Carlos Castaneda

[moralist]

I don't get the impression that Greg cares a whole lot whether CC had a right to expect any privacy on this issue,

No one who is out in public has any right to expect privacy because they never had it in the first place and never will. In any city you are constantly being filmed by countless numbers of hidden and visible security cameras.

I'm aware of your efforts to try to couch this in terms of an innocent betrayed victim Ceasar being stabbed while he cries "Et tu, Brutus", so you are welcome to try your very best.

In fact, according to Greg's oft-stated perspective, CC got exactly what he chose and what he deserved.

There's no need to make it personal. Everyone gets what they deserve as the consequences of their own actions. That includes you, me, and everyone else.

Greg

Okay. I didn't know you were filming CC "out in public." I thought you were filming him within the context of privacy, i.e., where he was among people he considered friends, etc.

I understand. It's easy to assume the worst.

Greg

Perhaps I assumed the worst because of your statement up-thread: "We became curious about Carlos because he was so secretive, and absolutely no one outside of the cult knew anything about him, how he lived, or even where he lived. We secretly followed him for a year before deciding to see if we could film him, which was forbidden.

Not forbidden by law. Forbidden by Carlos.

He held a sorceric belief that he called "erasing personal history" where he destroyed any photographic evidence of himself to which he had access. When he was the March 1973 cover story in Time magazine, there was no cover photo because he wouldn't allow any pictures to be taken of him.

Are you aware that everyone around you is holding camera/phones? Because if you were, it would become obvious how unreasonable the feelings of entitlement to privacy are when anyone is out in public.

Greg

[moralist]

"We became curious about Carlos because he was so secretive, and absolutely no one outside of the cult knew anything about him, how he lived, or even where he lived. We secretly followed him for a year before deciding to see if we could film him, which was forbidden. Gabi's decision to write a book was made long after the fact."

This doesn't sound like filming somebody in public to me.

Did you film him only in public?

Frankly, I think they are both lucky they didn't get shot by his predatory female phalanx...

None of them packed heat.

Greg

[Mikee]

"Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them to become what they are capable of being." Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

Wow, talk about name dropper. Goethe: highest IQ of any human who ever lived?

You are confusing IQ with genius. And we cannot say what the IQs of people were who were never tested. Durk Pearson graduated from MIT in 1965 with a triple major and an IQ so high MIT couldn't measure it. While I have to think of him as a genius--what else is there to do with so much brain power?--there are also authentic geniuses, historically, with not much more than half of that for they get called a genius by virtue of their actual accomplished work, not any test.

--Brant

Ha! Where did I say "genius"? Besides, the opinion isn't mine. And most of the people on the list were not "tested". Their IQ's were estimated from their works. Reading about Goethe makes me want to read Faust. Sounds depressing though.

[moralist]

Your personal experience has included me calling you "a very confused and ignorant yet pompous novice". (the rest is more of the same)

In reality, your expressions of ill will are your own personal experience, because they reside within of yourself. And they are only a result of the kind of person you have chosen to be. So you are the only one who harvests the just and deserved consequences of your own attitude.

I'm just someone who reads your virtual words on my monitor. This is because the internet is not the real world. It's just the virtual world of anonymous interactive public television. The real world is where people interact directly and personally. The standard of moral behavior and its consequences is naturally higher when people interact face to face as adults in the real world.

Greg

[moralist]

"Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them to become what they are capable of being." Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

Are you saying this is equivalent to Greg's stated axiom? Because I don't see it. If that is what he is trying to say, then he's saying it poorly.

You're right. I'm expressing a different idea. I'm saying that it is your personal responsibility to set the moral tone in your interactions with others.

I do agree with Tony's quote... and can add that it is impossible to fulfill that moral directive without first being what you ought to be.

Greg

[moralist]

"We became curious about Carlos because he was so secretive, and absolutely no one outside of the cult knew anything about him, how he lived, or even where he lived. We secretly followed him for a year before deciding to see if we could film him, which was forbidden. Gabi's decision to write a book was made long after the fact."

This doesn't sound like filming somebody in public to me.

Did you film him only in public?

Frankly, I think they are both lucky they didn't get shot by his predatory female phalanx...

Adam: you forget, however, that there is no luck in Greg's system.

Yes. There are only actions and their consequences.

When there is no malice, there is no danger.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

"Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them to become what they are capable of being." Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

Wow, talk about name dropper. Goethe: highest IQ of any human who ever lived?

You are confusing IQ with genius. And we cannot say what the IQs of people were who were never tested. Durk Pearson graduated from MIT in 1965 with a triple major and an IQ so high MIT couldn't measure it. While I have to think of him as a genius--what else is there to do with so much brain power?--there are also authentic geniuses, historically, with not much more than half of that for they get called a genius by virtue of their actual accomplished work, not any test.

--Brant

Ha! Where did I say "genius"? Besides, the opinion isn't mine. And most of the people on the list were not "tested". Their IQ's were estimated from their works. Reading about Goethe makes me want to read Faust. Sounds depressing though.

Ha, ha! I clicked on the link!

--Brant

if you now say Ha, ha, ha! I'll say Ha, ha, ha, ha!

[Selene]

"We became curious about Carlos because he was so secretive, and absolutely no one outside of the cult knew anything about him, how he lived, or even where he lived. We secretly followed him for a year before deciding to see if we could film him, which was forbidden. Gabi's decision to write a book was made long after the fact."

This doesn't sound like filming somebody in public to me.

Did you film him only in public?

Frankly, I think they are both lucky they didn't get shot by his predatory female phalanx...

Adam: you forget, however, that there is no luck in Greg's system.

Yes. There are only actions and their consequences.

When there is no malice, there is no danger.

Greg

Greg:

You are eliminating a "random event" that you have no control over as non-existent?

A...

[Mikee]

"Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them to become what they are capable of being." Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

Wow, talk about name dropper. Goethe: highest IQ of any human who ever lived?

You are confusing IQ with genius. And we cannot say what the IQs of people were who were never tested. Durk Pearson graduated from MIT in 1965 with a triple major and an IQ so high MIT couldn't measure it. While I have to think of him as a genius--what else is there to do with so much brain power?--there are also authentic geniuses, historically, with not much more than half of that for they get called a genius by virtue of their actual accomplished work, not any test.

--Brant

Ha! Where did I say "genius"? Besides, the opinion isn't mine. And most of the people on the list were not "tested". Their IQ's were estimated from their works. Reading about Goethe makes me want to read Faust. Sounds depressing though.

Ha, ha! I clicked on the link!

--Brant

if you now say Ha, ha, ha! I'll say Ha, ha, ha, ha!

alcohol powered posting...

Not me...you! You don't make any sense. You're forgiven. My laughter is genuine.

[Brant Gaede]

"Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them to become what they are capable of being." Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

Wow, talk about name dropper. Goethe: highest IQ of any human who ever lived?

You are confusing IQ with genius. And we cannot say what the IQs of people were who were never tested. Durk Pearson graduated from MIT in 1965 with a triple major and an IQ so high MIT couldn't measure it. While I have to think of him as a genius--what else is there to do with so much brain power?--there are also authentic geniuses, historically, with not much more than half of that for they get called a genius by virtue of their actual accomplished work, not any test.

--Brant

Ha! Where did I say "genius"? Besides, the opinion isn't mine. And most of the people on the list were not "tested". Their IQ's were estimated from their works. Reading about Goethe makes me want to read Faust. Sounds depressing though.

Ha, ha! I clicked on the link!

--Brant

if you now say Ha, ha, ha! I'll say Ha, ha, ha, ha!

alcohol powered posting...

Not me...you! You don't make any sense. You're forgiven. My laughter is genuine.

Half a glass of wine? Wow!

--Brant

Jesus doesn't make it fast enough

[moralist]

"We became curious about Carlos because he was so secretive, and absolutely no one outside of the cult knew anything about him, how he lived, or even where he lived. We secretly followed him for a year before deciding to see if we could film him, which was forbidden. Gabi's decision to write a book was made long after the fact."

This doesn't sound like filming somebody in public to me.

Did you film him only in public?

Frankly, I think they are both lucky they didn't get shot by his predatory female phalanx...

Adam: you forget, however, that there is no luck in Greg's system.

Yes. There are only actions and their consequences.

When there is no malice, there is no danger.

Greg

Greg:

You are eliminating a "random event" that you have no control over as non-existent?

A...

Yes.

That's the baggage that comes along with knowing that God created all of the physical and moral laws which order the consequences of the behavior everything and everyone.

But those laws do not control you. They only control the consequences you set into motion by your own actions. So that leaves you solely in possession of the power to choose how you will respond to every "random" event to make it either work to your benefit or your detriment.

To be respectfully reverently mindful of those sacred laws is to learn to love them by living and to moving in harmony with the flow of events ordered by those laws.

Greg

[Selene]

"We became curious about Carlos because he was so secretive, and absolutely no one outside of the cult knew anything about him, how he lived, or even where he lived. We secretly followed him for a year before deciding to see if we could film him, which was forbidden. Gabi's decision to write a book was made long after the fact."

This doesn't sound like filming somebody in public to me.

Did you film him only in public?

Frankly, I think they are both lucky they didn't get shot by his predatory female phalanx...

Adam: you forget, however, that there is no luck in Greg's system.

Yes. There are only actions and their consequences.

When there is no malice, there is no danger.

Greg

Greg:

You are eliminating a "random event" that you have no control over as non-existent?

A...

Yes.

That's the baggage that comes along with knowing that God created all of the physical and moral laws which order the consequences of the behavior everything and everyone.

But those laws do not control you.

No one argued that they did.

Essentially you would side with the physicist that argues that God does not roll dice.

[moralist]

"We became curious about Carlos because he was so secretive, and absolutely no one outside of the cult knew anything about him, how he lived, or even where he lived. We secretly followed him for a year before deciding to see if we could film him, which was forbidden. Gabi's decision to write a book was made long after the fact."

This doesn't sound like filming somebody in public to me.

Did you film him only in public?

Frankly, I think they are both lucky they didn't get shot by his predatory female phalanx...

Adam: you forget, however, that there is no luck in Greg's system.

Yes. There are only actions and their consequences.

When there is no malice, there is no danger.

Greg

Greg:

You are eliminating a "random event" that you have no control over as non-existent?

A...

Yes.

That's the baggage that comes along with knowing that God created all of the physical and moral laws which order the consequences of the behavior everything and everyone.

But those laws do not control you.

No one argued that they did.

I know. I merely answered the question that was asked.

Essentially you would side with the physicist that argues that God does not roll dice.

Absolutely. God does not roll dice. He only created the physical laws that govern the behavior of all dice.

Greg

[anthony]

"Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them to become what they are capable of being." Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

Are you saying this is equivalent to Greg's stated axiom? Because I don't see it. If that is what he is trying to say, then he's saying it poorly.

Not quite. It was somewhat suggestive of it I thought. Goethe's quote has a ring about it I like - I've thought that if you remove any hint of categorical duty and obligation from his meaning - assume a known person who's own voluntary goals are implicit and/or explicit to you - and not hold them as your future responsibility - you end up with one element of the Objectivist virtue of benevolence. As a result, without the least self-sacrifice or patronizing of the person, with something which is quite minor (only one word, sometimes) this honest good will might open a door to him realizing his 'justice in reality'.

[Jonathan]

In reality, your expressions of ill will are your own personal experience, because they reside within of yourself. And they are only a result of the kind of person you have chosen to be. So you are the only one who harvests the just and deserved consequences of your own attitude.

I haven't expressed ill will. It doesn't make me happy to identify the reality that you have foolish beliefs and that you act like a guru-wannabe. I actually have good will toward you, in that I wish you'd become more rational and coherent. Apparently you only see me as expressing ill will because it resides within yourself.

I'm just someone who reads your virtual words on my monitor. This is because the internet is not the real world. It's just the virtual world of anonymous interactive public television. The real world is where people interact directly and personally. The standard of moral behavior and its consequences is naturally higher when people interact face to face as adults in the real world.

Are you saying that in the real world, when you interact directly and personally with others, you don't talk the nonsense guru-wannabe gibberish that you talked on the Do We Learn to Love Bad Art thread, and that you don't make the kind of ridiculous judgments that you made there? If you were to talk to me like that in person, you'd get the same response that you got from me here.

J

[moralist]

In reality, your expressions of ill will are your own personal experience, because they reside within of yourself. And they are only a result of the kind of person you have chosen to be. So you are the only one who harvests the just and deserved consequences of your own attitude.

I haven't expressed ill will.

Since we each have a different view on that, there's nothing further to discuss.

Greg

[moralist]

"Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them to become what they are capable of being." Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

Are you saying this is equivalent to Greg's stated axiom? Because I don't see it. If that is what he is trying to say, then he's saying it poorly.

Not quite. It was somewhat suggestive of it I thought. Goethe's quote has a ring about it I like - I've thought that if you remove any hint of categorical duty and obligation from his meaning - assume a known person who's own voluntary goals are implicit and/or explicit to you - and not hold them as your future responsibility - you end up with one element of the Objectivist virtue of benevolence. As a result, without the least self-sacrifice or patronizing of the person, with something which is quite minor (only one word, sometimes) this honest good will might open a door to him realizing his 'justice in reality'.

I like how you refined your point, Tony.

It's possible for others to help themselves simply by being who you are. Because what you are inside is what sets the moral tone of your interactions with those around you. People will follow your lead... for better or for worse. So observing what happens will tell you about yourself.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Essentially you would side with the physicist that argues that God does not roll dice.

Absolutely. God does not roll dice. He only created the physical laws that govern the behavior of all dice.

Greg

So, before he made those laws he rolled dice?

--Brant

x reality and God is left over?

[moralist]

Essentially you would side with the physicist that argues that God does not roll dice.

Absolutely. God does not roll dice. He only created the physical laws that govern the behavior of all dice.

Greg

So, before he made those laws he rolled dice?

No laws, no dice.

While I don't roll dice, I do enjoy playing Poker with friends, which operates on the same principle. What we call random chance can be great entertainment.

x reality and God is left over?

Only transcendent can create mundane.

[Brant Gaede]

Essentially you would side with the physicist that argues that God does not roll dice.

Absolutely. God does not roll dice. He only created the physical laws that govern the behavior of all dice.

Greg

So, before he made those laws he rolled dice?

No laws, no dice.

While I don't roll dice, I do enjoy playing Poker with friends, which operates on the same principle. What we call random chance can be great entertainment.

x reality and God is left over?

Only transcendent can create mundane.

Only the mundane can create the transcendent or something no evidence can be adduced for.

--Brant

man made God in his own image (and Rand made Galt)

the commonly understood monotheistic God merely re-enforces patriarchy which is/was the whole point even to the point of pedophilia in one case

God is everywhere and in and of everything, God is reality itself and God apart from all of this is anyone's refusal to be an adult in this or any imaginable world--such a person needs to be controlled for lack of self control and religion--even philosophy--plus the state does that sorta nicely if they don't overlap too much, as with Islam

[PDS]

The commonly understood monotheistic God--assuming this phrase is not itself a contradiction in terms--does far more than "merely re-enforce[ ] patriarchy."

[moralist]

Only the mundane can create the transcendent or something no evidence can be adduced for.

That's the other view of God. And both exist so that each of us can freely choose. There is something beneficent about offering the freedom to deny, because it makes possible the freedom to affirm. There is no coercion in love.

An example:

(nature.com)

Each of us has enough DNA to reach from here to the sun and back, MORE THAN 300 TIMES. (~27,000,000,000 miles) How is all of that DNA packaged so tightly into chromosomes and squeezed into a tiny nucleus?

The haploid human genome contains approximately 3 billion base pairs of DNA packaged into 23 chromosomes. Of course, most cells in the body (except for female ova and male sperm) are diploid, with 23 pairs of chromosomes. That makes a total of 6 billion base pairs of DNA per cell. Because each base pair is around 0.34 nanometers long (a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter), each diploid cell therefore contains about 2 meters of DNA [(0.34 × 10^-9) × (6 × 10⁹)]. Moreover, it is estimated that the human body contains about 50 trillion cells—which works out to 100 trillion meters of DNA per human. Now, consider the fact that the Sun is 150 billion meters from Earth. This means that each of us has enough DNA to go from here to the Sun and back more than 300 times, or around Earth's equator 2.5 million times! How is this possible?

For me, I use my freedom to acknowledge the reality of an exquisitely creative transcendent design which is completely consistent with rational logical well ordered physical laws.

...while you exercise exactly the same freedom to attribute it to blind dumb stupid mindless idiotic chaotic random chance.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Only the mundane can create the transcendent or something no evidence can be adduced for.

That's the other view of God. And both exist so that each of us can freely choose. There is something beneficent about offering the freedom to deny, because it makes possible the freedom to affirm. There is no coercion in love.

An example:

(nature.com)

This denial of all claims to any objective truth is implicitly contradicted by your claim(s) of objective truth respecting all your statements including the one above. God may not roll dice but you do, all over the place. This is an affront to a God who doesn't by your own asseveration.

--Brant

[moralist]

Only the mundane can create the transcendent or something no evidence can be adduced for.

That's the other view of God. And both exist so that each of us can freely choose. There is something beneficent about offering the freedom to deny, because it makes possible the freedom to affirm. There is no coercion in love.

An example:

(nature.com)

This denial of all claims to any objective truth is implicitly contradicted by your claim(s) of objective truth respecting all your statements including the one above.

You ignored that truth just like everyone else did, Brant...

I've referenced before that astounding truth about the DNA in just your own body if strung end to end would make a line over 27 BILLION MILES long... and so far no atheist has dared touch it with a ten foot pole for fear of revealing how irrational it is for them to deny the sublime order of precisely specific physical laws that make their existence possible.

And that's the beauty of the free choice we both enjoy. You are just as free to deny the rational logical meaning of that physical fact... as I am to affirm it. And neither of us is under any coercion in any manner to hold the two different views we hold.

There is another difference between these two views. While we both can behold exactly the same exquisite natural beauty of Earth, your view of this natural world is completely devoid of gratitude.

God may not roll dice but you do, all over the place. This is an affront to a God who doesn't by your own asseveration.

Oops. You ignored another obvious fact, Brant... I'm not God.

I have the freedom to do whatever I see fit to do... and so do you.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

I know about the "astounding truth of the DNA in [my] own body," altho I didn't know how long it was. I also know it doesn't get much simpler in single-cellled organisms and, no, I have no explanation for that, but that gives me no truck to throw "God" into the mix except as a marker. It's going to be far easier for the human mind to get around the complexity of physical existence compared to where life has come from. For now, if not forever, that's a hard stop.

--Brant

the difference between God as the creator and God as reality is that the creator is a particularization, but not one we have evidence for, while reality is a generalization of seemingly infinite particulars, so the hard stop remains for both, leaving faith for the first and nothing for the second, which is metaphysically the same thing respecting knowledge--it may even be there are billions of universes not just one with billions of galaxies: blabber, blabber, blabber