Objectivist in Kuwait

[Selene]

Fine,Baal, yet dislike of a 1400-years-dead leader,does not aid a lot in discussion today.

Even Jeb B.says Saint Ronald R. was a master of compromise, and USA today is dysfunctional due to ideo=polarization.

Carol:

Jeb Bush, as much as I like him, is no friend of Reagan. He and his Rino family fought him every inch of the way. Reagan was not a master of compromise, but he was not opposed to compromise.

Are you under the assumption that the present day Republicans are the ones who are not willing to compromise with the radical left in the Democratic power centers?

If so, you are incorrect.

Adam

[haider]

I prefer PBUH when Mohammed is invoked. Pus and Blisters Upon Him.

All these years I've been working hard on better understanding people's views and presenting the most rational arguments I can think of, when what I should have been focusing on was word play.

How could I have missed this?

[jts]

I prefer PBUH when Mohammed is invoked. Pus and Blisters Upon Him.

All these years I've been working hard on better understanding people's views and presenting the most rational arguments I can think of, when what I should have been focusing on was word play.

How could I have missed this?

Probably the best single way to begin a productive discussion about Islam is to read Craig Winn's book "Prophet of Doom" or to listen to the audio of the book.

http://prophetofdoom.net/

If that is too time consuming, here are some radio interviews with Craig Winn. Warning: he talks straight.

http://prophetofdoom.net/Radio_Interviews.Islam

Another good way to start is to read articles written by Ali Sina.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Author/Sina.htm

Then you will find that Muhammad, founder of Islam, was one of the most evil individuals who ever lived. You will also find that Islam is insanity and is a war manifesto against humanity.

[Brant Gaede]

I prefer PBUH when Mohammed is invoked. Pus and Blisters Upon Him.

All these years I've been working hard on better understanding people's views and presenting the most rational arguments I can think of, when what I should have been focusing on was word play.

How could I have missed this?

You're just late to the OL party. Don't worry; you're getting up to speed. This isn't a boring place (thanks to me, me, me).

--Brant

[Mikee]

I prefer PBUH when Mohammed is invoked. Pus and Blisters Upon Him.

All these years I've been working hard on better understanding people's views and presenting the most rational arguments I can think of, when what I should have been focusing on was word play.

How could I have missed this?

A sense of humor is very, very important. It is a pleasure to know you.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My deconstruction:

Groups are formed of individuals. Individuals possess motives that govern actions. Motives are conditioned by values. Values are shaped by one's understanding of reality and his place and purpose in the world. Individuals possess a worldview - no matter how primitive or fragmented - that helps them tie their experiences together. This sets the groundwork for values. Beliefs are more fundamental to values. Our ethical judgments are based on our values. Therefore, values are more fundamental to ethics.

Beliefs -> Values -> Ethics -> Actions.

These four elements (amongst others) exist together, at the same time. But the overwhelming influence is in the direction indicated above.

Haider,

I like the way you think. I, also, am a person who deconstructs in hierarchies and logical chains in order to form my concepts and conclusions. I use them to build, too.

I'm not completely on board with your premises, though. It's not because they are false, but because they are so restricted.

But I won't go into that right now (other than to say that I miss where volition enters). After all, life is short and my posts are long.

Leave it to say I find a scope problem with Ayn Rand at times, too.

I will get into important thoughts on this as we go along, though. At least, the thoughts are important to me.

Your approach reminded me of a post I made not too long ago about beliefs and results. I went through a cycle with a direction similar to what you did, except this cycle deals with beliefs at the individual level--i.e., one that the person can control--rather than identifying beliefs that just happen or get absorbed in some manner from the culture. There's that volition thing again...

The cycle I presented goes like this:

Potential --> Action --> Results --> Beliefs

And then you start over. Here is the exposition (it's a bit long--sorry--but it's cool ) It is addressed to another OL member who was active at the time (Phil). That's why a couple of things are in the second person.

The Motivation Spiral

Speaking of stuck, when it comes to motivated action, we are all stuck in a self-generating whirligig. We have no choice about being in it. The damn thing's innate in our nature. But we do have a choice about which direction it whirls in--up or down.

It is made of four parts:

1. Potential
   
2. Action
   
3. Results
   
4. Beliefs
   

Here's a diagram, with me showing off my fabulous doodling skills:

Here's how the process works.

You have something to do, a project of some sort. You have some belief about your capability of doing it. So you call on your potentials and use them for action. This causes results and these results make you feel good or bad. This feeling and knowledge feed directly into your beliefs and off you go for another go-around.

If you get really pumped up (your beliefs), you will call on much more potential than you would if you are half-hearted. This will result in higher-quality action which will lead to great results. And this will make you feel so good you will believe you are the cat's pajamas. So you will call on even more of your potential for even higher-quality action for even better results and even more enthusiasm and self-confidence. Off you go spiraling up.

This works going down, too. If you are feeling negative, like "Why bother?", you will engage a small portion of your potential and do something half-assed. There's no need to describe the results that action will produce, is there? Well, that makes you feel even worse. You say to yourself, "See? I knew this was a waste of time!" That's one hell of a bad belief for getting something done. It will make you draw on even less potential than before, which will produce a pathetic attempt and get poorer results than before. And you will feel even worse. This will spiral down until you are paralyzed or give up altogether.

Conditions for Running the Spiral Well

There are two very important things you need to consider if you want to control this.

!. You can jump-start an upward spiral by imagining the results so intensely and so fervently that you become absolutely certain that they will happen. And you add this to a strong feeling of, "I don't want to live like I am living anymore," (i.e., without those kinds of results).

This certainty of results temporarily replaces the actual results and gives you a boost for drawing deep on your potential. That produces action and actual results and off you go. Round and round.

2. The results have to be connected to your project with all the cause-effect stuff in order. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

Well, that's just great, huh? What the hell does that mean?

Here are two examples that shed light on it.

The first is from the video at the end of this post (which is where I got this concept). The people involved are highly successful marketers. Their projects always have the same characteristics: to discover what a market wants, then get and/or produce stuff to offer to that market, then offer it and make money. It's all very neat, defined, sequenced and measurable. So it's easy to see the cause-effect chain.

If you offer stuff a market doesn't want, you will not sell. Poor cause to poor effect.

If you produce great stuff, but don't offer it, you don't sell anything. Ditto.

If your sales process is convoluted, people will walk away, even if they want the offer. If you have no idea what a market wants, you are shooting in the dark. Ditto and ditto.

On the other hand, if you find out how to offer a great product to a market starving for it and you make the buying process easy, there is no way you cannot make money. (Dayaamm, that sounded bad. Let me try that again.) So you have to make money.

All the cause and effect stuff is in order. Voila! Success!

So, to recap, the results of these guys have to include knowledge of market, offer, simple buying (and delivery) process and profit. If they leave out any of that, they run the risk of failing. And they know it. After all, they are all millionaires many times over.

Example Closer to Your Situation

Now for the second example, here is one closer to home. Suppose your project is to write a work that will "fix" the uneven parts of Objectivism and you want to get it accepted by everybody.

Try to visualize what that means in terms of results. You can see a printed book and you can see the admiring hoards. But it doesn't feel right, does it? That's because the cause-effect chain is broken in some crucial parts.

You essentially have two projects here, not one. You need to produce a work that "fixes" Objectivism. OK. It's easy enough to believe you can do that. (I'm talking about belief here, not actual capacity.)

You also want this work to be accepted by everybody. That's a sales (and/or education) project, not a production one. Just because you produce something, that is not enough of a cause to guarantee a successful acceptance effect. People have their own druthers and you have to put that on the table.

Notice that the Internet marketers took care of this problem in their projects by learning what the market wanted beforehand. Let's say they did some pre-production.

In this project closer to your interests, you are doing something nobody asked for. So if you ignore this part, here is what would most likely happen once you got started.

You imagine your book completed and the people lining up to get your autograph as the Second Coming of Rand. Cool. That's a great image. That gets you really pumped.

So you dig deep into your potential. You start to produce a top-quality book, one well-worth writing and reading. Then, there comes the moment you show some of it to someone--just for an opinion. (And don't think you won't. Everybody does. Even Rand did it.)

Instead of acceptance and adulation, the person is indifferent or contentious. Thud. Crash landing. You immediately become deflated and your belief goes into, "See? I knew this was a waste of time," mode.

You will be lucky if you ever finish your book that way.

The results you imagined to get you jump-started were not in line with the reality of your project. You put your pre-results on what "they" control, not on what you control. And you did it without any customer research.

It's almost a recipe for failure.

Examples of Production from Real Life

Now here is something I want you to notice. Both Shayne and George have gone through this process in a correct manner (spiraling up) to produce books. Even though they did not use this language.

Shayne has only written one book, but he got the thing done and published. I have no doubt that if he put public acceptance in his motivation image, it was a fleeting thought at times, not the actual motor. He knew enough to imagine the results of his own efforts (i.e., the results of his own potential and action)--not the results of the projected opinion of others--as his main driving force.

With George, this goes in spades. He's done one work after another. Imagine if he got shut down because someone said something bad about him or his work. That's even funny to think about. This dude took on ALL organized religion--hell, all religion, period, for God's sake.

Roger has his music and writing. I have no doubt he gets his energy from knowing what he does is cool--regardless of what anyone else thinks. So his whirligig spirals up as he produces one thing after another.

Public acceptance is good. I'm not saying it isn't. It gives you energy. But like I said, if you do not research your market's buying and consumption habits beforehand, public acceptance is a second project. You spiral down if you put that non-researched load on your main production project.

Where I Got This Spiral From

Here is a video of a talk between Frank Kern, John Reese and Tony Robbins. It's about 40 minutes long.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sUmooRyU0Bg?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

((NOTE FROM MSK--See the post below this one for the embedded video. This new upgrade to the forum software started to suck at this.))

Whether you like these people or not, this spiral thing is one hell of a great concept.

Granted, the belief thing with them twisting their bodies around was a little hoaky. Frankly, it looked staged. What the hell. They're marketers. Hype and BS come with the territory.

But Tony picked up on something important with Frank. I went back and looked just to make sure and, yup, it is as he said.

All three of these guys are millionaires. But notice how Frank's eyes glowed when he talked about his first two and a half thousand dollars.

This was more important to him in his memories than the millions he later made.

Why?

Because that was what jump-started his spiral going up. The rest came from there.

Tony attributes this spiral as the reason why the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.

Maybe. I don't believe it's the only reason. But it is certainly one of the main ones.

At first blush, this looks like it does not connect with the discussion we are having, but it is connected on a very deep level. I presume we are talking about applied epistemology as one of the main themes.

On a side note, I notice you keep bringing up the afterlife. I agree that this is important in religious belief systems. The actual impact on people and cultures is a long discussion that, unfortunately due to limited time, will have to unfold as we go along. I am merely mentioning it right now to signal that I am aware that this topic is important to you.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's the video for the quote in the post above:

[caroljane]

This is what I think, if anyone cares. I think Muhammad, founder of Islam, (may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his armpits) was a bad guy and he deserves a kick in the ass so hard that he gotta clear his throat to fart. For more information click on the Craig Winn links that I provided. Also the Ali Sina links. If you are not interested, then forget it.

I repeat, on OL we prefer to discuss our own ideas in our own words, and cite sources as appropriate. We also recommend sources we particularly admire. Once.

[caroljane]

I suffer fro psittacodeopobia and you exacerbate it.

[haider]

Probably the best single way to begin a productive discussion about Islam is to read Craig Winn's book "Prophet of Doom" or to listen to the audio of the book.

Define productive. It seems to me that what you mean by "productive" is: "The quickest way for Muslims to know what I think of Islam and its founder."

I think it's crucial to realize that Muslims are constantly redefining what Islam means to them and how they view the prophet.

I don't believe it's important to focus on historical accuracy as much as it is on the values and principles people uphold today. Even if Islam started off as a bloodthirsty war manifesto against humanity and Muslims have come to redefine it as a tolerant, peace-loving religion, then you will have to take their new impression into account. Trying to prove that Islam is hateful will lead to harsh cognitive dissonance because it would seem that you're talking about a completely different religion and your discussion with Muslims will lead nowhere (i.e. won't be productive, in the traditional meaning of the word).

I would be more interested in engaging with people in discussion on how they understand the world, what role scripture has in understanding human nature and ethics, how they view violence, how they associate with others of different faiths, etc. Discussing specific issues that matter to us here and now.

You will notice that many Muslims will make claims about how Islam is a peaceful religion that's compatible with science and consistent with reason, but when you get to specifics, they will advocate actions or beliefs that conflict with this claim. I am aware of this contradiction. However, this is fertile ground for Muslims to change their views on the specifics, rather than abandon science and reason.

The point isn't to prove Islam as bloodthirsty, but to help Muslims embrace a better, more humane understanding of their religion.

For example, within the Shia school of thought there is the idea that non-believers are physically impure. Therefore, if a Shia Muslim shakes hands with a non-Muslim, he will have to wash his hands. I discussed this with my wife and asked her how she would feel if a non-Muslim told her: "Excuse me, I will have to wash my hand after shaking yours." How would she feel if there were separate water fountains for Muslims and non-Muslims in the West?

She realized that in this specific issue, it seems that the Islamic rulings conflict with the spirit of Islam in the way she understood Islam, and she changed her views about this issue, rather than abandon Islam completely.

I would say that this is the sort of progress I wish to make during religious discussions. Trying to get people to change their worldview completely is often fruitless.

I hope that makes sense.

You're just late to the OL party. Don't worry; you're getting up to speed. This isn't a boring place (thanks to me, me, me).

I'm enjoying my time so for. All thanks to you, you, you, of course!

A sense of humor is very, very important. It is a pleasure to know you.

Thanks! When I have serious discussions I sometimes forget that I have a sense of humor. Thanks for pointing out how important that is.

[caroljane]

Probably the best single way to begin a productive discussion about Islam is to read Craig Winn's book "Prophet of Doom" or to listen to the audio of the book.

Define productive. It seems to me that what you mean by "productive" is: "The quickest way for Muslims to know what I think of Islam and its founder."

I think it's crucial to realize that Muslims are constantly redefining what Islam means to them and how they view the prophet.

I don't believe it's important to focus on historical accuracy as much as it is on the values and principles people uphold today. Even if Islam started off as a bloodthirsty war manifesto against humanity and Muslims have come to redefine it as a tolerant, peace-loving religion, then you will have to take their new impression into account. Trying to prove that Islam is hateful will lead to harsh cognitive dissonance because it would seem that you're talking about a completely different religion and your discussion with Muslims will lead nowhere (i.e. won't be productive, in the traditional meaning of the word).

I would be more interested in engaging with people in discussion on how they understand the world, what role scripture has in understanding human nature and ethics, how they view violence, how they associate with others of different faiths, etc. Discussing specific issues that matter to us here and now.

You will notice that many Muslims will make claims about how Islam is a peaceful religion that's compatible with science and consistent with reason, but when you get to specifics, they will advocate actions or beliefs that conflict with this claim. I am aware of this contradiction. However, this is fertile ground for Muslims to change their views on the specifics, rather than abandon science and reason.

The point isn't to prove Islam as bloodthirsty, but to help Muslims embrace a better, more humane understanding of their religion.

Exactly my viewpoint, but better expressed.

You are a boon to OL.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Assalaamu Alaikumm WR WB Haider,

Ahlan wa Sahlan!

Nice to see another Muslim on here, I hope you enjoy your stay and don't get disheartened by people like Infidel and Baal and a few others.

They're motivated and guided by hate compounded by profound ignorance.

Seal of their hearts etc.

Look forward to hearing from you more. We have a Mid East section here, it's where I mostly post when I have time. http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showforum=57

Ws!

[jts]

Listen up everybody. Don't nobody tell the truth about Islam. Telling the truth about Islam is politically incorrect. Can't have that in OL.

Don't nobody be judgemental. There is no such thing as right and wrong, true and false, good and evil. All religions must be respected no matter how bad they are. We must promote tolerance and understanding.

Aristotle and Ayn Rand were wrong about logic. A is not A. Islam is not Islam. Islam is something other than Islam. Nobody can say what Islam is because whatever it is, that is what it is not. You must understand that first before you can have a productive discussion about Islam.

[haider]

I'm not completely on board with your premises, though. It's not because they are false, but because they are so restricted.

What I presented is a model that focuses on a specific point we were discussing, namely the role of ideas in social movements. I admit there are many more factors involved, but my focus led me to drop off the non-essentials.

But I won't go into that right now (other than to say that I miss where volition enters). After all, life is short and my posts are long.

Volition determines how much attention we give to our ideas and the degree of awareness (or evasion) we exercise. The choices we are able to make with regards to the mental content of our consciousness will define the choices we make in our behavior. That's why we are able to speak of "personality types" in psychology and predict how people behave, given their mental state. We continue to exercise volition, but it's usually within a finite set of mental and behavioral possibilities, limited further by the ideas we give our attention to (and which shape our attitude).

Therefore, we exercise our volition in what beliefs we form about the world. But once we form our beliefs, there are only a few values consistent with our beliefs, leading to fewer consistent ethical values and fewer possible actions to exercise. Those who act in ways inconsistent with their professed beliefs usually hold onto contradictory, fragmented beliefs. There actions they perform stem from beliefs (possibly subconsciously held) that do not align with their professed beliefs.

But I digress.

Your approach reminded me of a post I made not too long ago about beliefs and results. I went through a cycle with a direction similar to what you did, except this cycle deals with beliefs at the individual level--i.e., one that the person can control--rather than identifying beliefs that just happen or get absorbed in some manner from the culture. There's that volition thing again...

I was referring to beliefs held at an individual level, which a person can control. However, I do see beliefs being similar to fish in a pool. The beliefs we are able to reach are limited by the beliefs we are exposed to and can mentally deduce from those. An individual can exercise volition in forming his belief system, but will struggle to make sense of his beliefs and the world if the culture promotes dysfunctional and irrational beliefs.

At first blush, this looks like it does not connect with the discussion we are having, but it is connected on a very deep level. I presume we are talking about applied epistemology as one of the main themes.

Even if it doesn't connect with the discussion, I found it personally rewarding. So thanks for sharing.

Yes, applied epistemology is what we're talking about and my current obsession. I'd like to have more discussions about this sort of thing to improve our approach to learning. I'll probably be sending you a private message to make a case for a separate forum section for Learning. Except some PM nagging soon.

On a side note, I notice you keep bringing up the afterlife. I agree that this is important in religious belief systems. The actual impact on people and cultures is a long discussion that, unfortunately due to limited time, will have to unfold as we go along. I am merely mentioning it right now to signal that I am aware that this topic is important to you.

It's not important to me, personally, but I believe it's a major factor in how people understand the world and their place in it. Belief in the afterlife can determine how people come to understand ethics, and so it's a major factor to consider when trying to understand a religious outlook on the world. Terrorists don't necessarily have evil intentions, but a worldview that encompasses an afterlife can alter the dimensions of their ethical principles. The death of innocent civilians in a crowded marketplace can seem justified, since they will die and go to heaven.

[haider]

Exactly my viewpoint, but better expressed.

You are a boon to OL.

Thank you very much.

Assalaamu Alaikumm WR WB Haider,

Ahlan wa Sahlan!

Nice to see another Muslim on here, I hope you enjoy your stay and don't get disheartened by people like Infidel and Baal and a few others.

They're motivated and guided by hate compounded by profound ignorance.

Seal of their hearts etc.

Look forward to hearing from you more. We have a Mid East section here, it's where I mostly post when I have time. http://www.objectivi...hp?showforum=57

Ws!

Wa alaikum assalam WR WB.

I'm not disheartened, and I honestly believe that their hate is justified, given their ignorance (or what facts they choose to focus on and facts they ignore).

William Scherk has already told me about you and thinks we'll have a lot to discuss. I look forward to some discussions around the forum.

Listen up everybody. Don't nobody tell the truth about Islam. Telling the truth about Islam is politically incorrect. Can't have that in OL.

Don't nobody be judgemental. There is no such thing as right and wrong, true and false, good and evil. All religions must be respected no matter how bad they are. We must promote tolerance and understanding.

Aristotle and Ayn Rand were wrong about logic. A is not A. Islam is not Islam. Islam is something other than Islam. Nobody can say what Islam is because whatever it is, that is what it is not. You must understand that first before you can have a productive discussion about Islam.

I don't see political correctness having a place in ideological discussions, and that's not what I'm encouraging.

But "A is A" refers to a fundamental attribute of reality, not a phenomena such as Islam, which is open to a wide range of interpretations. In this discussion you're using "A" to refer to all contradictory interpretations that exist within that label. If you choose to lump Thomas Aquinas along with St. Augustine under the label "Christian" you are free to do so, but you'll have a distorted impression of reality and the role Aquinas played in paving the way towards the Enlightenment.

Similarly, not all Muslims understand Islam the way you understand it. Not all of them approve of the sources you quote. The interpretation of the Koran is not as simple as quoting verses from it, no matter how reliable the translations you use. You remind me of the Muslims who say: "All Americans are the same" or "All Westerners are the same." These generalizations may seem ridiculous to you, but it's how some Muslims view the world, and it seems to me that's how you view all Muslims.

If you want to have a productive discussion with Muslims about Islam, it's useful to follow Steven Covey's maxim of: "seek first to understand, then to be understood." Ask the Muslim what he thinks Islam means, rather than tell him what you think it means. That way, even if the Muslim's understanding of Islam is historically inaccurate, at least you have gained an accurate understanding of what he thinks Islam is, and you can use that as the benchmark for future discussions.

Like I said, trying to insist on historical accuracy usually doesn't lead to fruitful results.

[Libertarian Muslim]

I'm not disheartened, and I honestly believe that their hate is justified, given their ignorance (or what facts they choose to focus on and facts they ignore).

Very true, I must admit however that I find people that are willfully ignorant about issues yet still hold an opinion on it to be very annoying.

William Scherk has already told me about you and thinks we'll have a lot to discuss. I look forward to some discussions around the forum.

Ah yes, William Scherk. He's a very enthusiastic guy, great heart.

[kluss]

but arenot dubai (or how it was until it did crash ) as close as you can come a objectvist city state in real life ?

ajamn emeriate are maybe what happen when the boared of govoner in a objectvist stae when there free amrket system crash ;)