Why does man need a code of values?

[Laure]

Hi all,

I thought I'd start a new thread on this, because the big ethics thread that's going on now is getting into a very technical is-ought discussion, and I want to bring the discussion back to basics.

Dragonfly on the other thread stated that he ONLY regarded morality as having to do with how you treat other people, and never morally judged his own actions that only involved himself. Being a long-time Objectivist, Rand's egoistic ethics seems second-nature and totally obvious to me, so this statement just left me thinking, "Huh??"

In thinking about it some more, it comes back to Rand's original question: do we need morality at all, and if so, why? So, for Dragonfly and others who believe morality only has to do with our relationship to other people: Why do you care, then? Why even worry about "being good" if it isn't "good for you" to be good? Do you fear God's punishment? If not, why should I give a damn about trying to treat other people properly? Why is it important?

[Victor Pross]

Laure, I suppose you got the strong leads I was giving on the ethics thread to direct the conversation to this very same question. It strikes me as odd that there are people who consider “morality” as analogous to “altruism”—or that it is entirely focused on what we do for other people or avoid doing to them. Is ethics about respecting life after all—so long as it’s centered on—not your own---(gasp) but that of other people!

In time, I would like to write more on this question. Meanwhile, I wanted to acknowledge your thread.

Edited March 17, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

Mainstream traditional moral thought has usually had some kind of altruistic thread running through it somewhere. But it's really not necessary, the way I look at it. Morals, you know? Even if morality were limited to inter-human dealings, that would include how you deal with yourself.

Nathaniel says the most important moral judgment you'll ever make is the one you make on yourself, for that matter.

I mean, it's entirely possible for me to treat myself unethically.

Dealing with yourself morally is required even if you're away from the rest of humanity. If you were trapped on a well-supplied island for years and years, and the supplies included a huge stockpile of liquor, you might be confronted with deciding whether or not you want to drink yourself into degeneracy. No one's around, what does it matter? It matters to you, dumbass! Why would it be unethical to turn into a sot? Well, at least for me it goes to the evolution of existence--it seems very obvious that if I have all this fancy brain equipment, even from a pure application standpoint there must be some higher purpose for me other than laying around in a sloppy fog. Gotta be! If not, I wouldn't have all this high tech bio-wiring--I'd have a little nub on the end of my spine. It's a matter of reverence for man at his highest, what he is capable of being. I would go so far as say what he should be, but that starts a whole 'nother thing.

I'm with Laure, I don't get it.

Edited March 17, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Daniel Barnes]

Laure:

>the big ethics thread that's going on now is getting into a very technical is-ought discussion, and I want to bring the discussion back to basics.

Hi Laure,

IMO, the debate over the dualism of facts and decisions is a discussion of the basics. The dualism of facts and decisions is fundamental. Unfortunately the debate does not feature much exciting or romantic language, but I don't think it's got overly technical yet. Certainly Objectivists recognise the validity of the rules of standard deductive logic, and that means they can share at least some valuable common ground with their critics - a situation which is easier than say some branches of Marxism, who think there are different logics for different classes...;-) While there are clear differences in language, in the use of terms - which incidentally, I argue, like the jargon in many other philosophers, serves to mask many of the problems with Rand's arguments - I am confident these can be eventually overcome.

Given this mutual acceptance, some of the people there, myself included, are raising quite basic logical criticisms (starting from Hume) of Rand's ethical claims, and also their interpretation. If these criticisms turn out to be valid - and I certainly do not think supporters of Rand's arguments are having an altogether easy time of it thus far - then we should be careful not to dismiss them out of hand as obscure technicalities (I assure you they are nowhere near as complex as logic can get. These criticisms are in fact quite ordinary). For if Objectivists accept standard deductive logic, and Objectivist arguments can be shown to be faulty by those standards, then this is a serious problem, even if it is not put in very dramatic language. If you are not all that familiar with some of the logical background, I sincerely recommend that it is worth an investment of your time examining it - especially if this is a philosophy that you are going to be highly committed to.

>In thinking about it some more, it comes back to Rand's original question: do we need morality at all, and if so, why?

Some people use "ethics" and "morality" interchangeably, referring to our responsibilities to others; alternatively some use "ethics" to mean how we conduct ourselves with other people, and "morality" to mean a kind of mode of personal behaviour; a kind of "rules for the self". I don't mind either way, but I think the issues are somewhat different (the making of a 'self' is a highly controversial and interesting issue in itself), so to avoid confusion I would prefer to stick to "ethics" or "morality" as being our responsibilities or conduct with others for the purposes of this discussion.

Obviously we need ethics because our interests as individuals can clash with the interests of other individuals. Rand hoped to resolve such clashes by starting from a level of individual survival - that "it is good for you to be good" - but was forced to equivocate from the start between this conception of "life" and an altogether vaguer "man qua man", as otherwise this would force her into a rather unpleasant version of selfish individualism. (Some still pick up on this first meaning she uses, but not the second highly equivocal one - for example, Joe Rowlands, Rick Passotto and some others memorably argued at the old Solo that one is perfectly morally justified to leave your baby outside to die of exposure if you so desire, as you have no duty whatsoever to it - to do otherwise would be altruistic. And we can hardly accuse them of being new to Objectivism).

I conjecture that the reason we should treat other people properly is that they are "selves" too. We can understand their suffering, even feel it through empathy. Through this emerges what's called the golden rule, about treating others as you would like to be treated. This does not avoid clashes, it must be emphasised. No moral system can. (Rand's "no conflict between rational men" is IMO merely wishful thinking). However, we can use reason as our best chance to resolve such clashes as peacefully as possible, tho nothing guarantees this - and such resolutions, as with a good debate, can in fact be highly productive. Without reason, however, without rules for mutual understanding, the only resolution must be force or accident.

So hopefully that summarises my position at least.

Edited March 17, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Laure]

Daniel, thanks for your reply.

I have not studied philosophy other than Rand, so I went and read some Wikipedia articles on Hume and is-ought to catch up a little bit. ;) What I read didn't state that Hume addressed the question of why we need morality, but rather the question of why we have morality, and answered that we have it because we humans have empathy for others. Is that correct in a nutshell?

Are you saying that we don't really need a code of ethics, but it's sort of hard-wired into us in the form of empathy? Or that we need ethics to form a basis for laws to sort out the conflicts of men's interests? (If this is it, we still have the question of why we should try to balance men's interests in the first place; couldn't we just let the guy with the biggest club win?)

In contrast, I think Rand implies that holding our own lives and happiness as our ultimate value is hard-wired into us (if we're normal), and what we need morality for is to help us protect and further our own lives and happiness.

[Victor Pross]

Daniel,

I occur with Laure. I have a further question to expand on her points. Let me ask you: Is it fair to say—at all—that the moral prescription (description?) that you put forward comes back full circle to the question of human life at root, that is—be that life one’s own or that of others? Have it whatever way you wish.

-Victor

By the way, I appreciate the baby example you provided us with. What greater thing can tug at the heart strings to illustrate a point than a little baby at death’s door. LIFE, danny boy, life! :turned:

Edited March 18, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Kat]

Why on earth would anyone want higher standards when they are in front of others than they do for themselves? People's vaues shouldn't change based on who is watching. That is just phoney.

Kat

[Daniel Barnes]

Laure:

>Are you saying that we don't really need a code of ethics, but it's sort of hard-wired into us in the form of empathy? Or that we need ethics to form a basis for laws to sort out the conflicts of men's interests?

The latter. I also would hesitate to generalise about empathy being 'hardwired'; there is some good evidence emerging that some altruistic behaviour is 'hardwired', but it is scarcely conclusive. Further, there are clearly some people who congenitally lack empathy, like various forms of autism and 'mindblindness'. So I would be cautious here.

>(If this is it, we still have the question of why we should try to balance men's interests in the first place; couldn't we just let the guy with the biggest club win?)

There are several possible defenses against the doctrine that might is right; but we are up against the dualism of facts and decisions again, in that there seems to be no ultimately sound defense. Again, we must choose - it is our individual responsibility that we cannot shirk. Thus if we choose to pursue peaceful productivity as an end, we must take moral/ethical responsibility for this choice. Likewise, if we choose brutal force and might is right as an end, we must take responsibility for the consequences.

Further, I might add that if morality and ethics were somehow ultimately 'hardwired', this would be the equivalent in effect to them being logically derivable; that is to say, it would remove the burden of responsibility for our decisions from our shoulders. Thus there would be no need for ethics, for as Rand herself recognised, there can be no moral weight to decisions we are forced to make.

>In contrast, I think Rand implies that holding our own lives and happiness as our ultimate value is hard-wired into us (if we're normal), and what we need morality for is to help us protect and further our own lives and happiness.

I do not deny that our own lives and happiness are extremely important, and indeed very important to others who we have responsibility to. Think of the advice you get on airline safety briefings, to make sure your oxygen mask is securely fitted before attending to those of our children. But I do deny that holding our own life and happiness as some kind of "ultimate value" will lead anywhere but into a barren, scholastic discussion over "what do you mean by 'life'?" or further, "what is the essence of life?". Disputes of this nature are not logically resolvable, and lead to the problem of verbalism i that is one of the very unfortunate legacies of Aristotle and Plato (that is, the habit of replacing arguments about problems or theories with arguments over the "essential" meanings of words). People will be able to throw any old action in there and justify it due to the vagueness of terms like "life" or "human nature" (Judging from his post above, Victor has not registered this point, though I have already made it to him on the previous thread)

Edited March 18, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Victor Pross]

Daniel,

(Heavy dishearten sigh). Again with the snotty retort. I register the point just fine, thank you. No, this discussion does not have to take a turn into a scholastic discussion of “what do you mean by life?” and the like when lay people—who are very much alive—sufficiently understand the concept “LIFE”. Come on.

You see, this is where I get all suspicious like—when simple and straightforward questions go unanswered, or else are skirted over with fat chewing around the edges to give the impression that the question is being addressed. Come on, don’t have MSK come out accusing me of being all Ortho-like when my question is so simple and straight forward. We need not study any specialized field—like biology for example—to understand that the remarks you or I put forward have no relevancy if the concept of life (or the quality of life) is not implicit as a value consideration. Why should men resolve conflict or avoid it? Why have social utility and civility at all? Why rescue freezing babies? Why work for a living? Why should we be productive? Why should we think? Why should we take vacations? Why should we practice the golden rule? Why?

So my question still apples: Is it fair to say—at all—that the moral prescription (description?) that you put forward comes back full circle to the question of human life at root, that is—be that life one’s own or that of others?

-Victor

Edited March 18, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Laure]

Further, I might add that if morality and ethics were somehow ultimately 'hardwired', this would be the equivalent in effect to them being logically derivable; that is to say, it would remove the burden of responsibility for our decisions from our shoulders. Thus there would be no need for ethics, for as Rand herself recognised, there can be no moral weight to decisions we are forced to make.

I don't see how "hardwired" is the equivalent of "logically derivable", and how if something is logically derivable we no longer have to make moral decisions. A person could still choose to be illogical, thus immoral.

(P.S. Go Victor! )

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>So my question still apples: Is it fair to say—at all—that the moral prescription (description?) that you put forward comes back full circle to the question of human life at root, that is—be that life one’s own or that of others?

And my answer still applies: you are perfectly welcome to ask that question, but I predict it will not get you very far.

For example: I may choose to commit suicide. Is this an immoral act, if you have adopted "life" as a standard?

Rather than a yes or no, as you might expect with a useful standard, I predict the discussion will then move to one along the lines of "it depends" and then to "it depends what you mean by 'life'" ie: a debate over the meaning of a term. As debates over terms cannot be logically resolved, then the term "life" will diluted to become so vague (eg "life as man qua man") that even its opposite, death, will be able to be justified. Thus you will be able to justify almost anything; even the term's opposite meaning. Therefore it is not much of a standard!

Edited March 18, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Daniel Barnes]

Laure:

>I don't see how "hardwired" is the equivalent of "logically derivable", and how if something is logically derivable we no longer have to make moral decisions.

Hi Laure

You do not have any choice about the outcome of a logical derivation. If "All men are mortal", and "Socrates is a man", the conclusion must be "Socrates is mortal" whether you like it or not. You have no choice in the matter. Hence the analogy.

>A person could still choose to be illogical, thus immoral.

Most people are not very good with logic, but I doubt this would make them immoral! Hence this does not sound like a very useful standard...;-)

[Victor Pross]

Victor:

>So my question still apples: Is it fair to say—at all—that the moral prescription (description?) that you put forward comes back full circle to the question of human life at root, that is—be that life one’s own or that of others?

And my answer still applies: you are perfectly welcome to ask that question, but I predict it will not get you very far.

For example: I may choose to commit suicide. Is this an immoral act, if you have adopted "life" as a standard?

Rather than a yes or no, I predict the discussion will then move to one along the lines of "it depends" and then to "it depends what you mean by 'life'" ie: a debate over the meaning of a term. As debates over terms cannot be logically resolved, then the term "life" will diluted to become so vague (eg "life as man qua man") that even its opposite, death, will be able to be justified. Thus you will be able to justify almost anything; even the term's opposite meaning. Therefore it is not much of a standard!

No, Daniel, it does not logically necessitate that this line of questioning...

"it depends" [pertaining to the question of suicide]

....must follow up with this line of questioning: "it depends what you mean by 'life'"

I followed the bouncing ball and all I see is a philosophy student on thin ice, fighting for the life of the argument. :turned:

-Victor

Edited March 18, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>No, Daniel, it does not logically necessitate that this line of questioning...

Very well then Victor:

If we adopt "life" as our standard, does this make suicide immoral?

Yes or no?

[Victor Pross]

Victor:

>No, Daniel, it does not logically necessitate that this line of questioning...

Very well then Victor:

If we adopt "life" as our standard, does this make suicide immoral?

Yes or no?

Daniel, I will think about this question alone without giving a knee-jerk answer. But let’s imagine a fun little scenario: let’s say you push me into a logical corner where the question of “life” does present a logical puzzle in terms of connecting it to ethics—but then, why this concern over the life of a baby or, more broadly speaking, others? Why does all that matter? Why? Can't get away from that question. That will always be hanging over you since you answered my question “what is the purpose of ethics?” So you honestly don’t see the question of life (and quality therein) as implicit in your answers?

-Victor

Edited March 18, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>I will think about this question alone without giving a knee-jerk answer. But let’s imagine a fun little scenario: let’s say you push me into a logical corner where the question of “life” does present a logical puzzle in terms of connecting it to ethics...

Victor, I am not trying to push you into a logical corner; I am trying to demonstrate my point. I am trying to show you that adopting "life" as your standard does not save you at all from the usual moral dilemmas (nothing can) - it only forces you to dilute the term to the point where it is so meaningless, even its opposite, death can still apply. It only sounds good - it does not actually work in practice.

Once again, a standard that permits even its opposite cannot be much of a standard!

Now you may passionately believe Rand has this right.. But this does not make it true, obviously. The price of commitment to rationality is, unfortunately, that sometimes we have to give up our most deeply cherished beliefs when confronted with serious criticism that we cannot rebut - like they say in science, when a beautiful theory must be given up due to a single ugly fact. This is the sort of situation I think you face here.

>—but then, why this concern over the life of a baby or, more broadly speaking, others?

Once again, I cannot logically compell you to care about other people, any more than I can compell you physically to do so. The choice to care about others (or not to) must be your individual choice, and you must take responsibility for the consequences of it, good, bad or indifferent. This is what gives your decision its moral and ethical weight in the first place, and why I believe the fact/decision dualism is, as I have said before, not a bug but a feature.

Edited March 18, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Victor Pross]

Daniel,

You wrote: Once again, I cannot logically compel you to care about other people, any more than I can compel you physically to do so. The choice to care about others (or not to) must be your individual choice, and you must take responsibility for the consequences of it, good, bad or indifferent. This is what gives your decision its moral and ethical weight in the first place, and why I believe the fact/decision dualism is, as I have said before, not a bug but a feature.

I don’t think I like you taking the position of a district attorney leading me (dimwitted juror) to a logical conclusion. You may not wish to give that impression but that’s how I’m receiving it. Going to shake me from my Randian slumber, huh? Ah, the rescue of the freezing baby!

Once again? When was the first time? Anyway, my question did not imply that you are trying to compel me to care about other people or to do anything. Where did I say that? I didn’t even ask you what your personal, subjective values were---I simply asked you a broad question: What is the purpose of ethics? You answered me: “Obviously it examines our responsibilities to other people.” Hmmm, it was “obvious” no less. This answer speaks of something that encompasses something greater than what your personal values may be--it includes a general imperative to include all of mankind. What is the purpose of ethics. That was my question. Your answer is now apart of this public debate. After all, your answer was not: “Obviously it [ethics] examines my responsibility to other people.” I think I even asked you if this answer was a moral description or prescription. Ah, either way.

You: Once again, a standard that permits even its opposite cannot be much of a standard!

I simply don’t see the logic of this statement or its relevancy to the topic at hand. Sorry.

-Victor

Edited March 18, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Mikee]

Daniel Barnes,

When I read Ayn Rand I felt that her words, her philosophy resonated in me. I felt inspired, I felt that life, the world and my place in it made sense, there were things worth doing, ideas were important and exciting, because of my ability to think and reason and act to produce the things I valued that my life was important. Reading your words I can detect none of that. Rand made the point that without life, there is no need of morality. Rocks don't need moral codes, people do. That is what she meant by "life is the standard". Your refusal to concede that and your continuous efforts at obfuscating the meaning behind Ayn Rands words convince me that your motives are decidedly not noble ones. You try to confuse rather that enlighten. For people, reason in the service of actions that serve to promote the life and values of the reasoning person can be the only source of morality.

"Most people are not logical" You obviously have a high opinion of yourself. How are you promoting your own values by playing semantic games?

[Victor Pross]

“Obviously it examines our responsibilities to other people.”

I imagine that if we are to examine our responsibilities to others, we must (the moral agents) be living moral agents so that others (the beneficiaries) can advantage (as living beneficiaries). Oh, wait…nobody needs to be alive when it comes to ethics. Oh yeah.

[Daniel Barnes]

Mikee:

>When I read Ayn Rand I felt that her words, her philosophy resonated in me. I felt inspired, I felt that life, the world and my place in it made sense, there were things worth doing, ideas were important and exciting, because of my ability to think and reason and act to produce the things I valued that my life was important. Reading your words I can detect none of that.

I apologise that I am not a very inspirational writer. Unfortunately inspirational quality is not the same as sound argument.

>Rand made the point that without life, there is no need of morality. Rocks don't need moral codes, people do. That is what she meant by "life is the standard".

As I say, it sounds good, but as I am trying to step you through, it doesn't work in practice.

>Your refusal to concede that and your continuous efforts at obfuscating the meaning behind Ayn Rands words convince me that your motives are decidedly not noble ones.

Philosophical problems are, contra Rand, rarely an issue of goodies and baddies (tho sometimes it is). This is not some kind of fairy story. Mostly it is encountering unexpected problems; ugly facts that falsify beautiful theories; that we then try to solve as rigorously and rationally as we can. This is a process of discovery, of conjecture and refutation. It is not designed to make you feel good (though sometimes it can, naturally)

>You try to confuse rather that enlighten. For people, reason in the service of actions that serve to promote the life and values of the reasoning person can be the only source of morality.

My argument is of course that while Rand writes in a highly inspiring fashion, it turns out her arguments are confused rather enlightened.

>"Most people are not logical" You obviously have a high opinion of yourself.

No, this is the result of well-known psychological studies. Most people - even highly intelligent ones - struggle with logic. People generally find emotional arguments far more persuasive (In fact I recall a study somewhere that showed logical arguments were the least likely to persuade). I myself consider not very good at logic at all, actually - I remarked on this in an earlier thread - but consider I do have a handle on some of the basic issues in this discussion.

>How are you promoting your own values by playing semantic games?

In fact one of my main overall arguments is that much of the time, Rand is merely playing verbal games, not solving problems. For example, terms like her "contextual absolute", which is a mere oxymoron; or when she offers an example of "absolute precision" that is in fact what anyone else would call an approximation. And so forth.

Edited March 18, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Daniel Barnes]

I wrote:

>Once again, a standard that permits even its opposite cannot be much of a standard!

Victor replied:

>I simply don’t see the logic of this statement or its relevancy to the topic at hand. Sorry.

Victor, if I said that my standard was say "white", but black and all colours in between where also fine, would you consider I had much of a standard? If I said that "thou shalt not steal" was my standard, but nonentheless stealing was permitted, would you think I had much of a standard? You would probably think I was having you on!

Think about it.

Edited March 18, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Laure]

OK Daniel, let's say we assume for a moment that "life" is a crappy standard. What standard do you propose?

[Mikee]

I apologise that I am not a very inspirational writer.

Rather the opposite.

As I say, it sounds good, but as I am trying to step you through, it doesn't work in practice.

Tell me your straightforward definition of morality.

>Philosophical problems are, contra Rand, rarely an issue of goodies and baddies (tho sometimes it is).

The topic at hand is morality, "Why does man need a code of values". Yes, that means how to judge "good" and "bad" actions.

conjecture and refutation

I have, as it happens, read much of Karl Popper's writings. You wouldn't be responsible for the bad reputation that Karl Popper has amongst objectivists would you? The general appearance of your posts that I've read is that you are a critic of Ayn Rand the person, her writings, and her philosophy. However, semantical nit pickings do not a falsification make. You have to first understand what she is saying and demonstrate through example that what she has said is false. How does the application of objectivist ethics harm your life?

My argument is of course that while Rand writes in a highly inspiring fashion, it turns out her arguments are confused rather enlightened.

I think you are confused.

No, this is the result of well-known psychological studies. Most people - even highly intelligent ones - struggle with logic. People generally find emotional arguments far more persuasive (In fact I recall a study somewhere that showed logical arguments were the least likely to persuade). I myself consider not very good at logic at all, actually - I remarked on this in an earlier thread - but consider I do have a handle on some of the basic issues in this discussion.

Ayn Rand recognized and explained that many people use logic selectively. Thus, the importance of philosophy. You attempting to use a trick, lumping your opponent in a argument with "most people" who are "illogical". I'm not an expert at logic either, but I'm sure that's a fallacy.

In fact one of my main overall arguments is that much of the time, Rand is merely playing verbal games, not solving problems.

If that's your main overall argument perhaps you should drop philosophy and perhaps write crossword puzzles for the NY Times.

[Victor Pross]

Daniel,

Let's cool the heat for a moment.

The inquiry into the nature of morality or moral acts; the search for the morally good life.” [Dictionary of philosophy]. Ethics—any ethical system—by any philosopher—deals with certain questions as a branch of philosophy—and ONLY those questions: what is the moral life and examines the concepts of “good” and bad”; “right” and “wrong”. Now, of course, philosophers differ across the board on what the “good life” is. But they don’t argue over the nature of what the branch is to cover. They don’t deal with questions of fashion or engineering. Rather: What is the good life? What is right and what is wrong—that is the question of ethics. Ethics deals with human values. BUT why live the good life? Why be concerned with right and wrong? Why be concerned with values? WHY? The general overlook of this issue by philosophers is responsible for the confusion that now exists among ethicists, who attempt to cover ethics without considering why they are discussing it. Let’s not do that here. This study is a means to an end? What is that end?

-Victor

Edited March 18, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

As I said on the other thread, morality is basically objective toward others (individual rights), subjective toward oneself (best for me). This leaves the Toohey area: He was evil. Why? Squishing people like Catharine was "best" for him. I think the only way to objectify morality toward me by me is to objectify it for Toohey. So the basic question is still on the table. The only way I can deal this with out of my present knowledge is to say that if I think Toohey is evil that is my subjective opinion and I therefore feel, for whatever reason, that for me not to be evil I must warn people about Toohey. I still lack objectification, except your life can be literally at stake if you drink his poison.

Let's try this: If you give more than you produce you subtract from yourself, if you give less than you produce you add to yourself. So if you want to be an effective altruist produce as much as possible, be Bill Gates. If you are encouraged to produce as little as possible while giving as much as possible even unto your death and destruction then that is evil for its practical ineffectiveness. It is anti-life.

People are social beings, most of them, to various extents. Morality has to encompass that. The altruism/self-interest debate has obscured this. Maybe Rand went too far in rejecting altruism. Altruism is the root of collectivism, but might there not be more to the concept then that? Might there be, say, at least two altruisms? Voluntary and involuntary?

(I have to stop here for now. I'm going to post this semi-coherence and edit it later so I don't lose what I have written so far.)

--Brant