seems like, what I've read so far of what she did, that she found this out empirically. I'm also looking at the conceptual blending theory (can't remember the researchers off the top of my head right now though).

Anybody read anything about Eleanor Rosch's work on concepts?

The quoted sound very interpretive to me, with some critique thrown in. I'd say the criticisms are valid: 1) "The future of Rand's legacy will depend on those who accept the reality of the shadows, while moving into the light." 2) "But she can be brought back to us--and we to her--if she is resurrected in the role of Trickster. This will enable us to separate the idea from the thinker, the message from the messenger." (I took this to mean separate the philosophy from the philosospher [also from the student of the philosophy]). It's an interesting comparison, with good points. I still don't see this article's contents as an attack. There is nothing personal in the words quoted. Why would he change his stance anyway? Even if you wrote something a while ago, then learned something new, why not think of past work as signposts of growth, learning, and progress, and still be proud of your work? People do shift from "light" to "dark" in terms of moods, emotions, paths, behaviors, etc. Even our conceptual framework contains fuzzy boundaries. The old classical view of everything is hardlined, with strict boundaries and neat little categories-- that's old news. Reality is more complex, and while the classical views still hold in some cases, it does not hold in all cases, especially when it comes to human thinking and human nature. Ambiguity is part of reality. To force everything (humans, things, concepts) into little boxes only serves to frustrate, because it is forcing reality into what it is not.

I do view the Jeff Walker book as more of an attack than a critique. It is primarily negative and has no positive feedback (from what I've read in the library). His book is just as boring to me as people who continually adulate. I'm glad you take people to task for the presentation of articles; I enjoy JARS very much. "Unapproved"? Approval nor unapproval is not the issue when one is writing for a journal. In science, I don't seek approval of one organization to publish my ideas. I seek my approval, and I seek the advice of an advisor, but I do not have to do what he/she says. The issue is whether open inquiry can occur, over a particular topic, to elucidate positives, negatives, other perspectives, and in-betweens relating to the topic. Disagreement is not an attack, either. It is a sad situation that this vibe I'm getting-- just by reading articles here and there from different places and forums-- is such that herd mentality and insecurity can be so strong. I've heard that argument before, from Christian fundamentalists about Christianity and the Bible. Contextually verbatim. I'm *not* going to say all those who are affiliated or buy from or whatever with ARI do this-- as I know people who do and are really cool--, or that TOC doesn't-- I have had contact and they are cool to me as well--, as I look at what individuals write, but so far up to this point, the *few* people I've judged primarily negatively via internet and written content were all affiliated with ARI while TOC have basically either been open to discussion for the intent of learning something new and-- this is important to me-- quite free in that they do not mind disagreeing with Rand or their organization. Yes, one of my criteria for judging whether a writer or philosopher or whatever is worth my time is if they are truly free to vocally disagree or do some hardcore testing of the ideas of those they hold in esteem. If they can't disagree, and/or won't test, then I'm looking at a sheep. Basically, eventually it's easy to tell if someone memorizes and regurgitates. I can love Charles Darwin for what he did, but I do not have to agree with all his ideas, especially if new evidence falsifies one, or three, theoretical details. You can have role models and disagree with them. I know if I read what all my role models have written, I will disagree with them about at least one thing. And that's a-ok by me. And I think the people who think it's not okay to disagree, even with their role models, need to get a little self-esteem and really own their own minds. In any case, I will try to find and read these articles. I'm sorry if I mistook one article for two, or vice versa, as I wasn't sure if it was one article with two parts, etc. And I'm not sure of the background, but I'm not as interested in the background (sounds like more of the same approval/disapproval crap) as much as I am with what's in the articles themselves.

The stance I'm coming from is that if I wrote an article that I knew wasn't an attack (in my experience, an attack is out-of-context, all negative, and no positive) then I wouldn't really care what certain people thought. Because first of all, for me to care what pepole think, I'd have to respect them in the first place. Joe's article doesn't sound like an attack from the description of it, as I don't see how trying to interpret Rand's characters in a Jungian perspective as an attack, even if the approach was not completely understanding Jung's work. It doesn't even sound like a critique, either, not like I knew critiques in college. It's more interpretory, but then, I'd have to read the actual article.

I don't know who this Muarone is, but if this above sentence is true, then the problem seems to be that he cares what the Objectivist world thinks. As for critique and attack: when I was doing my art major, a critique was where your peers went over what was well done or not about your work. Perhaps you did something well (a technique), but the colors were "off". Perhaps you expressed something well, but the piece was too big, too contrasty, or sloppily done. So there were positive and negatives in terms of one piece of work, and everyone went through it no matter if you were studio, film, digital, or photo. Everyone got something to work on, and everyone was complimented. An attack was if someone said "It's stupid" or "You're an ass" or some similar thing--- an attack was a unjustified, unsubstantiated comment that had nothing to do with the argument, the technique, or the work. An attack was viewed as personal. Fortunately, most of us 18-22 year olds knew the difference and knew how to critique, and not take it personally. If not, we learned. As far as I know, the most balanced scientists don't take critiques personally either. So, as far as I've read of JARS-- and I have about 8 volumes-- none of the articles in them were what I consider an attack. They were all critiques, and none of them seemed personal (to me). And if a critique is a review with sharper teeth, it doesn't mean it's personal. If someone sees something wrong with something, why the hell is it considered an attack? Maybe, just maybe, that something needs some fixing up. Therefore I'm confused as to how anyone who has gone through any university setting and know about publishing articles can think of a critique as an attack.

So, if an article can attack something, then what the hell is a critique?

Ayn Rand or not, if someone-- anyone-- is going to write me off for asking questions, my response is a big: "F*** you!" Then I turn my back and make my own life, with my own ideas. I think people are in binds sometimes because they put themselves there, psychologically, intellectually, and/or emotionally. It *is* pitiful, especially more so if they go around saying how intelligent they are, yet not realize what kind of position they themselves are in (all the while knowing *so* damn much about where other people are at and to preach about it). Which is why I think intelligence is not the ultimate goal, it's not the top of the mountain. Intelligence is nothing without insight and the goal of wisdom; it doesn't just stop at high IQ points or logical extrapolations. A book titled "The Ominous Parallels" just smacks of some kind of finger pointing. My first reaction is a roll of the eyes and a big, huge sigh: it sounds depressing. I'm much happier with the art, beauty, and wise lessons from a host of people (mostly scientists) who write as if the world was a wonderful, awesome, beautiful, artful, deep, and exciting place to live in.

I guess I should ask him directly this, but since questioning appears to be "out": so how does suppressing one's questions help you "know" someone's "rightness"? & How the hell can starting off "knowing someone is right so don't ask questions" be "good advice" for life? If he's intelligent, he really wouldn't say things like that. My own life experience was very different: because I questioned things, and got challenged for it, in the end I got learn far more than if I hadn't-- and not only that-- it also helped me establish a very firm position on who *I* was/am as a person, and a freedom to disagree and be fine with it. This is entirely frustrating. When I find out that someone can't/won't have their *own* ideas, and in addition tell others not to question things, I lose interest fast. He (Peikoff) might be a super-nice guy face-to-face, but even then, there's some interest lost...

So, was Peikoff practicing true objectivity when looking at philosophy or did he have some sort of bias? What did he disagree with Rand on?

There is no guilt in doing what every human being naturally does at some level. If it is a source of guilt, then we are guilty for being human. Frankly, I've had enough of that in religion to even have patience for it in the secular world. I'm reading PAR and while the navigation of the topic after chapter 20 is more personal, it is not a bad thing because of the role of the author in the events. It is understandable and very human, and to any accusers-- I would have to ask if they've ever appreciated and known what "understanding with insight" is. It is almost like writing an autobiography in the biography. That, I think, is hard to do, when one's own life is mixed in with the biography. Barbara, I find some great insight in your book. The behaviors of the people involved were not surprising to me. But it allows me a deeper understanding of social dynamics-- an understanding that would help me now in picking and choosing what is good for me and discarding what is bad. It has also taught me a large lesson: one cannot bifurcate emotion from cognition. It is biologically impossible. Also, if I am feeling "off" in a certain situation, I'd better listen to it-- my senses might be picking up something I may not be consciously aware of right away. Kinda like "don't ignore the smoke in case it might be a fire."

Chris likes to look for the good, even if most of it looks like crap. I really like that approach, as you spent your life looking for positives... but sometimes, when you do this-- I tend to do this too-- you do get bitten once in a while. The main reason why I don't "fall for" denunciatory tribalism is that I did get bitten, badly. I learned, got up, and went on with my life. I can still look for the good, but I can also tell if something's not-so-good-- but I had to learn via life experience. But looking for the good doesn't necessarily mean you're oblivious. What's really awful is when all a person does is look for the bad-- especially in other people, and are totally oblivious to human good-- to human potential to change, grow, learn, and be joyful.

I'd probably be more into a FOR-type group as I love meeting people who can interact with me on my different facets, and therefore bring some new, interesting, independent viewpoint. Not sure if there's a more-or-less cohesive group like FOR in SF though... seems like most of SF comes from very many different aspects anyway. I'm pretty much "over" the "pure 100% Objectivist" thing by now; I would enjoy a group that is not just Objectivist but consists of many realistically-minded members who bring their own cards to the table, instead of looking to be offered cards ;) As for Osim and activism-- obviously the politics and pettiness aren't helping the movement, although the publications from all sides are valuable for anyone who wants to read about it. Maybe the focus shouldn't be on "the movement", but instead on "realistic, individual application". Yet, I still think there needs some fundamental changes-- especially in the arena of having a realistic understanding of human nature all around-- most especially where insight is as important as exsight. Love the costume; I need to practice with the face painting.

I think everyone knew what you meant and how you meant it, no worries I try to be nitpicky as to how I phrase things-- not like I'm striving for literary perfection-- but I do notice how words, phrases, and sentences can impart a perspective depending on how it's put together. Slight changes can remind me of big things. Someone else said on this forum that "Objectivism doesn't use you, you use Objectivism" and since then I have paid a lot more attention to how I interact with ideas. And how one's interaction with ideas, re: this particular thread, obviously has bad, as well as good, consequences.

This is what I do too, where when I read a piece of writing, there is always the sense of the person, and their context, behind the piece of writing. Divorcing the psychological and the cognitive from the philosophical the dumbest thing-- it perpetuates this vision that people are compartmentalized. On the other extreme, there are those that view people as monolithic structures. I see this as an inability to keep context, where there's this tendency to fly off into one or the other extreme. Hopefully my future research can help me understand why some people are more prone to this behavior (what factors are involved in it) than other people. I think in some ways she immensely lived in the "world of ideas" yet at the same time this only went so far on the introspection level. She was way more interested in what was wrong with things external to her in terms of psychology, morality, and logical consistency but not being able to apply that to herself. In a different context, it seemed she was living inside her head philosophically and trying to apply it to everything, yet the psychological barriers that she consciously or unconsciously set up hindered her. In essence, I think at times her major battles were with herself, but she did not realize it. She developed the understanding of the context of knowledge, but then it seemed like her own context of knowledge was not even accepted by herself in some cases-- and I think she didn't start off this way, but that she veered towards this as she got older. Likewise I think some people associating with her work imitated this to different degrees. Well, I hope she didn't write about paradox. If that's how it was, then it doesn't even smack of self-worth at all. Someone who has self-worth is secure in the moment of "agreeing to disagree". A person who can't handle that has no self-worth because others' opinions matter. This is dangerous. When someone can't handle difference, and on top of that disrespects someone else because they think, or do, things differently, then it opens the floodgates to allow the "denunciator" to treat the "other" as subhuman-- and if they are subhuman, any action done upon them is "legal", or even in some cases, "mandatory". Hitler didn't call the Jews "people"-- he called them "parasites", and that opened the way for allowing all kinds of atrocities. Before any action is allowed, there must be some kind of rationalization behind it to lessen the cognitive dissonance. Basically, if you change your thinking such that who you are dealing with is not human anymore-- as "evil" or "subhuman", or some such, then you allow yourself any kind of action because you have convinced yourself (and others) that since they are not up to your standards, anything goes. In a sense, it is morality without morality. Fortunately, most of the Plague is done in words, but taken to the political sphere and irresponsibly used, can be deadly. We have to understand the mind-- our own, and in general. Unfortunately, Objectivism is not the critical thinking philosophy that I thought it was, as one must use critical thinking already present in order to navigate and use it. Therefore, I think critical thinking, autonomy, self-worth, etc. must be taught first before Objectivism; if not, then the cart is pulling the donkey. And we also have to understand that there is no "one ultimate field that dictates other fields"-- that philosophy does not rule over the activities of any other field, but that it is a GUIDELINE. Philosophy does not, in reality, rule over all other fields (which I'm glad of)-- it is an interrelated field to every other field. If I am wrong, I would challenge the fact that there has not yet even been an Objectivist philosophy of mind, nor even a philosophy of science-- although there has been much done in the scientific fields of cognitive science or neuroscience-- outlapping Objectivism. As far as I know, Oism is still trying to deal with quantum mechanics. I agree. Yet what is meant by "individual, personal responsibility" must be unpacked because I can see how some would say it's "personal responsibility" to send a person, or group of people, on the way to the gates of hell. Perhaps we can all elucidate what personal responsiblity is-- as any action taken by the individual must be understood deeply by the individual that their actions have an impact and that it could possibly boomerang back onto them. So maybe an individual could take all the care in the world to make sure their actions are realistically relevant, contextually contingent, balanced, necessary, sagacious, benevolent, and unbiased. Perhaps tacking on "realistically relevant, contextually contingent, balanced, necessary, sagacious, benevolent, and unbiased" to all actions would educate: instead of just plain moralizing, why not use "realistically relevant, contextually contingent, balanced, necessary, sagacious, benevolent, and unbiased (a.k.a. nonprejudiced) moralizing"? A pedestal is not necessary for hero worship. Some people tend to act it is, though, and that's where they put the blindfold on. I think I know what you meant by this, but I like to form the sentence in another way, just to make things clear to myself and others: What use would Oism be to these types of people? This is just a way that I think about Oism, or any kind of -ism, doctrine, guideline, ruler, measure: that it never, ever, has a use for me. Instead, I put myself in the position of power, where it's always "What use would I have for this?" It keeps me alert, sane, and secure-- and it's all a matter of where to focus so that I never think/feel like I'm under any notion to be used. The tool doesn't use me, I use the tool.

Not really knowing and understanding what "having one's own self" really means. How to test this? Imagine that you are the ONLY Objectivist on the planet. If you're happy, smiling, joyful, and content with your life, loves, family, and friends in that situation, you know what it is-- because it does not depend on any other people. It depends on you, to be yourself, yet be comfortable and secure enough with yourself so that you can live your own life amongst different lives. Therefore I don't think it's Objectivism that needs to be taught. I think it's something else.

Exactly. I wrote that down in my post, but it's gotta be stated that the usual post-Bacc/grad-level+ scientist is not going to be very much interested if they can't discuss, theorize, critique, innovate, create, and change existing theories. It's within the work of a scientist to be competitive with other ideas; it's sink or swim. Scientists test ideas, their own and other people's. If that's not "allowed", then what the hell is the "objective" doing in the name "Objectivism"? I'd like to know where it says that. Infallible in regards to what? Reality? Complete in regards to what? Integrated systems: When I think of this, I think of the brain-- how it's connected, and how even if one neuron dies, the whole brain doesn't. Yet the brain is an integrated system-- yet it's a system that's continuously changing, and what's amazing is that it retains an overrall stability over a long length of time. It depends on what the integrated system is made up of. If it's made up of bivalent logic, then you have a computer. If it's made up of a system capable of parallelism, fuzzy logic, (and perhap, future innovations) and dynamic, fluid abilities, that it's much more in line with the human brain. Therefore the understanding of "integrated systems" is a big, huge "It depends". Also, "logically consistent" depends on what types of logic is being used, where, and how. Moral perfection: According to whom? Even the words "moral ambitiousness" rings a bad bell. I'm not on this race to re-iterate a secular Leviticus. I would rather something called "moral awareness and wisdom", as it does not eschew judgement, but that the judgement is realistic, benevolent, contingent, and used with mature understanding of many factors at once. I think forgiveness is on the other side of this coin. I don't think judgements should be based on 1) guilt by association, 2) seeing people or ideas as monolithic so that even if some part of them is good, they're bad because everything else is bad, 3) never changing the judgements even if the person happens to learn and grow, 4) mental crutches, 5) ideological prejudice, 6) other people jumping on some bandwagon, 7) all-or-none thinking, and 8) what other people say/approve/disapprove/support/write/etc. Each one of these is something I've done in my twenties, especially in that cult, and that I am actively trying not to do because I think they're really immature. If I fall into one of those traps, then it says something about me-- and I'm too conceited to let myself have unnecessary dependencies.

This sounds... fun, challenging, interesting, and insightful. I haven't read everyone's comments on it since I wanted to just plunk down my opinion, but I will go back and read others' opinions after I'm done. It's understandable in terms of how different people react to certain things. I think one of the fundamental understandable (but no less frustrating) things about these behaviors is the need for certainty and deep-felt (but unrealized) insecurity. Perhaps a hardlined, strong tone draws people who are in some ways divided: they have an appearance of strength but it surrounds an insecure core. I've come across lots of people like this who become leaders, and I've been someone like this. I don't think the need to draw boundaries of "us vs. them" is based on external, social issues; it is, to me, much of a result of some un-dealt with internal issue. If everything was fine for the person, then there shouldn't be a tendency to cling to anything other than one's own self, nor should there be any confusion as to where one's personal identity is. I think explanations are helpful in terms of the possibility that this kind of behavior would be understood and stopped, because destructive behavior without understanding the realities of human nature is blind, shallow, and only fuels itself. If it is, then Objectivism is nothing more than a secular religion and it will not ever "win over" 6+ billion people. "You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool everyone all the time." Most people are pretty sane and happy outside of Objectivism. And I see no difference between happiness and sanity between Oists and non. Not particularly. It arises from lack of self-responsibility, self-rule, and self-knowledge; so I guess it would more result from the person not knowing themselves and where their boundaries are. It's also due to thinking that intelligence is IT in order to "get Objectivism" (many people in the world are intelligent), and not searching for, or even understanding the need for, wisdom, balance, and maturity. But of course, I see the philosophy as a tool I use, not as anything that is identical to me; nor that because I find it incomplete and sometimes inconsistently applied means that I am personally affected. Not really, but since Objectivism is a more complex system expressed in simple language, this may be a weakness. I see this as a weakness. But different people might have different opinions. If denunciations and such are considered virtues, no one's got more of a handle on it than Christian fundamentalists. If it does arise from the personality and character of Rand, then it's really sad, because then you get to where people can't tell the difference between themselves and Ayn Rand. I don't use the phrase "hero worship", but even then, hero worship can be healthy or unhealthy. Not knowing the difference, or thinking that there is no difference, is a lack of understanding of context and the reality of using one's volition to draw appropriate personal boundaries. See #5 answer. Like the INTJ thing? If psychology didn't matter, why would the INTJ thing matter? Why would it matter what Rand was, or what another person is? I think Oism's tone draw certain types of people-- I don't see many scientists going for it, for one thing. Scientists on the whole are too skeptical, too questioning, and if going on the PhD track, too independent. I myself am very much not as much interested in it now as I have found out that what appears to be an objective, unbiased approach to knowing reality is, in fact, biased. Not only that, I got some sort of "vibe" that it was "not cool" to be unbiased, a.k.a. nonpartisan. Well, if I had that attitude, I wouldn't be doing good science. No good science = no good future. I'm interested in my future. Again, partly. If the organization refuses to support you looking at other sources, I think that's a shitty thing to do. BUT, I also think it's the individual's responsibility to themselves to make sure what and how they're putting in their minds from different organizations, even despite the organizations' pressures towards this or that approach. An educational facility, if it supports critical thinking at all, would support a person who has used their mind to come to a decision-- even if it's not in convergence with the organization. Neither organization or the individual should have any dependent attitudes on each other. So, to this question: yes, if the organization fosters a dependency. I think fostering a dependency is akin to enabling, but in order for this to work, there has to be people seeking out this type of relationship. Most likely. But I think there are a few nutcases in any field, endeavor, organization, or party. It's part of the above, in different factors, depending on the individual and their interactions with other individuals and organizations. But I think it's a lot about how strong an individual is in the face of group dynamics.

I hope to meet you and your daughter soon-- if she's at RIT, she might have a chance to meet me, since I grew up in Rochester and am considering applying to U of R. However, I am also considering a lot of schools all over the US too, so I might end up somewhere else in California, or in Florida, or ??. Sometimes I think I'm more "Objectivist" than others who actually identify, but it really doesn't matter to me. Reality is what I'm looking at when I look outward, individual self is what I practice when I look inward. So what I call myself is "objective" and what I practice is "objectivity". And it is practice, as in, a process; it is one thing I practice out of many. I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday, and we were lamenting how some people-- perhaps most-- want a simple, sound-bite answer; and then they apply a literal interpretation of that sound-bite to everything even if reality doesn't come in sound-bites, and is more subtle and complex. My friend and I figured that people were lazy-- they didn't want to have to think about things, and they were insecure-- other people's opinions mattered more than their own possible disagreement... which is why the sound-bite is popular.

Yeah, I'd just ignore the infighting and factioning, while at the same time protecting my best interests in accordance to *reality*. Basically, the people who matter don't mind, and the people who mind don't matter!

Isn't reality, life, and happiness the moral standards? Beyond that, who else besides yourself can possibly tell you what to think, how to make yourself happy, and still understand what individualism is? I agree with the other post: Who died and made [insert religious/philosophical decree] God?

Charles, thank you for your insight Jennaism is what I'm doing; I've made up my mind already to be, at most, objectivist-friendly. However, I still have questions and challenging particular perspectives may yet yield to me something I may have missed, or give me insight on a path that I do not want to go on. And getting constructive feedback helps to see what other perspectives people may have.

If this is what Peikoff's after (and I'm not entirely sure since he seems to oscillate), he's shot Objectivism in the foot; given this definition, one is Objectivist if one ignores the past 22 years of science. Or, one can listen and learn of the past 22 years (and the future) of science, integrate it, but cannot be "closed system" Objectivist-where-Objectivism-cannot-be-influenced-from-everything-else. The choice, based on this definition of "closed system" is basically: to be ahistorical (acontextual), or not. Amazing that reality never enters the equation. It IS nonsence. It makes ZERO logical sense. It's such nonsense that I truly doubt anyone really upholds this while knowing it. If so, they are operating under the biggest cognitive dissonance of their life, akin to the Bible Literalist that uses computers. So true. That's why I consider philosophy one aspect of being human; and science another aspect. They interrelate, feedback, and learn from each other. I doubt any philosophy covers the entire course of existence. Philosophy exists as a general way to inquire, proceed, and process mentally about life, reality, existence, etc. Since the only static thing about reality is that things-- including humans-- change (growth, development, neural plasticity, learning, cycles), a philosophy based on reality must adapt to change in accordance, general as it may be. If Objectivism, as this particular "closed system" definition, cannot change, how can it be internally consistent and complete? Doesn't Objectivism suggest that knowledge is contextual, we interact with reality, and that reality is the final arbitrator? If reality is the arbitrator, but we learn that Objectivism deviates from reality at some level, what happens then? Which is why I think that having a "closed system" definition and THEN making it one's personal identity is akin to mentally killing oneself. But I think people don't know that they're doing this; especially if they're under ~40 years old. For me, the definition is fine for identification-of-philosophy purposes. Therefore "closed system" must be defined only in terms of differentiating Objectivism from other philosophies; and not in terms of replacing the identity of the philosophy to human identity and individualism. While I do think Oism has many positive aspects, I also think that misapplication of its higher levels can render these positive aspects, even the axioms, null and void. While I don't think misapplication is always bad because people are not always aware of their own mental states, I'm also not really sympathetic to people who actively want to be ignorant in the face of new knowledge. Skeptical--- fine, but there's the unreasonable, partial, one-sided skepticism (some postmodernists are well know for this), and then there's the healthy, unbiased, impartial, critical thinking skepticism. Therefore I've been thinking that there must be a different perspective on what a "system" is. By looking at biology, at nature, at human behavior, at reality-- more often than not I am looking at systems that are stable because they have the capacity for adaptation, change, and dynamics.

I see it as a good starting place. Thus far there is no Oist philosophy of mind, of science, of psychology; it does not address psychology and related fields, most especially in the past ~20 years. If it is the type of "closed system" that some say it is, then it cannot have a philosophy of mind, science, psychology, nor anything else since those are not what Rand added herself, and therefore cannot be Objectivism proper (according to some definitions of "closed system").

This is baffling to me... in the adult world, why would anyone NOT notice that reality is more complex than they thought? Why would an article like this NEED to be written in the first place? Perhaps it's because I surround myself with adults who all know how complex and surprising and deep reality is. Maybe I've got a slanted view that not every adult shares. It's just... somewhat sad, that's all. Charles, it was a very wonderful article and it expresses its subject matter well. I just think it's sad that it's an issue at all, after about 2000+ years of human thinking.