Atlas Shrugged to be made into a Mini-Series
kon...@my-deja.com
"thx1666" <thx...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Don't know if everybody knows yet. I just found out, and I could be
the
> last to hear!
>
> http://www.tnt-tv.com/pressroom/26.html
Makes you wonder why they're even bothering. It's taken so
long for this project to find a backer because, as a novel,
IT STINKS. Page after page regurgitating her philosophy over
and over made it a chore to read. Top that with a lack of
character development, i.e. everyone is either "good" or "evil"
from the start and never changes, and I almost couldn't finish
it. Everyone is a caricature. Whatever good points are made
about over-reaching government are drowned out by the sheer
silliness of the strawman "government/society" that Rand sets up.
My prediction A HIT!!! on the order of BATTLEFIELD:EARTH.
Got a part for Travolta in this one? I hear he's partial to cults.
Konrad Vandegaer
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mahab...@my-deja.com
kon...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <xqnr5.307$3U2....@nntp3.onemain.com>,
> "thx1666" <thx...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Don't know if everybody knows yet. I just found out, and I could be
> the
> > last to hear!
> >
> > http://www.tnt-tv.com/pressroom/26.html
>
> Makes you wonder why they're even bothering. It's taken so
> long for this project to find a backer because, as a novel,
> IT STINKS. Page after page regurgitating her philosophy over
> and over made it a chore to read. Top that with a lack of
> character development, i.e. everyone is either "good" or "evil"
> from the start and never changes, and I almost couldn't finish
> it. Everyone is a caricature. Whatever good points are made
> about over-reaching government are drowned out by the sheer
> silliness of the strawman "government/society" that Rand sets up.
Sounds like the Best of Ayn Rand.
Eric da Red
> "thx1666" <thx...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Don't know if everybody knows yet. I just found out, and I could be
>the
>> last to hear!
>>
>> http://www.tnt-tv.com/pressroom/26.html
>
>Makes you wonder why they're even bothering.
Ruddy has been lusting after this project for years. Rand wouldn't let
him do it because she insisted on complete content control.
> It's taken so
>long for this project to find a backer because, as a novel,
>IT STINKS.
Combine this with the fact that Ruddy is resonsible for giving us one of
the worst TV series of this generation, "Walker, Texas Ranger", and the
outcome of this project looks like an artistic fiasco.
> Page after page regurgitating her philosophy over
>and over made it a chore to read. Top that with a lack of
>character development, i.e. everyone is either "good" or "evil"
>from the start and never changes, and I almost couldn't finish
>it. Everyone is a caricature. Whatever good points are made
>about over-reaching government are drowned out by the sheer
>silliness of the strawman "government/society" that Rand sets up.
>
>My prediction A HIT!!! on the order of BATTLEFIELD:EARTH.
>Got a part for Travolta in this one? I hear he's partial to cults.
I think that the perfect person to make a movie of "Atlas Shrugged" would
be John Waters. Too bad Divine is dead, he'd make a perfect Dagny
Taggart.
--
ShrubJoke Of The Week: "Do you realize that if, God forbid, anything
should happen to Dick Cheney, George W. Bush would be President?" --
Mark Russell.
Eric da Red
>In article <8olunk$nhj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> kon...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> Makes you wonder why they're even bothering. It's taken so
>> long for this project to find a backer because, as a novel,
>> IT STINKS. Page after page regurgitating her philosophy over
>> and over made it a chore to read. Top that with a lack of
>> character development, i.e. everyone is either "good" or "evil"
>> from the start and never changes, and I almost couldn't finish
>> it. Everyone is a caricature. Whatever good points are made
>> about over-reaching government are drowned out by the sheer
>> silliness of the strawman "government/society" that Rand sets up.
>Sounds like the Best of Ayn Rand.
Here's a version of "The Fountainhead" that would make a good inspiration
for a production of "Atlas Shrugged."
http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/parody/index.html
Hugo S. Cunningham
>In article <xqnr5.307$3U2....@nntp3.onemain.com>,
> "thx1666" <thx...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Don't know if everybody knows yet. I just found out, and I could be
>the
>> last to hear!
>>
>> http://www.tnt-tv.com/pressroom/26.html
>Makes you wonder why they're even bothering. It's taken so
>long for this project to find a backer because, as a novel,
>IT STINKS.
Maybe as a novel it has deficiencies. Its description of a crumbling
industrial society, however, sounds a bit like Russia under
Bush-Senior and Clinton's kleptocrat "reformers."
>Page after page regurgitating her philosophy over
>and over made it a chore to read.
If one simply skips the Galt speech, the rest is manageable, at least
if one is amenable to the message.
[...]
--Hugo S. Cunningham
kon...@my-deja.com
> kon...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >Makes you wonder why they're even bothering. It's taken so
> >long for this project to find a backer because, as a novel,
> >IT STINKS.
In article <8omq6s$r...@news-central.tiac.net>,hc...@tiac.net wrote:
> Maybe as a novel it has deficiencies. Its description of a
> crumbling industrial society, however, sounds a bit like Russia
> under Bush-Senior and Clinton's kleptocrat "reformers."
> >Page after page regurgitating her philosophy over
> >and over made it a chore to read.
> If one simply skips the Galt speech, the rest is manageable,
> at least if one is amenable to the message.
It starts long before Galt's speech. In essence his speech
is repeated over and over again. As for being amenable to the
message, it's just the flip-side of Marxist thought. Greed is
good vs greed is bad. Both are willfully oblivious to the fact
that in life both statements may be true at different times.
It should make for some horrid TV as they try to reconcile some
semblance of a society people can recognize with the ludicrous
premises we're forced to swallow reading the book.
LQuest
>
>> kon...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >Makes you wonder why they're even bothering. It's taken so
>> >long for this project to find a backer because, as a novel,
>> >IT STINKS.
>
>In article <8omq6s$r...@news-central.tiac.net>,hc...@tiac.net wrote:
>> Maybe as a novel it has deficiencies. Its description of a
>> crumbling industrial society, however, sounds a bit like Russia
>> under Bush-Senior and Clinton's kleptocrat "reformers."
>
>> >Page after page regurgitating her philosophy over
>> >and over made it a chore to read.
>
>> If one simply skips the Galt speech, the rest is manageable,
>> at least if one is amenable to the message.
>
>It starts long before Galt's speech. In essence his speech
>is repeated over and over again. As for being amenable to the
>message, it's just the flip-side of Marxist thought. Greed is
>good vs greed is bad.
The concept of greed was NEVER mentioned in AS. You saw it on every other
page because you have a classic leftist reading comprehension problem (one of
the main causes of collectivism) and because you never learned the difference
between a mental disease (greed) and a species perpetuating moral certainty --
self-interest.
>Both are willfully oblivious to the fact
>that in life both statements may be true at different times.
>It should make for some horrid TV as they try to reconcile some
>semblance of a society people can recognize with the ludicrous
>premises
Aside from rhetorical devices designed to make a philosophical point, what
"ludicrous premises" might those be? I dare you to quote page number and
verse to illustrate YOUR "ludicrous premises"!
>we're forced to swallow reading the book.
FORCED? Geesh. Another collectivist befuddled by the meaning of a simple
word -- "force".
Mark Lewis
<kon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8olunk$nhj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <xqnr5.307$3U2....@nntp3.onemain.com>,
> "thx1666" <thx...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Don't know if everybody knows yet. I just found out, and I could be
> the
> > last to hear!
> >
> > http://www.tnt-tv.com/pressroom/26.html
>
> Makes you wonder why they're even bothering. It's taken so
> long for this project to find a backer because, as a novel,
> IT STINKS. Page after page regurgitating her philosophy over
> and over made it a chore to read. Top that with a lack of
> character development, i.e. everyone is either "good" or "evil"
> from the start and never changes, and I almost couldn't finish
> it. Everyone is a caricature. Whatever good points are made
> about over-reaching government are drowned out by the sheer
> silliness of the strawman "government/society" that Rand sets up.
You are so right! That's why it is listed second only to the bible in the
most read books survey...
>
> My prediction A HIT!!! on the order of BATTLEFIELD:EARTH.
> Got a part for Travolta in this one? I hear he's partial to cults.
cute.
Oh yeah, who is the leader of the cult? and what is the organization?
etc...
And no, it won't be a hit, or if it is, it won't reflect the book. It would
take a good 12 hours to convey the basic ideas of the book and I doubt they
will give it that...
Mark Lewis
"Hugo S. Cunningham" <hc...@removethis.tiac.net> wrote in message
news:8omq6s$r...@news-central.tiac.net...
> kon...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <xqnr5.307$3U2....@nntp3.onemain.com>,
> > "thx1666" <thx...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Don't know if everybody knows yet. I just found out, and I could be
> >the
> >> last to hear!
> >>
> >> http://www.tnt-tv.com/pressroom/26.html
>
> >Makes you wonder why they're even bothering. It's taken so
> >long for this project to find a backer because, as a novel,
> >IT STINKS.
>
> Maybe as a novel it has deficiencies. Its description of a crumbling
> industrial society, however, sounds a bit like Russia under
> Bush-Senior and Clinton's kleptocrat "reformers."
More to the point, and more accurately historically, FDR. She was
describing many of the new deal policies and the power of those who were
making the policies.
Mark Lewis
<kon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8oof7k$l85$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > kon...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >Makes you wonder why they're even bothering. It's taken so
> > >long for this project to find a backer because, as a novel,
> > >IT STINKS.
>
> In article <8omq6s$r...@news-central.tiac.net>,hc...@tiac.net wrote:
> > Maybe as a novel it has deficiencies. Its description of a
> > crumbling industrial society, however, sounds a bit like Russia
> > under Bush-Senior and Clinton's kleptocrat "reformers."
>
> > >Page after page regurgitating her philosophy over
> > >and over made it a chore to read.
>
> > If one simply skips the Galt speech, the rest is manageable,
> > at least if one is amenable to the message.
>
> It starts long before Galt's speech. In essence his speech
> is repeated over and over again. As for being amenable to the
> message, it's just the flip-side of Marxist thought. Greed is
> good vs greed is bad.
Yep that is the point of the book all right! Whew did you sum it up! I
mean, Wow, you nailed it...I mean, kind of.. I mean, NO., That is not the
point of the book. I am surprised that anyone could read the book and say
that. It makes me question either that you read it, or that you paid
attention.
If you came out of the book with "production is good, regulation is bad"
then I might think you had something.
Remember it was only the politicians that were greedy in the novel. All the
heroes wanted was to produce welath through work and trade for it openly on
the market. All they asked for is the freedom to trade without regulations
or force. They were not greedy.
>Both are willfully oblivious to the fact
> that in life both statements may be true at different times.
> It should make for some horrid TV as they try to reconcile some
> semblance of a society people can recognize with the ludicrous
> premises we're forced to swallow reading the book.
No one was forced to read it, and if the premises are ludicrous, tell that
to the soviets, maoists, pol potists, etc...They LIVED it.
mahab...@my-deja.com
berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
> In article <8om0t2$q32$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <mahab...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >In article <8olunk$nhj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > kon...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Makes you wonder why they're even bothering. It's taken so
> >> long for this project to find a backer because, as a novel,
> >> IT STINKS. Page after page regurgitating her philosophy over
> >> and over made it a chore to read. Top that with a lack of
> >> character development, i.e. everyone is either "good" or "evil"
> >> from the start and never changes, and I almost couldn't finish
> >> it. Everyone is a caricature. Whatever good points are made
> >> about over-reaching government are drowned out by the sheer
> >> silliness of the strawman "government/society" that Rand sets up.
>
> >Sounds like the Best of Ayn Rand.
>
> Here's a version of "The Fountainhead" that would make a good
inspiration
> for a production of "Atlas Shrugged."
>
> http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/parody/index.html
Brilliant! A major improvement on the original (which seemed to be
mostly "90,000 pages of blah blah blah."
Also liked the linking page on Objectivism. Thanks for the URL!
B.
>
> --
> ShrubJoke Of The Week: "Do you realize that if, God forbid, anything
> should happen to Dick Cheney, George W. Bush would be President?" --
> Mark Russell.
>
Hugo S. Cunningham
>"Hugo S. Cunningham" <hc...@removethis.tiac.net> wrote in message
>news:8omq6s$r...@news-central.tiac.net...
[...]
>> Maybe as a novel it has deficiencies. Its description of a crumbling
>> industrial society, however, sounds a bit like Russia under
>> Bush-Senior and Clinton's kleptocrat "reformers."
>More to the point, and more accurately historically, FDR. She was
>describing many of the new deal policies and the power of those who were
>making the policies.
I have anti-socialist leanings myself, but even so must point out that
the USA's catastrophic economic decline occurred under Herbert Hoover
(1929-33), rather than FDR.
We now understand that Hoover aggravated the Great Depression
with tax increases to balance the budget, but balanced budgets were
market-conservative orthodoxy in the 1930s. Even as late as the
1960s, conservative Republicans were condemning Jack Kennedy's tax cut
as irresponsible.
FDR was a man without economic principle, willing to try anything
to get out of the Depression. Some of his measures made things worse,
but others apparently did some good. He never encouraged the
appointment of incompetents under something like Ayn Rand's fictional
"Equalization of Opportunity Bill." That would be left for Republican
George Bush 50-some-years later, signing an "Americans with
Disabilities Act" that proclaimed criminality and/or incompetence to
be legally privileged "mental handicaps."
--Hugo S. Cunningham
Mark Lewis
> "Mark Lewis" <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
>
> >"Hugo S. Cunningham" <hc...@removethis.tiac.net> wrote in message
> >news:8omq6s$r...@news-central.tiac.net...
> [...]
> >> Maybe as a novel it has deficiencies. Its description of a crumbling
> >> industrial society, however, sounds a bit like Russia under
> >> Bush-Senior and Clinton's kleptocrat "reformers."
>
> >More to the point, and more accurately historically, FDR. She was
> >describing many of the new deal policies and the power of those who were
> >making the policies.
>
> I have anti-socialist leanings myself, but even so must point out that
> the USA's catastrophic economic decline occurred under Herbert Hoover
> (1929-33), rather than FDR.
> We now understand that Hoover aggravated the Great Depression
> with tax increases to balance the budget, but balanced budgets were
> market-conservative orthodoxy in the 1930s. Even as late as the
> 1960s, conservative Republicans were condemning Jack Kennedy's tax cut
> as irresponsible.
> FDR was a man without economic principle, willing to try anything
> to get out of the Depression. Some of his measures made things worse,
> but others apparently did some good. He never encouraged the
> appointment of incompetents under something like Ayn Rand's fictional
> "Equalization of Opportunity Bill."
He didn't encourage it, but they showed up in the vacuum he created.
Also, remember, when he put social security in place, and people challenged
him on the dangerous economics of it he answered: "I guess youa re right on
the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They are
politics all the way through. We put those payroll contributions there so
as to give the contibutors a legal, moral , and political right to collect
their pensions...With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever
scrap my Social Security program.
Fight communism by compromise. FDR to the rescue.
I don't blame him so much (although I really do). He had no philosophical
argument against altruism, and was the hero with every government project he
added, and every regulation he put in place to "protect" the worker agaisnt
the businesses who would otherwise have given him a job.
Think about it for a second. You have tons of labor, looking for work,
willing to work at reduced wages, but no companies hiring... HMMMmmm. I
wonder why? Can you say "regulations?" I knew you could...
> That would be left for Republican
> George Bush 50-some-years later, signing an "Americans with
> Disabilities Act" that proclaimed criminality and/or incompetence to
> be legally privileged "mental handicaps."
FDR used the depression to create a whole series of new precedents. The
more money and favors government gives out, the more politicians can be
counted on to add to those precedents.
In any case, Atlas Shrigged was modelled on FDR in large part, regardless of
Hoover's policies.
Mark
jddescr...@my-deja.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you forgotten the crooked socialist plans to use tides for
power in Maine and to cut a channel accross upper Florida just to
name a couple of the grossly incompetent socialist boondogles?
You skip over the historical context. Yes! hoover was as much or
more a socialist as roosevelt and their period from 1927 - 1952
was the second socialist wave of take over of America in the last
century but the interesting thing is how it matched with Ayn Rand's
work. She was 21 when she arrived in America after escaping from
Russian socialism. It was 1926 and she witnessed the American
socialist wave in spades.
She had run with her family on country roads in socialist Russia
trying to stay alive under socialist rule. Now she had escaped to
freedom and she finds the same kind of socialist philosophy taking
over America. She had pledged to herself to bring down the Russian
socialist bureacrats that she had to lie to to escape as a young
lady [which has been accomplished with the help of President
Reagan ] and now she took on the even bigger job of alerting America
to the socialist take over and the threat of a return of a dark ages
of socialist authoritarian rule. The latter goal is still unfullfilled
and we will only know for certain many years from now but her example
of what the free people spirit can do if an individual cares deeply
will live in history forever - whether she becomes recognized as the
greatest philosopher of human history or not, eclipsing Aristotle!
Good seeing. JD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S G
> Hugo S. Cunningham wrote
> > the USA's catastrophic economic decline occurred under Herbert
> > Hoover (1929-33), rather than FDR.
> > We now understand that Hoover aggravated the Great Depression
> > with tax increases to balance the budget,
Excerpt from the book
Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920s
by Frederick Lewis Allen
(Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1931)
Chapter XI
(Home, Sweet Florida)
.... In the autumn of 1925, ... the Florida boom was at its
height. ... Men and women ... were exposed to the most delirious
fever of real-estate speculation which had attacked the United
States in ninety years.
There was nothing languorous about the atmosphere of tropical
Miami during that memorable summer and autumn of 1925. The whole
city had become one frenzied real-estate exchange. There were said
to be 2,000 real-estate offices and 25,000 agents marketing
house-lots or acreage. The shirt-sleeved crowds hurrying to and
fro under the widely advertised Florida sun talked of binders and
options and water- frontages and hundred-thousand-dollar profits;
the city fathers had been forced to pass an ordinance forbidding
the sale of property in the street, or even the showing of a map,
to prevent inordinate traffic congestion. The warm air vibrated
with the clatter of riveters, for the steel skeletons of
skyscrapers were rising to give Miami a skyline appropriate to its
metropolitan destiny. Motor-busses roared down Flagler Street,
carrying "prospects" on free trips to watch dredges and
steam-shovels converting the outlying mangrove swamps and the
sandbars of the Bay of Biscayne into gorgeous Venetian cities for
the American homemakers and pleasure-seekers of the future. ...
Hotels were overcrowded. People were sleeping wherever they could
lay their heads, in station waiting-rooms or in automobiles. The
railroads had been forced to place an embargo on imperishable
freight in order to avert the danger of famine; building materials
were now being imported by water and the harbor bristled with
shipping. Fresh vegetables were a rarity, the public utilities of
the city were trying desperately to meet the suddenly multiplied
demand for electricity and gas and telephone service, and there
were recurrent shortages of ice.
How Miami grew! In 1920 its population had been only 30,000.
According to the state census of 1925 it had jumped to 75,000 -
and probably if one had counted the newcomers of the succeeding
months and Miami's share of the visitors who swarmed down to
Florida from the North in one of the mightiest popular migrations
of all time, the figure would have been nearer 150,000. ...
Everybody was making money on land, prices were climbing to
incredible heights, and those who came to scoff remained to
speculate.
Nor was Miami alone booming. The whole strip of coast line from
Palm Beach southward was being developed into an American Riviera;
for sixty-odd miles it was being rapidly staked out into
fifty-foot lots. The fever had spread to Tampa, Sarasota, St.
Petersburg, and other cities and towns on the West Coast. People
were scrambling for lots along Lake Okeechobee, about Sanford, all
through the state; even in Jacksonville, near its northern limit,
the "Believers in Jacksonville" were planning a campaign which
would bring their city its due in growth and riches.
For this amazing boom, which had gradually been gathering headway
for several years but had not become sensational until 1924, there
were a number of causes. Let us list them categorically.
1. First of all, of course, the climate - Florida's unanswerable
argument.
2. The accessibility of the state to the populous cities of the
Northeast - an advantage which Southern California could not well
deny.
3. The automobile, which was rapidly making America into a nation
of nomads; teaching all manner of men and women to explore their
country, and enabling even the small farmer, the summer-boarding-
house keeper, and the garage man to pack their families into
flivvers and tour southward from auto-camp to auto-camp for a
winter of sunny leisure.
4. The abounding confidence engendered by Coolidge Prosperity,
which persuaded the four-thousand-dollar-a-year salesman that in
some magical way he too might tomorrow be able to buy a fine house
and all the good things of earth.
5. A paradoxical widespread, but only half-acknowledged revolt
against the very urbanization and industrialization of the
country, the very concentration upon work, the very routine and
smoke and congestion and twentieth-century standardization of
living upon which Coolidge Prosperity was based. These things
might bring the American business man money, but to spend it he
longed to escape from them - into the free sunshine of the
remembered countryside, into the easy-going life and beauty of the
European past, into some never-never land which combined American
sport and comfort with Latin glamour - a Venice equipped with
bathtubs and electric iceboxes, a Seville provided with three
eighteen-hole golf courses.
6. The example of Southern California which had advertised its
climate at the top of its lungs and had prospered by so doing:
why, argued the Floridians, couldn't Florida do likewise?
7. And finally, another result of Coolidge Prosperity: not only
did John Jones expect that presently he might be able to afford a
house at Boca Raton and a vacation-time of tarpon-fishing or polo,
but he also was fed on stories of bold business enterprise and
sudden wealth until he was ready to believe that the craziest
real-estate development might be the gold-mine which would work
this miracle for him.
Crazy real-estate developments? But were they crazy? By 1925 few
of them looked so any longer. The men whose fantastic projects had
seemed in 1923 to be evidences of megalomania were now coining
millions: by the pragmatic test they were not madmen but - as the
advertisements put it - inspired dreamers. Coral Gables,
Hollywood-by-the-Sea, Miami Beach, Davis Islands - there they
stood: mere patterns on a blue-print no longer, but actual cities
of brick and concrete and stucco; unfinished, to be sure, but
growing with amazing speed, while prospects stood in line to buy
and every square foot within their limits leaped in price.
Long years before, a retired Congregational minister named Merrick
had bought cheap land outside Miami, built a many-gabled house out
of coral rock, and called it "Coral Gables." Now his son, George
Edgar Merrick, had added to this parcel of land and was building
what the advertisements called "America's Most Beautiful Suburb."
The plan was enticing, for Merrick had sense enough to insist upon
a uniform type of architecture - what he called a "modified
Mediterranean" style. By 1926 his development, which had
incorporated itself as the City of Coral Gables, contained more
than two thousand houses built or building, with "a bustling
business center, schools, banks, hotels, apartment houses and club
houses"; with shady streets, lagoons, and anchorages. ... [H]aving
low-lying land to drain and build on, he dug canals and imported
real gondolas and gondoliers from Venice. The Miami-Biltmore Hotel
at Coral Gables rose to a height of twenty-six stories, the
country club had two eighteen-hole golf courses, and Merrick was
making further audacious plans for a great casino, a yacht club,
and a University of Miami. "Ten years of hard work, a hundred
millions of hard money, is what George Merrick plans to spend
before he rests," wrote Rex Beach in a brochure on Coral Gables.
"Who can envisage what ten years will bring to that wonderland of
Ponce de Leon's? Not you nor I. Nor Mr. Merrick, with all his
soaring vision." (Alas for soaring vision! Among the things which
ten years were to bring was an advertisement in the New York Times
reminding the holders of nine series of bonds of the City of Coral
Gables that the city had been "in default of the payment of
principal and interest of a greater part of the above bonds since
July 1, 1930.")
There were other miracle-workers besides Merrick. Miami Beach had
been a mangrove swamp until Carl G. Fisher cut down the trees,
buried their stumps under five feet of sand, fashioned lagoons and
islands, built villas and hotels, and - so it was said - made
nearly forty million dollars selling lots. Joseph W. Young built
Hollywood-by-the-Sea on the same grand scale, and when the freight
embargo cut off his supply of building materials, bought his own
seagoing fleet to fetch them to his growing "city." Over on the
West Coast, D. P. Davis bought two small islets in the bay at
Tampa - "two small marshy clumps of mangrove, almost submerged at
high tide" - and by dredging and piling sand, raised up an island
on which he built paved streets, hotels, houses. On the first day
when Davis offered his lots to the public he sold three million
dollars' worth - though at that time it is said that not a single
dredge had begun to scoop up sand! Yes, the public bought. By 1925
they were buying anything, anywhere, so long as it was in Florida.
One had only to announce a new development, be it honest or
fraudulent, be it on the Atlantic Ocean or deep in the wasteland
of the interior, to set people scrambling for house lots. ...The
stories of prodigious profits made in Florida land were sufficient
bait. ...
Speculation was easy - and quick. No long delays while titles were
being investigated and deeds recorded; such tiresome formalities
were postponed. The prevalent method of sale was thus described by
Walter C. Hill of the Retail Credit Company of Atlanta in the
Inspection Report issued by his concern: "Lots are bought from
blueprints. They look better that way. ..."
...But few people worried much about the further payments which
were to come. Nine buyers out of ten bought their lots with only
one idea, to resell, and hoped to pass along their binders to
other people at a neat profit before even the first payment fell
due at the end of thirty days. There was an immense traffic in
binders - immense and profitable.
Steadily, during that feverish summer and autumn of 1925, the
hatching of new plans for vast developments continued. A great
many of them, apparently, were intended to be occupied by what the
advertisers of Miami Beach called "America's wealthiest sportsmen,
devotees of yachting and the other expensive sports," and the
advertisers of Boca Raton called "the world of international
wealth that dominates finance and industry ... that sets fashions
... the world of large affairs, smart society and leisured ease."
Few of those in the land-rush seemed to question whether there
would be enough devotees of yachting and men and women of leisured
ease to go round.
Everywhere vast new hotels, apartment houses, casinos were being
projected. ...Throughout Florida resounded the slogans and
hyperboles of boundless confidence. The advertising columns
shrieked with them, those swollen advertising columns which
enabled the Miami Daily News, one day in the summer of 1925, to
print an issue of 504 pages, the largest in newspaper history, and
enabled the Miami Herald to carry a larger volume of advertising
in 1925 than any paper anywhere had ever before carried in a year.
...
... But by New Year's Day of 1926 the suspicion was beginning to
insinuate itself into the minds of the merrymakers that new buyers
of land were no longer so plentiful as they had been in September
and October, that a good many of those who held binders were
exceedingly anxious to dispose of their stake ... The influx of
winter visitors had not been quite up to expectations. Perhaps the
boom was due for a "healthy breathing-time."
As a matter of fact, it was due for a good deal more than that. It
began obviously to collapse in the spring and summer of 1926.
People who held binders and had failed to get rid of them were
defaulting right and left on their payments. ...There were cases
in which the land not only came back to the original owner, but
came back burdened with taxes and assessments which amounted to
more than the cash he had received for it; and furthermore he
found his land blighted with a half-completed development.
Just as it began to be clear that a wholesale deflation was
inevitable, hurricanes showed what a Soothing Tropic Wind could do
when it got a running start from the West Indies.
No malevolent Providence bent upon the teaching of humility could
have struck with a more precise aim than the second and worst of
these Florida hurricanes. It concentrated upon the exact region
where the boom had been noisiest and most hysterical - the region
about Miami. Hitting the Gold Coast early in the morning of
September 18, 1926, it piled the waters of Biscayne Bay into the
lovely Venetian developments, deposited a five-masted steel
schooner high in the street at Coral Gables, tossed big steam
yachts upon the avenues of Miami, picked up trees, lumber, pipes,
tiles, debris, and even small automobiles and sent them crashing
into the houses, ripped the roofs off thousands of jerry-built
cottages and villas, almost wiped out the town of Moore Haven on
Lake Okeechobee, and left behind it some four hundred dead,
sixty-three hundred injured, and fifty thousand homeless.
Valiantly the Floridians insisted that the damage was not
irreparable; ... But the Soothing Tropic Wind had had its revenge;
it had destroyed the remnants of the Florida boom.
By 1927, ... most of the elaborate real estate offices on Flagler
Street in Miami were either closed or practically empty; the Davis
Islands project, "bankrupt and unfinished," had been taken over by
a syndicate organized by Stone & Webster; and many Florida cities,
including Miami, were having difficulty collecting their taxes.
... In 1928 there were thirty-one bank failures in Florida; in
1929 there were fifty-seven; in both of these years the
liabilities of the failed banks reached greater totals than were
recorded for any other state in the Union. The Mediterranean
fruitfly added to the gravity of the local economic situation in
1929 by ravaging the citrus crop. ...
And those were the very years when elsewhere in the country
prosperity was triumphant. By the middle of 1930, after the
general business depression had set in, no less than twenty-six
Florida cities had gone into default of principal or interest on
their bonds, ...
... Most of the millions piled up in paper profits had melted
away, many of the millions sunk in developments had been sunk for
good and all, the vast inverted pyramid of credit had toppled to
earth, and the lesson of the economic falsity of a scheme of land
values based upon grandiose plans, preposterous expectations, and
hot air had been taught in a long agony of deflation.
For comfort there were only a few savings facts to cling to. The
people Florida still had her climate, her natural resources. The
people of Florida still had energy and determination, and having
recovered from their debauch of hope, were learning from the
relentless discipline of events. Not all Northerners who have
moved to Florida in the days of plenty had departed in the days of
adversity. Far from it: the census of 1930, in fact, gave Florida
an increase in population of over 50% since 1920 - a larger
increase than that of any other state except California - and
showed that in the same interval Miami had grown by nearly 400%.
Florida still had a future; there was no doubt of that, sharp as
the pains of enforced postponement were. Nor, for that matter,
were the people of Florida alone blameworthy for the insanity of
1925. They, perhaps, had done most of the shouting, but the
hysteria which had centered in their state had been a national
hysteria, enormously increased by the influx of outlanders intent
upon making easy money.
The Florida boom in fact, was only one - and by all odds the most
spectacular - of a series of land and building booms during the
Post-war Decade, each of which had its marked effect upon the
national economy and the national life.
At the very outset of the decade there had been a sensational
market in farm lands, caused by the phenomenal prices brought by
wheat and other crops during and immediately after the war. Prices
of farm property leaped, thousands of mortgages and loans were
based upon these exaggerated values, and when the bottom dropped
out of the agricultural markets in 1920-21, the distress of the
farmers was intensified by the fact that in innumerable cases they
could not get money enough from their crops to cover the interest
due at the bank or to pay the taxes which were now levied on the
increased valuation. Thousands of country banks, saddled with
mortgages and loans in default, ultimately went to the wall. In
one of the great agricultural states, the average earnings of all
the national and state banks during the years 1924-29, a time of
great prosperity for the country at large, were less than 1-1/2%;
and in seven states of the country, between 40 and 50% of the
banks which had been in business prior to 1920 had failed before
1929. Just how many of these failures were directly attributable
to the undisciplined rise and subsequent fall in real-estate
prices it is, of course, impossible to say; but undoubtedly many
of the little country banks which suffered so acutely would never
have gone down to ruin if there bad been no boom in farm lands.
... City after city, hoping to attract industries within its
limits, eloquently pointed out its "advantages" and tried to "make
its personality felt" and to "carry its constructive message to
the American people"; but at length it began to dawn upon the
boosters that attracting industries bore some resemblance to
robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that if all of them were converted
to boosting, each of them was as likely to find itself in the role
of Peter as in that of Paul. And exactly as the developers of the
tropical wonderlands of Florida had learned that there were more
land-speculators able and willing to gamble in houses intended for
the polo-playing class than there were members of this class, so
also those who carved out playgrounds for the rich in North
Carolina or elsewhere learned to their ultimate sorrow that the
rich could not play everywhere at once. And once more the downfall
of their bright hopes had financial repercussions, as bankrupt
developments led to the closing of bank after bank.
Again, all through the decade, but especially during its middle
years, there was a boom in suburban lands outside virtually every
American city. As four million discouraged Americans left the
farms, and the percentage of city-dwellers in the United States
increased from 51.4 to 57.6, and the cities grew in size and in
stridency, and urban traffic became more noisy and congested, and
new high buildings cut off the city dweller's light and air, the
drift of families from the cities to the urban-rural compromise of
the neighboring countryside of the neighboring countryside became
more rapid. Here again the automobile played its part in changing
the conditions of American life, by bringing within easy range of
the suburban railroad station, and thus of the big city, great
stretches of woodland and field which a few years before had
seemed remote and inaccessible. Attractive suburbs grew with
amazing speed, ...
On the immediate outskirts of great cities such as New York,
Chicago, Los Angeles, and Detroit huge tracts were less
luxuriously developed. The Borough of Queens, just across the East
River from New York, grew vastly and hideously: its population
more than doubled during the decade, reaching a total of over a
million. Outside Detroit immense districts were subdivided and
numerous lots in them were bought by people so poor that they
secured permits to build "garage dwellings" - temporary one-room
shacks - and lived in them for years without ever building real
houses. So furious was the competition among developers that it
was estimated that in a single year there were subdivided in the
Chicago region enough lots to accommodate the growth of the city
for twenty years to come (at the rate at which it had previously
grown), and that by the end of the decade enough lots had been
staked out between Patchogue, Long Island, and the New York City
limits to house the entire metropolitan population of six
millions. ...
... But the suburban boom itself did not begin to languish in most
localities until 1928 or 1929. By that time many suburbs were
plainly over built: as one drove out along the highways, one began
to notice houses that must have stood long untenanted, shops with
staring vacant windows, districts blighted with half-finished and
"improvements"; one heard of suburban apartment houses which had
changed hands again and again as mortgages were foreclosed, or of
householders in uncompleted subdivisions who were groaning under a
naively unexpected burden of taxes and assessments. Yet even then
it was clear that, like Florida the suburb had a future. The need
of men and women for space and freedom, as well as for access to
the centers of population had not come to an end. The final phase
of the real-estate boom of the nineteen-twenties centered in the
cities themselves. To picture what happened to the American sky
line during those years, compare a 1920 airplane view of almost
any large city with one taken in 1930. There is scarcely a city
which does not show a bright new cluster of skyscrapers at its
center. The tower-building mania reached its climax in New York -
since towers in the metropolis are a potent advertisement - and
particularly in the Grand Central district of New York. Here the
building boom attained immense proportions, coming to its peak of
intensity in 1928. New pinnacles shot into the air forty stories,
fifty stories, and more; between 1918 and 1930 the amount of space
available for office use in large modern buildings in that
district was multiplied approximately by ten. In a photograph of
uptown New York taken from the neighborhood of the East River
early in 1931, the twenty most conspicuous structures were all
products of the Post-war Decade. The tallest two of all, to be
sure, were not completed until after the panic of 1929; by the
time the splendid shining tower of the Empire State Building stood
clear of scaffolding there were apple salesmen shivering on the
curbstone below. Yet it was none the less a monument to the
abounding confidence of the days in which it was conceived.
The confidence had been excessive. Skyscrapers had been
over-produced. In the spring of 1931 it was reliably stated that
some 17% of the space in the big office buildings of the Grand
Central district and some 40% of that in the big office buildings
of the Plaza district farther uptown, was not bringing in a
return; owners of new skyscrapers were inveigling business
concerns into occupying vacant floors by offering them space
rent-free for a period or by assuming their leases in other
buildings; and financiers were shaking their heads over the
precarious condition of many realty investments in New York. The
metropolis, too, had a future, but speculative enthusiasm had
carried it upward a little too fast.
After the Florida hurricane, real-estate speculation lost most of
its interest for the ordinary man and woman. Few of them were much
concerned, except as householders or as spectators, with the
building of suburban developments or of forty-story experiments in
modernist architecture. Yet the national speculative fever which
had turned their eyes and their cash to the Florida Gold Coast in
1925 was not chilled; it was merely checked. Florida house-lots
were a bad bet? Very well, then, said a public still enthralled by
the radiant possibilities of Coolidge Prosperity: what else was
there to bet on? Before long a new wave of popular speculation was
accumulating momentum. Not in real-estate this time; in something
quite different. The focus of speculative infection shifted from
Flagler Street, Miami, to Broad and Wall Streets, New York. The
Big Bull Market was getting under way.
--
Stewart Goldwater <http://www.janus.freeserve.co.uk/>
mahab...@my-deja.com
Are you attempting to argue that government regulations caused the
Great Depression and subsequent unemployment? Can we say "historical
revisionism"? And also "anachronism"? I knew you could .......
Historically, the Great Depression is considered to have begun with the
stock market crash of October 29, 1929, which occurred during the
Hoover administration. If you were to check out what was going on with
the economy up to that time, you would learn that the 1920s were
prosperous times, particularly the period from 1922 to 1927. Please let
us know what government regulations were created between 1927 and 1929
that caused the nation to plummet into depression.
The rate of unemployment had reached crisis levels in 1932. By 1932,
national wages were 60% less than in 1929, dividends 56.6 % less. In
1932, U.S. industry as a whole was operating at less than half its
maximum 1929 volume. Hoover was still President in 1932.
FDR was inaugurated in 1933.
> > That would be left for Republican
> > George Bush 50-some-years later, signing an "Americans with
> > Disabilities Act" that proclaimed criminality and/or incompetence to
> > be legally privileged "mental handicaps."
>
> FDR used the depression to create a whole series of new precedents.
The
> more money and favors government gives out, the more politicians can
be
> counted on to add to those precedents.
Well, yes, that's right, but at the time people felt something had to
be done, and it is a fact that the economy began a slow but fairly
steady reboud out of the Depression almost as soon as FDR took office.
Because of the depth of the Depression it took time before people felt
economically "recovered," but there were real economic gains in 1933.
>
> In any case, Atlas Shrigged was modelled on FDR in large part,
regardless of
> Hoover's policies.
Yes, Rand had a very simple-minded, one-dimensional point of view.
B.
mahab...@my-deja.com
Astonishing. Rand was a one-dimensional thinker with a limited
understanding of human nature. I can't believe people worship her as
you do. Can't you think for yourself?
B.
mahab...@my-deja.com
"Mark Lewis" <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
>
> <kon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8olunk$nhj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <xqnr5.307$3U2....@nntp3.onemain.com>,
> > "thx1666" <thx...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Don't know if everybody knows yet. I just found out, and I could
be
> > the
> > > last to hear!
> > >
> > > http://www.tnt-tv.com/pressroom/26.html
> >
> > Makes you wonder why they're even bothering. It's taken so
> > long for this project to find a backer because, as a novel,
> > IT STINKS. Page after page regurgitating her philosophy over
> > and over made it a chore to read. Top that with a lack of
> > character development, i.e. everyone is either "good" or "evil"
> > from the start and never changes, and I almost couldn't finish
> > it. Everyone is a caricature. Whatever good points are made
> > about over-reaching government are drowned out by the sheer
> > silliness of the strawman "government/society" that Rand sets up.
>
> You are so right! That's why it is listed second only to the bible
in the
> most read books survey...
Show me this survey.
thx1666
news:8oqjug$3dd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8oq6e6$kt1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > and we will only know for certain many years from now but her example
> > of what the free people spirit can do if an individual cares deeply
> > will live in history forever - whether she becomes recognized as the
> > greatest philosopher of human history or not, eclipsing Aristotle!
>
> Astonishing. Rand was a one-dimensional thinker with a limited
> understanding of human nature. I can't believe people worship her as
> you do. Can't you think for yourself?
Perhaps that one dimension is what was missing in philosophical / political
thought. Perhaps Rand focused on what was her "niche" and left the rest of
human nature for you to explore. After all, you can think for YOURself.
Which is exactly what Rand wanted!
--
===========================================
Get your Third Party Candidate heard!
Boycott Anheuser-Busch for representative debates
http://www.geocities.com/thx1666/boycott/boycott.html
===========================================
thx1666
news:8oqjqs$367$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Are you attempting to argue that government regulations caused the
> Great Depression and subsequent unemployment? Can we say "historical
> revisionism"? And also "anachronism"? I knew you could .......
>
> Historically, the Great Depression is considered to have begun with the
> stock market crash of October 29, 1929, which occurred during the
> Hoover administration. If you were to check out what was going on with
> the economy up to that time, you would learn that the 1920s were
> prosperous times, particularly the period from 1922 to 1927. Please let
> us know what government regulations were created between 1927 and 1929
> that caused the nation to plummet into depression.
>
> The rate of unemployment had reached crisis levels in 1932. By 1932,
> national wages were 60% less than in 1929, dividends 56.6 % less. In
> 1932, U.S. industry as a whole was operating at less than half its
> maximum 1929 volume. Hoover was still President in 1932.
Aggression Disrupts the Marketplace Ecosystem - Dr. Mary Ruwart
In 1914, the Federal Reserve (Fed) received an exclusive monopoly to issue
U.S. currency. Like AT&T, the Fed is a private corporation, owned by its
member banks. The Fed is a powerful institution; some believe it is the
most powerful in the world. Let's find out why.
Before the creation of the Fed, banks found they needed reserves of
approximately 21% so that they would have enough money on hand when their
customers wanted to make a withdrawal. When the Fed took over the reserves
of the national banks, it lowered the reserve requirement to half that. (4)
The Fed itself used a reserve system: it kept only 35% of the reserves
entrusted to it by the member banks! (5) The balance was loaned out, mostly
to the government, with the wealth of the American people as collateral.
Lowering reserves resulted in the creation of more money. As a result, the
money supply doubled between 1914 and 1920 (6) and once again from 1921 to
1929. (7) In contrast, gold in the reserve vault increased only 3% in the
1920s. (8) The bankers would obviously be unable to keep their promise to
deliver gold to depositors if a large number of people withdrew their money
at the same time.
Businesses could not use all the newly created money the banks wished to
loan, so stock speculators were encouraged to borrow. (9) Many people got
heavily into debt, thinking that the boom would continue.
In 1929, the Fed started deflation by slowing the creation of new money.
(10) People who had counted on renewing their loans to cover stock
speculations or other investments found they could no longer borrow. They
were forced to sell their securities, and a stock market plunge ensued. The
mini-crash in October 1987 also may have been triggered by the Fed's
slowing the creation of new money. (11)
People who lost money spent less on goods and services; business began to
slow. With banks unwilling to renew loans, (12) businesses began to reduce
their work force. People nervously began withdrawing their gold deposits as
banks in other countries quit honoring their promise to return the gold.
Rumors circulated that the Federal Reserve would soon be bankrupt as well.
(13) Naturally, there was no way for the banks to exchange the inflated
dollars for gold.
As people withdraw their bank funds, the money supply decreases_just the
reverse of what happens when they deposit it. The banks' failure to loan
coupled with massive withdrawals, caused even greater deflation. People
lost their savings and their purchasing power; in turn, businesses lost
their customers and laid off workers. Each loss contributed to the next,
resulting in the most severe depression Americans had ever known.
Had this happened in Scotland between 1793 and 1845, bank owners
(stockholders) would have to make their promises good by digging into their
own pockets. In our country, however, the government enforcement agents
were instructed to come after the American citizenry instead! Franklin
Roosevelt convinced Congress to pass a bill making it illegal for Americans
to own gold. (14) Everyone had to exchange their valuable gold for Federal
Reserve notes, which had no intrinsic value. Gold was still given to
foreigners who brought their dollars to be exchanged for gold, but not to
Americans!
While U.S. banks failed in the early 1930s and Americans were shorn of
their gold, no Canadian banks failed. Between 1921 and 1929, American
depositors lost an estimated $565 million, while Canadian losses were less
than 3% of that. (15) Canada enjoyed a banking system similar to the one
described earlier for Scotland few licensing laws and no central bank with
an exclusive monopoly on currency issue. (16) Each bank issued its own
notes and protected itself and the public by refusing to loan to inflating
banks. Just as in Scotland, the stockholders of the banks were obligated to
make good the inflated currency. Unfortunately for Canada, the aggression
of licensing laws was instituted in 1935. (17)
Why did the Canadians switch from a system that protected them from
bankruptcy? Why did England eventually impose its inferior system on
Scotland? Why was the Fed introduced in the United States and relieved of
its promise to return gold that was deposited by our great-grandparents and
their contemporaries? Why did the Fed slow money creation in 1929,
precipitating the stock market crash? Why does the Fed alternate inflation
and deflation at the expense of the American public today?
Several authors have proposed that the evolution of central banks
represents a collusion between politicians and a small elite with
ownership/control of major banking institutions. (18) Bank owners want to
create as much money as possible, without having to dig into their own
pockets when depositors want their money. Politicians long to fulfill their
grandiose campaign promises without visibly taxing their constituency.
Central banking can give both groups what they want.
First, through the aggression of exclusive licensing, politicians give the
central bank a monopoly on issuing currency. As long as banks must make
good on their promises to depositors, however, they are still subject to
the regulation of the marketplace ecosystem. The politicians encourage the
aggressive practice of fraud by refusing to make banks and similar
institutions (i.e., Savings & Loans, known as "S&Ls") keep promises to
depositors. Instead, owners and managers who make risky loans can simply
walk away from their mistakes, as President Bush's son Neil did. (19)
Depositors either lose their life savings or are reimbursed from taxes
taken at gunpoint, if necessary from their neighbors.
The bankers, of course, must give the politicians something in return. When
the ranchers, loggers, or other special interest groups want more subsides,
our representatives need not incur the wrath of the populace by suggesting
more taxes. Instead, they borrow some of the Fed's newly created money!
When it comes time to pay the loan back with interest, the politicians pay
it back with a bigger loan using our wealth as collateral. The special
interest groups thank the politicians by funding their reelections.
As a result, our national debt has grown so big that the interest alone
consumed 25% of 1989 federal outlays! (20) The single largest holder of the
national debt is the Federal Reserve itself. As mentioned in the previous
chapter, our pension and investment plans often buy the government I.O.U.s.
For our pension funds to pay us, we may first have to pay higher taxes to
cover the I.O.U.s. How much higher will our taxes be? The 1989 national
debt was more than $11,000 for every man, woman, and child! (20)
Like any special interest group, the Fed is inclined to help the
politicians who protect it. By manipulating the money supply to cause boom
or bust at the appropriate times, the Fed controls the illusion of
prosperity an illusion that determines which politicians people will vote
for or against. Like any other special interest group, the Fed can control
our government to a significant extent.
For example, the exclusive monopoly of the Second Bank of the United States
was scheduled to end in 1836. Andrew Jackson swore not to renew it if he
were reelected president in 1832. Soon after his victory, he removed the
government's deposits from the central bank. The bank's president, Nicholas
Biddle, attempted to bring about a depression by cutting back on the
creation of money, just as the Federal Reserve would do almost 100 years
later. Biddle hoped to blackmail Congress into renewing the banks's
monopoly by making the voters miserable. Fortunately, these tactics were
not successful. (21) The American people were not fooled and the bank
charter was not renewed. Unfortunately, this lesson was forgotten, and
central banking was reestablished with the Federal Reserve.
John
world war the U.K. was almost bankrupt. They had printed
far more pound notes then they had gold to back them. The
French were demanding gold for these notes that the British
did not have. One of the first things the United States
Federal reserve did was buy the excess pounds to "help" the
British out of their problem. This only contributed to the
increased money supply problems mentioned in the article.
Also, almost without exception, every governing member of
the federal reserve of 1914 became very wealthy.
Regards,
John
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
jddescr...@my-deja.com
mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This will be a little difficult for you but yes I do a great deal of
thinking about and modeling of the dimensions of human happiness. This
involves freedom philosophies and with few exceptions the Ayn Rand
Theory [ART] is the very best that exists following the DECLARATION
and her admiration for Thomas Jefferson. I also admire and study the
great free people leadership that President Reagan provided America.
The answer then is yes! I think for myself but I use all the great
free people learning I can find to make my progress more efficient.
Do you invent, from scratch, all your thoughts on happiness and freedom
and good people if you ever have such love-of-life [LOL] thoughts? JD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loren Petrich
>In article <ReWr5.8620$kI2.2...@nntp1.onemain.com>,
> "Mark Lewis" <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
>> <kon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8olunk$nhj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
[Ayn Rand's wooden novel-writing...]
>> You are so right! That's why it is listed second only to the bible
>in the
>> most read books survey...
>Show me this survey.
I remember seeing some reference to some such survey in a
discussion of Internet ballot-stuffing somewhere. "Vote early and often"
is apparently what the Randroids had done here.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@panix.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
mahab...@my-deja.com
"Mark Lewis" <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
>
> "Loren Petrich" <pet...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:8ot969$ech$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> > In article <EnWr5.8362$3U2.2...@nntp3.onemain.com>,
> > Mark Lewis <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
> >
> > >If you came out of the book with "production is good, regulation
is bad"
> > >then I might think you had something.
> >
> > as property-claim protection?
>
> Yes, the book stateed explicityly that this is BAD and destructive.
I don't
> want regulators on my side, I want them on another planet.
OK. Next time you go to a fast-food place, be sure you ask for the
uninspected beef. If you live near an earthquake plane, I trust that
your house isn't up to building codes. And what about your tires?
> >
> > >Remember it was only the politicians that were greedy in the
novel. All
> the
> > >heroes wanted was to produce welath through work and trade for it
openly
> on
> > >the market. All they asked for is the freedom to trade without
> regulations
> > >or force. They were not greedy.
> >
> > "I don't want to be regulated". Try running a professional sports
> > league without umpires and see what you get.
>
> Please! Tell me you don't consider this an argument.
>
> People have the choice whether or not to play a particular game. If
they
> choose to play that game rather than another, they agree to play by
the
> rules and obey the umpires. If at any point they do not want to play
any
> more, they quit and either join another game or start their own.
>
> Games are entirely voluntary, and there is no legal use of force to
make you
> play or stop you from playing.
>
> Regulations are like controlling what games you can join and what
games you
> can create. It is like a governmetn deciding that they are going to
create
> their own rules for football, and forcing all the players to follow
them.
> If they attempt to quit and start a new game, they are shot.
>
> Again, please! Don't be specious.
>
> >
> > >>Both are willfully oblivious to the fact
> > >> that in life both statements may be true at different times.
> > >> It should make for some horrid TV as they try to reconcile some
> > >> semblance of a society people can recognize with the ludicrous
> > >> premises we're forced to swallow reading the book.
> > >No one was forced to read it, and if the premises are ludicrous,
tell
> that
> > >to the soviets, maoists, pol potists, etc...They LIVED it.
> >
> > I know what Communism was like -- it was something like the
> > ultimate in Big Business which inhabited its own company town.
>
> No. Here is the difference. If you tried to start a little shop of
your
> own, they shot you. That is the difference.
>
> It is an insurmountable difference.
>
> If you don't understand that difference, imagine the difference
between
> giving your friends Christmas presents and being robbed at gunpoint.
>
> Mark
Mark Lewis
<mahab...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8p3v5q$ngm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8HXs5.15987$kI2.5...@nntp1.onemain.com>,
> "Mark Lewis" <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
> > Yes, the book (atlas shrugged) stateed explicityly that this is business
people who lobby for regulations that help their business at the expense of
others is BAD and destructive.
>> I don't want regulators on my side, I want them on another planet.
>
> OK. Next time you go to a fast-food place, be sure you ask for the
> uninspected beef. If you live near an earthquake plane, I trust that
> your house isn't up to building codes. And what about your tires?
OK, lets examine this.
First the fast food beef inspection.
Having worked in a fast food chain, and worked with beef, I will tell you
that the inspection of such beef was virtually non existent, and everyone
knew it. It was only the personal pride of the manager that determined what
quality of beef was tossed and what was cooked. I also agree that if you
knew what most fast food places were like, you would not choose to eat their
food.
However, if there was no regulation, what do you think would happen? First,
people would only eat at restaurants that had a reputation for safe food.
Restaurants would advertise about the excellent conditions of their food
preparation. I, or other entrepreneurs, would start businesses who rated the
quality of those restaurants, paid by consumers, like consumer reports. Our
rating would only be as convincing to the consumers as our reputation. If we
were found to "curry" favor (no bias against Indian food), would lose our
market. I would also start a company that rated the "food quality rator"
companies (which the government does not have, despite the many instances of
bribery of the inspectors, because there is no competition).
In other words, the same function (BECAUSE IT IS A VALUABLE FUNCTION TO THE
CONSUMERS) would be handled by business competition. The best companies
virtually always have standards above the government regulation, and their
customers pay more because of this.
If the function was not considered important to the consumer, it would not
have sufficient demand to generate a business devoted to it. If the
consumers were inaccurate, they would learn and create the demand.
Those who were willing to risk eating at a restaurant with a poor reputation
would have that choice. Did you purchase Tylenol after it was found to be
poisoned? Did the "safety standards" of the government stop that?
In summary, if the people are not (falsely) assured by their government,
they would actually have to pay attention to the minimum quality of their
purchases. They will investigate more and be more interested in services
that offer appropriate information. The entire climate of purchasing would
change and those companies that built a reputation for quality would have an
advantage over those new companies with no reputation or those who have a
bad reputation.
Government Regulation gives the consumer a false sense of security when
buying fast food. The company has more at stake than not passing a standard.
If their customers get sick, they lose business. In a society without
regulation, such news would be a hot commodity. It is much less so now.
Next, let's look at housing standards. Let's say that I want to gamble that
there will be no earthquake. I contract with a builder to build a house by
standards that are not up to current earthquake regulations (living on a
fault line in the SF bay area, I don't like this, but...). I have the right
to take that risk. On the other hand, if I want a house built to earthquake
standards, I will pay more for it, and include it in the contract. I can pay
inspectors to make sure, and if it does not hold up in an earthquake, I can
sue the builder or get insurance.
Again, in a context without regulation, I will have to add that criteria to
my decision making process. Some people choose to live without disability
insurance, life insurance, wearing seat belts, etc. They make the choices
and take the risk. IN a society in which it is not regulated, such behavior
would be more conscious. If I chose not to buy unemployment insurance or
invest for my retirement, I have no one to blame but myself. As it is now, I
work with people headed into retirement who were thinking that social
security would take care of them. Hence they did not investigate their
investment needs until the age of 45. Now, they must save 4 times as much
per month then if they had started at 25. Social Security lulled them into
inaction and unconsciousness. They don't have disability because they think
government unemployment insurance or workman's comp will cover them. When it
does not, they are trapped.
When you regulate an area of choice, you dumb down the people's decision
making process in that area. You reduce the consciousness that people use to
make decisions. You make them dependent on the government bureaucrats and
political campaign promise mentality of the media.
Again, this is damaging to the public soul.
Last, the tires. Ford is in trouble right now. Is it for violating
regulations? NO! It is from the suits being brought against them by the
people who resorted to the court system. Sure they will get an impressive
slap on the wrist from the government. But the slap in the face they will
get from their plaintiffs and the loss of public confidence will be 20 times
worse.
Would I buy a car from Ford now? I have to think about it, don't I? It is
the fact that government standards failed that leads me to think about it.
Now I will go to consumer reports etc. to research, whereas before I would
just "trust" that minimum standards are held in place by the government.
Again, regulation reduces the consciousness of the consumer, and gives a
false security.
If I have been in business 40 years with a perfect record, or just started
last week, I am equal to the competition as far as the government is
concerned. If I pass their tests, I get the same stamp of approval as the
best companies out there. Consumers actually think this protects them. HAH!
Regulation is dangerous to the consuming public.
--
Mark Michael Lewis
There is no art which one government sooner learns of another than that of
draining money from the pockets of the people. - Adam Smith.
Check out some of my thoughts at www.ChooseYourLife.com
LQuest
>In article <8HXs5.15987$kI2.5...@nntp1.onemain.com>,
> "Mark Lewis" <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Loren Petrich" <pet...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:8ot969$ech$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>> > In article <EnWr5.8362$3U2.2...@nntp3.onemain.com>,
>> > Mark Lewis <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >If you came out of the book with "production is good, regulation
>is bad"
>> > >then I might think you had something.
>> >
>> > Even when the "regulators" are on your side in some issue? Such
>> > as property-claim protection?
>>
>> Yes, the book stateed explicityly that this is BAD and destructive.
>I don't
>> want regulators on my side, I want them on another planet.
>
>OK. Next time you go to a fast-food place, be sure you ask for the
>uninspected beef. If you live near an earthquake plane, I trust that
>your house isn't up to building codes.
>And what about your tires?
And we all see what a great job the regulators did on that one. How about
tort reform -- to make the INDIVIDUALS who run ANY business venture,
including corporations, liable for the lethal behavior or those under their
command? Right now GOVERNMENT protects them via the government conferred
privilege -- a corporation.
thx1666
> Again, this is damaging to the public soul.
> Regulation is dangerous to the consuming public.
I agree with you, Mark. Now if only the Supreme Court would recognize that
dumbing down through over-regulation is not good for the general welfare of
the people.
-thx
thx1666
> And we all see what a great job the regulators did on that one. How
about
> tort reform -- to make the INDIVIDUALS who run ANY business venture,
> including corporations, liable for the lethal behavior or those under
their
> command? Right now GOVERNMENT protects them via the government conferred
> privilege -- a corporation.
"The essential psychological requirement of a free society is the
willingness on the part of the individual to accept responsibility for his
life." - Edith Packer, clinical psychologist
Sounds like the general welfare is being harmed, to me.
mahab...@my-deja.com
"Mark Lewis" <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
> competition vs. regulation
>
> <mahab...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8p3v5q$ngm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > In article <8HXs5.15987$kI2.5...@nntp1.onemain.com>,
> > "Mark Lewis" <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
> > > Yes, the book (atlas shrugged) stateed explicityly that this is
business
> people who lobby for regulations that help their business at the
expense of
> others is BAD and destructive.
> >> I don't want regulators on my side, I want them on another planet.
> >
> > OK. Next time you go to a fast-food place, be sure you ask for the
> > uninspected beef. If you live near an earthquake plane, I trust that
> > your house isn't up to building codes. And what about your tires?
>
> OK, lets examine this.
>
> First the fast food beef inspection.
>
> Having worked in a fast food chain, and worked with beef, I will tell
you
> that the inspection of such beef was virtually non existent, and
everyone
> knew it.
Dear fool: Meat goes through a lot of middlemen before it gets to the
retailer. This fast food chain did not have steers out back that it
slaughtered and ground into beef patties, did it? Federal-level
inspections take place at the slaughterhouse and meat packing business.
Your fast-food chain was subject to local health inspectors, and how
good that is depends on where you live.
BTW, you can thank health inspectors for the fact that there are a
number of nasty diseases that common in the rest of the world that are
nearly unknown in the U.S. (e.g., cholera) or much more rare than in
less well inspected places (e.g., hepatitis A, which is mostly caused
by sewage contamination of food).
> It was only the personal pride of the manager that determined what
> quality of beef was tossed and what was cooked. I also agree that if
you
> knew what most fast food places were like, you would not choose to
eat their
> food.
>
> However, if there was no regulation, what do you think would happen?
First,
> people would only eat at restaurants that had a reputation for safe
food.
> Restaurants would advertise about the excellent conditions of their
food
> preparation. I, or other entrepreneurs, would start businesses who
rated the
> quality of those restaurants, paid by consumers, like consumer
reports.
There's nothing getting in the way of that happening now.
> Our
> rating would only be as convincing to the consumers as our
reputation. If we
> were found to "curry" favor (no bias against Indian food), would lose
our
> market. I would also start a company that rated the "food quality
rator"
> companies (which the government does not have, despite the many
instances of
> bribery of the inspectors, because there is no competition).
>
> In other words, the same function (BECAUSE IT IS A VALUABLE FUNCTION
TO THE
> CONSUMERS) would be handled by business competition.
I realize Ayn Rand taught you to regurgitate this "idea," but if you
spend ten minutes thinking for yourself and observing how the real
world actually functions, you would see that it just doesn't happen
that way. Although what you say makes sense, businesses do things to
save money in the short term that are extremely risky, and only
sometimes do they get caught.
Have you been paying attention to the Firestone tire fiasco, for
example? Or do you remember the scandal of a few years ago when the
Beechnut Baby Food company was caught bottling apple flavored water and
labeling it 100 percent apple juice.
>The best companies
> virtually always have standards above the government regulation, and
their
> customers pay more because of this.
And time and again, when those same companies do business in countries
with little or no regulation, those standards go to hell.
I'm snipping the rest of what you write, because you are so obviously
brainwashed and naive. Think for yourself. Pay attention.
B.
LQuest
>LQuest <roil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> And we all see what a great job the regulators did on that one. How
>about
>> tort reform -- to make the INDIVIDUALS who run ANY business venture,
>> including corporations, liable for the lethal behavior or those under
>their
>> command? Right now GOVERNMENT protects them via the government conferred
>> privilege -- a corporation.
>
>"The essential psychological requirement of a free society is the
>willingness on the part of the individual to accept responsibility for his
>life." - Edith Packer, clinical psychologist
Ditto. Thanks for making my point.
>Sounds like the general welfare is being harmed, to me.
Yes it is. The single gravest threat to it is the very institutions to which
we've foolishly entrusted it.
Mr. C.
Club in conjunction with the Library of Congress polls readers and Atlas
Shrugged consistently comes in second to the Bible in the category of "most
influential book" that respondents have read.
"Mark Lewis" <mark...@jps.net> wrote in message
news:1JXs5.14766$wS1.6...@nntp2.onemain.com...
>
> "Loren Petrich" <pet...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:8ot9qt$eak$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> > In article <8oqk0o$3lr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <mahab...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> > >In article <ReWr5.8620$kI2.2...@nntp1.onemain.com>,
> > > "Mark Lewis" <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
> > >> <kon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > >news:8olunk$nhj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > [Ayn Rand's wooden novel-writing...]
> > >> You are so right! That's why it is listed second only to the bible
> > >in the
> > >> most read books survey...
> > >Show me this survey.
> >
> > I remember seeing some reference to some such survey in a
> > discussion of Internet ballot-stuffing somewhere. "Vote early and often"
> > is apparently what the Randroids had done here.
>
> Actually this one was a combination of the Library of Congress and the
book
> of the month club.
>
> It is widely cited, Including the documentary on Ayn Rand "A Sense of
Life"
> but I don't have a definite source. I'm sure if you look up the libray of
> congress or aynrand.org it is readily available there.
>
>
>
Hugo S. Cunningham
>"Hugo S. Cunningham" <hc...@removethis.tiac.net> wrote in message
[...]
>> Maybe as a novel it has deficiencies. Its description of a crumbling
>> industrial society, however, sounds a bit like Russia under
>> Bush-Senior and Clinton's kleptocrat "reformers."
>More to the point, and more accurately historically, FDR. She was
>describing many of the new deal policies and the power of those who were
>making the policies.
[...]
"Atlas Shrugged" depicted what Rand actually saw in Russia during the
"War Communism" period (1917-1921), overlaid on the Hoover Depression
(1929-1933) and a jaundiced interpretation of "New Deal" leftism. To
the extent Rand actually blamed FDR for the Great Depression, she was
wide of the historical mark. But she was, after all, taking fictional
liberties with her notion of a "strike of the mind." In reality, the
very competitiveness and restlessness of human creativity will bring
forth new and effective actors even under the most destructive social
and intellectual environment.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
Mark Lewis
> "Mark Lewis" <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
>
> >"Hugo S. Cunningham" <hc...@removethis.tiac.net> wrote in message
>
> [...]
>
> >> Maybe as a novel it has deficiencies. Its description of a crumbling
> >> industrial society, however, sounds a bit like Russia under
> >> Bush-Senior and Clinton's kleptocrat "reformers."
>
> >More to the point, and more accurately historically, FDR. She was
> >describing many of the new deal policies and the power of those who were
> >making the policies.
>
> [...]
>
> "Atlas Shrugged" depicted what Rand actually saw in Russia during the
> "War Communism" period (1917-1921), overlaid on the Hoover Depression
> (1929-1933) and a jaundiced interpretation of "New Deal" leftism. To
> the extent Rand actually blamed FDR for the Great Depression, she was
> wide of the historical mark.
She didn't blame him for the depression. She merely modeled many of her
regulations on his policies and the effects they had on business. Her book
We The Living depicted soviet russia. Atlas Shrugged depicted the New Deal
policies taken to their conclusion if Atlas Shrugged. The people who ran
the New Deal Programs had Power without hardly any supervision, and the
programs got more and more intense. The business people did not know what
was going to come next unless they had friends in governement. If they did
have friends, they could get greate contracts etc.
From the discussions I have had with business people of the period, Atlas
Shrugged is nearly an accurate depiction of their experience.
Leave it to economists to decipher exactly how the new deal policies
prolonged the depression. The point is that such policies are incredibly
damaging to business, and Rand described much of the mechanics of why.
> But she was, after all, taking fictional
> liberties with her notion of a "strike of the mind." In reality, the
> very competitiveness and restlessness of human creativity will bring
> forth new and effective actors even under the most destructive social
> and intellectual environment.
Actually, while this is essntially true, Soviet Russia and communist
experiments in general prove the case rather than arguing against it.
That's why Atlas had to Shrug. Otherwise, James Taggart was right: "YOU"LL
DO SOMETHING!" There will always be productive creative people to loot
from. However, when you let those people trade freely and act according to
their own conscience, their creativity gets to multiply with the free
creativity of other people to create that phenomenon known as capitalism.
It is one thing to criticize the details of Rand's economics, but let's not
miss the forest for the deformity of a couple trees.
--
Mark Michael Lewis
The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited: he must not make
himself a nuisance to other people. - John Stuart Mill.
Check out some of my thoughts at www.ChooseYourLife.com
>
> --Hugo S. Cunningham
>
>
>
>
Mark Lewis
<mahab...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8p5dnl$a6p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
The point is that because the government has a binary stamp, there is no
demand for it. Take away the governmental stamp and the demand will be
there.
no demand, no business.
Thanks for the advice.
However, my brainwashing is far too complete for me to hear it.
benrand
don't stay in business very long, now do they??? Some companies do cut
corners, but courts have been established and the press unleashed to remove
these inefficiencies...
Talk about naive...name a better country.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
"Perseverance is more prevailing than violence; and many
things which cannot be overcome when they are together, yield
themselves up when taken little by little." --Plutarch
<mahab...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8p5dnl$a6p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
jddescr...@my-deja.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now as the records of the KGB files are being more and more
exposed we can see the socialist criminality of the Roosevelt
deliberate destruction if the American economy. It was far more
than just his sale of scrap iron to Japan for their attack on
Pearl. WE shouldn't forget that before Truman, the VP was a
confessed socialist even worse than Hoover. The biggest
disclosures to come are about the Lend - Lease transfers of
American secret information through Gore field in Montana by
Roosevelt to his "uncle joe" in black suitcases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember that in Atlas it wasn't transparently obvious
to many that the average thinking free people were on
strike. People can do many things to redirect their essential
[and critical for happiness] productive efforts to profit
their families in ways that don't directly or even indirectly
support the socialist, or the socman [social manipulator].
Many of those in Atlas who appeared NUMB, DUMB, and MUM were
also part of the mind strike. The productive people are not
always naive enough to be exploited by the socman as Dagny was.
On the other hand, the socman who lives by theft, by forcing the
mind and/or body [Forcing, Fearing, Frauding] will always be
present and it requires a philosophy such as that of Ayn Rand
to see them and safe distance them as was done in Atlas. Their
presence shows up as a pressure, an unhappiness, and angst
attitude/feeling which is directly measureable and quantifiable.
This is a constant in socialist europe but a recent taking/taxing
Fing sense in the American model of free enterprise capitalism as
the socialist waves of take over accumulate over the last century.
Good seeing. JD
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Lewis
"benrand" <bl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8p9kcb$123f$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> So, if they do things only on a short term, "get rich quick"...well, they
> don't stay in business very long, now do they??? Some companies do cut
> corners, but courts have been established and the press unleashed to
remove
> these inefficiencies...
>
> Talk about naive...name a better country.
MY point exactly. The courts and the press are suffcient. Regulations are
unneccesary and damaging.
This country, 100 years ago.
mark
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Who is imposing this prior, anticipatory restraint on
free people to limit their actions to the acceptable
nonnuisance value? It sounds like Mill was in comunication
with GOD or some other king's men. Of course we know from
a theory such as the Ayn Rand Theory [ART] that socman
[social manipulator] will always be at best an unpleasant
presence but who is going to king's law against him prior
to reality actions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Atcheson
>
>> kon...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >Makes you wonder why they're even bothering. It's taken so
>> >long for this project to find a backer because, as a novel,
>> >IT STINKS.
>
>In article <8omq6s$r...@news-central.tiac.net>,hc...@tiac.net wrote:
>> Maybe as a novel it has deficiencies. Its description of a
>> crumbling industrial society, however, sounds a bit like Russia
>> under Bush-Senior and Clinton's kleptocrat "reformers."
>
>> >Page after page regurgitating her philosophy over
>> >and over made it a chore to read.
>
>> If one simply skips the Galt speech, the rest is manageable,
>> at least if one is amenable to the message.
>
>It starts long before Galt's speech. In essence his speech
>is repeated over and over again. As for being amenable to the
>message, it's just the flip-side of Marxist thought. Greed is
>good vs greed is bad. Both are willfully oblivious to the fact
>that in life both statements may be true at different times.
>It should make for some horrid TV as they try to reconcile some
>semblance of a society people can recognize with the ludicrous
>premises we're forced to swallow reading the book.
>
Not so far from the truth. What Rand suggests can be found really near
bye: in Canada. Or try Africa. Or what was the USSR.
>Konrad Vandegaer
mahab...@my-deja.com
"thx1666" <thx...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <mahab...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8oqjqs$367$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > Are you attempting to argue that government regulations caused the
> > Great Depression and subsequent unemployment? Can we say "historical
> > revisionism"? And also "anachronism"? I knew you could .......
> >
> > Historically, the Great Depression is considered to have begun with
the
> > stock market crash of October 29, 1929, which occurred during the
> > Hoover administration. If you were to check out what was going on
with
> > the economy up to that time, you would learn that the 1920s were
> > prosperous times, particularly the period from 1922 to 1927. Please
let
> > us know what government regulations were created between 1927 and
1929
> > that caused the nation to plummet into depression.
> >
> > The rate of unemployment had reached crisis levels in 1932. By 1932,
> > national wages were 60% less than in 1929, dividends 56.6 % less. In
> > 1932, U.S. industry as a whole was operating at less than half its
> > maximum 1929 volume. Hoover was still President in 1932.
>
> Aggression Disrupts the Marketplace Ecosystem - Dr. Mary Ruwart
I don't have time to respond to all this nonsense. The Federal Reserve
is not a private corporation. "Dr." Mary Ruwart's ideas seem to depend
on long-outdated notions about the old gold standard. "Dr." Mary Ruwart
is also ignorant of 19th century history if she doesn't know the
ruinous consequences of Jackson's war on the national bank.
Ignorance is not bliss; it is just ignorance.
mahab...@my-deja.com
"thx1666" <thx...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <mahab...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8oqjug$3dd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <8oq6e6$kt1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
> > > and we will only know for certain many years from now but her
example
> > > of what the free people spirit can do if an individual cares
deeply
> > > will live in history forever - whether she becomes recognized as
the
> > > greatest philosopher of human history or not, eclipsing Aristotle!
> >
> > Astonishing. Rand was a one-dimensional thinker with a limited
> > understanding of human nature. I can't believe people worship her as
> > you do. Can't you think for yourself?
>
> Perhaps that one dimension is what was missing in philosophical /
political
> thought. Perhaps Rand focused on what was her "niche" and left the
rest of
> human nature for you to explore. After all, you can think for
YOURself.
> Which is exactly what Rand wanted!
I am old enough that I can remember watching Rand on TV appearances a
few times before she died. She did not want people to think for
themselves. She wanted people to accept what she said without question,
and she was extremely rude to anyone who dared to disagree with her.
B.
>
> --
> ===========================================
> Get your Third Party Candidate heard!
> Boycott Anheuser-Busch for representative debates
> http://www.geocities.com/thx1666/boycott/boycott.html
> ===========================================
>
>
Hugo S. Cunningham
>In article <Mfbs5.11692$3U2.3...@nntp3.onemain.com>,
> "thx1666" <thx...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Perhaps that one dimension is what was missing in philosophical /
>political
>> thought. Perhaps Rand focused on what was her "niche" and left the
>rest of
>> human nature for you to explore. After all, you can think for
>YOURself.
>> Which is exactly what Rand wanted!
>I am old enough that I can remember watching Rand on TV appearances a
>few times before she died. She did not want people to think for
>themselves. She wanted people to accept what she said without question,
>and she was extremely rude to anyone who dared to disagree with her.
Perhaps, like Dr. Laura, she had an element of "Do as I say, not as I
do." In theory, she wanted her admirers to be independent, but face
to face, she found such independence annoying. Similarly, her ideal
man was a masterful "John Galt," but in reality, she would not have
been able to live with a demanding equal.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
Maureen O'Danu
Russia and witnessed the Russian Revolution first hand.
Though her ideals were capitalist and rational, her earliest
models were imperialist and authoritarian. Regardless of
what she said about psychology, she was indeed very heavily
influenced by her upbringing.
Oh, and by the way, Frank O'Connor was from all reports an
incredibly decent man. Not a Randian hero, perhaps, but
maybe a hero nonetheless. He had a very important job...
to keep her functioning so that she could continue to write.
(she was somewhat emotionally unstable and was addicted to
prescribed amphetamines from her twenties onward).
None of this negates her philosophy. While I do not think
she was 100% correct, she did cover some very important
bases that had been missed this century.
--
Maureen O'Danu
For links to my online publications and other useful stuff,
as well as a brief glimpse into my soul, go to my website
here, at http://members.home.net/mliles7/index.html.
"Hugo S. Cunningham" <hc...@removethis.tiac.net> wrote in
message news:8pmio4$s...@news-central.tiac.net...
mahab...@my-deja.com
"Maureen O'Danu" <jdl...@home.com> wrote:
> Keep in mind that Ayn Rand had been raised in Imperial
> Russia and witnessed the Russian Revolution first hand.
> Though her ideals were capitalist and rational, her earliest
> models were imperialist and authoritarian. Regardless of
> what she said about psychology, she was indeed very heavily
> influenced by her upbringing.
IMO Rand was less an original thinker than a reactionary. She saw what
was wrong with communism/totalitarianism and reacted to it by creating
a false dichotomy. She assumed that if the anti-individualism of
authoritarianism is "bad," then the "good" must be absolute
individualism, treating every human as totally autonomous and separate
from human society. But that's nuts, and in its own way just as "bad"
as authoritarianism.
>
> Oh, and by the way, Frank O'Connor was from all reports an
> incredibly decent man. Not a Randian hero, perhaps, but
> maybe a hero nonetheless. He had a very important job...
> to keep her functioning so that she could continue to write.
> (she was somewhat emotionally unstable and was addicted to
> prescribed amphetamines from her twenties onward).
>
> None of this negates her philosophy. While I do not think
> she was 100% correct, she did cover some very important
> bases that had been missed this century.
Rand had little understanding of human nature, and her ideas about are
quickly losing whatever influence they ever had among sociologists and
psychologists.
B.
Jeffrey Davis
I lot of what Rand said is very useful as a kind of rule of thumb. It's
better to be rational than otherwise. Distrust commies. Rely on yourself
as much as you can. Etc. Where her thought breaks down badly is her
belief that her little bag of tricks amounted to Objective Truth. Had
she not been so absolutist in her thought, maybe she would have been
"truer" but maybe she wouldn't have had as much influence.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
The John Dortmunder of Lexington, Ky
Mark Lewis
<mahab...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qr0fv$cmt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <Qxwz5.4066$Hp3.1...@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com>,
> "Maureen O'Danu" <jdl...@home.com> wrote:
> > Keep in mind that Ayn Rand had been raised in Imperial
> > Russia and witnessed the Russian Revolution first hand.
> > Though her ideals were capitalist and rational, her earliest
> > models were imperialist and authoritarian. Regardless of
> > what she said about psychology, she was indeed very heavily
> > influenced by her upbringing.
>
> IMO Rand was less an original thinker than a reactionary. She saw what
> was wrong with communism/totalitarianism and reacted to it by creating
> a false dichotomy. She assumed that if the anti-individualism of
> authoritarianism is "bad," then the "good" must be absolute
> individualism, treating every human as totally autonomous and separate
> from human society. But that's nuts, and in its own way just as "bad"
> as authoritarianism.
Do you realize how ignorant you look saying that on this ng? I am unsure if
you are a masochist, or think that you have a point worth discussing here?
In other words, do you really believe that Rand's individualism 1) treats
every human being as totally autonomous and separate from human society, and
b) that her philosophy comes from anti-collectivism?
mark
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> wrote:
> mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <Qxwz5.4066$Hp3.1...@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com>,
> > "Maureen O'Danu" <jdl...@home.com> wrote:
> > > Keep in mind that Ayn Rand had been raised in Imperial
> > > Russia and witnessed the Russian Revolution first hand.
> > > Though her ideals were capitalist and rational, her earliest
> > > models were imperialist and authoritarian. Regardless of
> > > what she said about psychology, she was indeed very heavily
> > > influenced by her upbringing.
> >
> > IMO Rand was less an original thinker than a reactionary. She saw
what
> > was wrong with communism/totalitarianism and reacted to it by
creating
> > a false dichotomy. She assumed that if the anti-individualism of
> > authoritarianism is "bad," then the "good" must be absolute
> > individualism, treating every human as totally autonomous and
separate
> > from human society. But that's nuts, and in its own way just
as "bad"
> > as authoritarianism.
> >
> > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Your comments on the Ayn Rand Theory [ART] are typical of shallow
understandings about her selfishness and objectivity, for example.
Her biggest and deepest breakthrough, which you obviously reject,
is that truth is objective and a living substance and a human
information essential to free people and it can be understood as
such, as a reality object. Of course, everyone has personal
subjective projections and visualizations of this truth but the
objective meaning is scientifically determinate similar to physical
science by using the ART techniques. This discovery is of enormous
importance to everyone who wishes to optimize their happiness [SOUL =
Self Ownership of yoUr Life} and it's philosophic implications will
grow and develope and be recognized by more and more of the good
people [GPs] as the years evolve. It's already well under way.
Good seeing. JD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Davis
> understandings about her selfishness and objectivity, for example.
> Her biggest and deepest breakthrough, which you obviously reject,
> is that truth is objective and a living substance and a human
> information essential to free people and it can be understood as
> such, as a reality object. Of course, everyone has personal
> subjective projections and visualizations of this truth but the
> objective meaning is scientifically determinate similar to physical
> science by using the ART techniques. This discovery is of enormous
> importance to everyone who wishes to optimize their happiness [SOUL =
> Self Ownership of yoUr Life} and it's philosophic implications will
> grow and develope and be recognized by more and more of the good
> people [GPs] as the years evolve. It's already well under way.
Her "breakthrough" that truth is "objective" was hardly original with
her. As for wanting to have Ultimate Truth, she never got around Godel's
Incompleteness Theorem or the number 2. She didn't want to be thought of
as a Platonist but the number 2 is a stumper. 2 of what? The number
system kind of needs Platonism. Ditto language. She makes all kinds of
assertions about language and math, but they're just more philosophical
crankery. I don't know why it mattered to her. It doesn't invalidate her
genuine insights: she saw through communism and never wavered. Good for
her.
I'm glad you are finding nurture in her works. I suspect you're finding
it in the common sense aspects of her philosophy rather than its
esoteric frou-frou. Just avoid the cultish aspects of Objectivism and
you'll be fine.
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Your comments on the Ayn Rand Theory [ART] are typical of shallow
> > understandings about her selfishness and objectivity, for example.
> > Her biggest and deepest breakthrough, which you obviously reject,
> > is that truth is objective and a living substance and a human
> > information essential to free people and it can be understood as
> > such, as a reality object. Of course, everyone has personal
> > subjective projections and visualizations of this truth but the
> > objective meaning is scientifically determinate similar to physical
> > science by using the ART techniques. This discovery is of enormous
> > importance to everyone who wishes to optimize their happiness [SOUL
> > =
> > Self Ownership of yoUr Life} and it's philosophic implications will
> > grow and develope and be recognized by more and more of the good
> > people [GPs] as the years evolve. It's already well under way.
>
> Her "breakthrough" that truth is "objective" was hardly original with
> her. As for wanting to have Ultimate Truth, she never got around
> Godel's
> Incompleteness Theorem or the number 2. She didn't want to be thought
> of
> as a Platonist but the number 2 is a stumper. 2 of what? The number
> system kind of needs Platonism. Ditto language. She makes all kinds of
> assertions about language and math, but they're just more
> philosophical
> crankery. I don't know why it mattered to her. It doesn't invalidate
> her
> genuine insights: she saw through communism and never wavered. Good
> for
> her.
>
> I'm glad you are finding nurture in her works. I suspect you're
> finding
> it in the common sense aspects of her philosophy rather than its
> esoteric frou-frou. Just avoid the cultish aspects of Objectivism and
> you'll be fine.
>
> --
> Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
> The John Dortmunder of Lexington, Ky
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Good comments and your thoughts about common sense [some say
uncommon sense] are exactly right. Her philosophy is an
understanding of the American common sense notion of a free
people civilized society. I still hear you somehow degrading
this reality but to me and mine there is nothing more important
in the world and in the future. The fancy phony rhetoric of a
Kant, for example, may be great for the king's men tests of
memorized obediance but that is not the human innovation and
real wealth growth that America or ART [Ayn Rand Theory] is about.
You bring up two math tricks { the number two or the meaning of
1 + 1 and the Godel incompletness theorem } and although I've
studied much science I don't see any important significance to
either. Both are about how symbology must always be tied to
physical reality and exactly that the wishes and magic/mysticism
of a Plato is always fraud. Ayn Rand, although not a studied
physical scientist, was a strong believer in the scientific method
and could see and understand the patterns of science innovation.
You call it absolute "ultimate truth" but better converging true
understanding. I'm always amazed at how scientifically presient
her fictional science always was [this is why she cared so it
wouldn't be shown to be science fantasy like a Kant theory many
years in the future! and thus discredit the entire enterprise] and
also how many don't understand it, for example the power station
based on Tesla technology.
I find the greatest excitment in the development of theorems based
on her theories such as; the HO [Happiness Observation]
all people, to the extent they think, try to optimize their
happiness over their time of caring.
As you mentioned about objectivity ART didn't suddenly discover
some magic king's law. She put together the foundations of American
happiness as a group of foundational free people theories. Many
Americans have the reaction to her work "She's saying what I always
thought only in elegant literary form!" Let's hope so! If philosophy
hadn't been captured by the socialist academics and made worthless
for average free people maybe there would have been no need for her
theories beyond the reality of the existence of American happiness
which revolutionized the world realities.
Good seeing. JD
mahab...@my-deja.com
There is such a thing as objective truth, but few of us every see it,
and I'm sure Rand didn't. In order to see objective truth, you have to
be able to step outside of yourself -- "kill" the self, in Zen terms.
The ordinary reality most of us perceive is a social construct. Even
our self-identities and personalities are social constructs; we take
our ideas about who we are from our role in social order and our
relation to others.
mahab...@my-deja.com
> > In article <Qxwz5.4066$Hp3.1...@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com>,
> > "Maureen O'Danu" <jdl...@home.com> wrote:
> > > Keep in mind that Ayn Rand had been raised in Imperial
> > > Russia and witnessed the Russian Revolution first hand.
> > > Though her ideals were capitalist and rational, her earliest
> > > models were imperialist and authoritarian. Regardless of
> > > what she said about psychology, she was indeed very heavily
> > > influenced by her upbringing.
> >
> > IMO Rand was less an original thinker than a reactionary. She saw
what
> > was wrong with communism/totalitarianism and reacted to it by
creating
> > a false dichotomy. She assumed that if the anti-individualism of
> > authoritarianism is "bad," then the "good" must be absolute
> > individualism, treating every human as totally autonomous and
separate
> > from human society. But that's nuts, and in its own way just
as "bad"
> > as authoritarianism.
>
I am reading and posting from talk.politics.misc. I don't climb into
other people's newsgroups, but if something is cross-posted to mine, I
feel free to jump into it.
> I am unsure if
> you are a masochist, or think that you have a point worth discussing
here?
Sorry that I don't worship Rand as a goddess. That means I am not
allowed to have an opinion?
> In other words, do you really believe that Rand's individualism 1)
treats
> every human being as totally autonomous and separate from human
society, and
> b) that her philosophy comes from anti-collectivism?
That's over-simplifying, but I have read a bit of Rand (I can't stomach
much of her) and have had many long and weird encounters with
Objectivists, who should be re-named Subjectivists, and it is obvious
that most of Rand's philosophy is an over-reaction to the extremes of
totalitarian socialism.
B.
mahab...@my-deja.com
jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8oqjug$3dd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <8oq6e6$kt1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <8opvlu$8...@news-central.tiac.net>,
> > > hc...@removethis.tiac.net wrote:
> > > > "Mark Lewis" <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >"Hugo S. Cunningham" <hc...@removethis.tiac.net> wrote in
message
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > > >> Maybe as a novel it has deficiencies. Its description of a
> > > crumbling
> > > > >> industrial society, however, sounds a bit like Russia under
> > > > >> Bush-Senior and Clinton's kleptocrat "reformers."
> > > >
>
> > >
> was
> > > > >describing many of the new deal policies and the power of those
> who
> > > were
> > > > >making the policies.
> > >
> > > >
out
> > that
> > > > the USA's catastrophic economic decline occurred under Herbert
> > Hoover
> > > > (1929-33), rather than FDR.
> > > > We now understand that Hoover aggravated the Great
Depression
> > > > with tax increases to balance the budget, but balanced budgets
> were
> > > > market-conservative orthodoxy in the 1930s. Even as late as the
> > > > 1960s, conservative Republicans were condemning Jack Kennedy's
tax
> > cut
> > > > as irresponsible.
> > > > FDR was a man without economic principle, willing to try
> > anything
> > > > to get out of the Depression. Some of his measures made things
> > worse,
> > > > but others apparently did some good. He never encouraged the
> > > > appointment of incompetents under something like Ayn Rand's
> > fictional
> > > > "Equalization of Opportunity Bill." That would be left for
> > Republican
> > > > George Bush 50-some-years later, signing an "Americans with
> > > > Disabilities Act" that proclaimed criminality and/or
incompetence
> to
> > > > be legally privileged "mental handicaps."
> > > >
> > > > --Hugo S. Cunningham
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -
> > >
> > > Have you forgotten the crooked socialist plans to use tides for
> > > power in Maine and to cut a channel accross upper Florida just to
> > > name a couple of the grossly incompetent socialist boondogles?
> > >
> > > You skip over the historical context. Yes! hoover was as much or
> > > more a socialist as roosevelt and their period from 1927 - 1952
> > > was the second socialist wave of take over of America in the last
> > > century but the interesting thing is how it matched with Ayn
Rand's
> > > work. She was 21 when she arrived in America after escaping from
> > > Russian socialism. It was 1926 and she witnessed the American
> > > socialist wave in spades.
> > >
> > > She had run with her family on country roads in socialist Russia
> > > trying to stay alive under socialist rule. Now she had escaped to
> > > freedom and she finds the same kind of socialist philosophy taking
> > > over America. She had pledged to herself to bring down the Russian
> > > socialist bureacrats that she had to lie to to escape as a young
> > > lady [which has been accomplished with the help of President
> > > Reagan ] and now she took on the even bigger job of alerting
America
> > > to the socialist take over and the threat of a return of a dark
ages
> > > of socialist authoritarian rule. The latter goal is still
> unfullfilled
> > > and we will only know for certain many years from now but her
> example
> > > of what the free people spirit can do if an individual cares
deeply
> > > will live in history forever - whether she becomes recognized as
the
> > > greatest philosopher of human history or not, eclipsing Aristotle!
>
> >
> > Astonishing. Rand was a one-dimensional thinker with a limited
> > understanding of human nature. I can't believe people worship her as
> > you do. Can't you think for yourself?
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> This will be a little difficult for you but yes I do a great deal of
> thinking about and modeling of the dimensions of human happiness.
This
> involves freedom philosophies and with few exceptions the Ayn Rand
> Theory [ART] is the very best that exists following the DECLARATION
> and her admiration for Thomas Jefferson. I also admire and study the
> great free people leadership that President Reagan provided America.
>
> The answer then is yes! I think for myself but I use all the great
> free people learning I can find to make my progress more efficient.
> Do you invent, from scratch, all your thoughts on happiness and
freedom
> and good people if you ever have such love-of-life [LOL] thoughts?
Hardly anyone thinks anything new. Philosophers I admire -- the Greek
Stoics, especially Marcus Aurelius, and the great mystics such as Rumi.
As a Buddhist, I have come to appreciate the wisdom of Buddhist
teaching on the nature of the human self and life and happiness, and in
just about every way you can think of, Buddhist philosophy is the exact
opposite of Rand's. I have observed that devout Buddhists are a much
happier group than Rand and her Objectivist followers, so I'll stick
with what works, thanks.
B.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
jddescr...@my-deja.com
If it works for you without imposing it on me and mine more happiness
for you! JD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schoonertrash
<mahab...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qvipo$1fd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Mark Lewis
<mahab...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qvhir$4d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> There is such a thing as objective truth, but few of us every see it,
> and I'm sure Rand didn't. In order to see objective truth, you have to
> be able to step outside of yourself -- "kill" the self, in Zen terms.
> The ordinary reality most of us perceive is a social construct. Even
> our self-identities and personalities are social constructs; we take
> our ideas about who we are from our role in social order and our
> relation to others.
>
Now, does that social construct really exist, or do we just think it does?
When we kill the self in zen terms, what are we killing, other than our
RELATIONSHIP to something that exists?
Also, have YOU stepped outside yourself and experienced objective reality?
Or are you basing that on what other people have said?
When you did, did anything change in reality except your relationship to it?
If so what?
If you haven't then by what authority can you state that the world around us
is not objectively real?
If nothing changed (which is the cosistent cross religious report of those
who have), the objective reality is open to everyone, not just the
enlightened. It is our RELATIONSHIP to that objective reality that changes,
not the reality itself.
Or what is your experience?
mark
Jeffrey Davis
Bzzzt. Neither are "tricks". Thanks for playing.
Jddescript
>From: Jeffrey Davis da...@ca.uky.edu
>Date: 9/29/00 7:11 AM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <39D494...@ca.uky.edu>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cute! Much easier than trying to deal with the issues and objective meanings
involved. You probably also are a student of eastern "philosophies" which Ayn
Rand called oriental mysticism. JD
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jddescript
>> Hardly anyone thinks anything new. Philosophers I admire -- the Greek
>> Stoics, especially Marcus Aurelius, and the great mystics such as Rumi.
>> As a Buddhist, I have come to appreciate the wisdom of Buddhist
>> teaching on the nature of the human self and life and happiness, and in
>> just about every way you can think of, Buddhist philosophy is the exact
>> opposite of Rand's. I have observed that devout Buddhists are a much
>> happier group than Rand and her Objectivist followers, so I'll stick
>> with what works, thanks.
>>
>> B.
------------------------------------------------------------
Since you mention your religion I'm surprised you speak of happiness on this
earth now as the Ayn Rand Theory [ART] and the American Constitution does. The
western image of Buddists is sitting and chanting and praying to get into the
next world with their master. Some times they even hurry things along with some
harry carry [sp?]. Is there now a deliberate pursuit of happiness rather than
sacrificing to the masters? Ayn Rand had little use for organaized religions
but freedom trumps the situation so she would say no laws should be passed to
restrict people's beliefs. Freedom includes the right to be wrong and self
destructive and personally antilife. As long as it doesn't hurt others it's a
person's own business.
Good seeing. JD
--------------------------------------------------------
mahab...@my-deja.com
jddes...@aol.com (Jddescript) wrote:
> >>
> >> Hardly anyone thinks anything new. Philosophers I admire -- the
Greek
> >> Stoics, especially Marcus Aurelius, and the great mystics such as
Rumi.
> >> As a Buddhist, I have come to appreciate the wisdom of Buddhist
> >> teaching on the nature of the human self and life and happiness,
and in
> >> just about every way you can think of, Buddhist philosophy is the
exact
> >> opposite of Rand's. I have observed that devout Buddhists are a
much
> >> happier group than Rand and her Objectivist followers, so I'll
stick
> >> with what works, thanks.
> >>
> >> B.
>
>
> Since you mention your religion I'm surprised you speak of happiness
on this
> earth now as the Ayn Rand Theory [ART] and the American Constitution
does. The
> western image of Buddists is sitting and chanting and praying to get
into the
> next world with their master.
That is an inaccurate and prejudiced view of Buddhism that has nothing
whatsoever to do with what Buddhism is.
Anyway, as a Zen Buddhist, I don't believe in a "next world" and I
punch masters in the nose (figuratively speaking; there's an old Zen
saying that when you meet a master on the road, punch him in the nose.
A variation on that is when you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.
This refers to killing pre-conceived ideas about what masters or
Buddhas are).
> Some times they even hurry things along with some
> harry carry [sp?].
Oh, no no no no no no no. That's a cultural Japanese thing; it's not
Buddhism.
> Is there now a deliberate pursuit of happiness rather than
> sacrificing to the masters?
Nobody sacrifices to masters, unless the "master" is some kind of
phoney cult leader. There have been such. And in some sects of Buddhism
the "pursuit of happiness" is fundamental. For example, I
recommend "The Art of Happiness," a best selling book by His Holiness
the Dalai Lama.
> Ayn Rand had little use for organaized religions
> but freedom trumps the situation so she would say no laws should be
passed to
> restrict people's beliefs.
Buddhism is very much a path to personal liberation. The practice of
the Eightfold Path leads to freedom from fears, from internal blocks,
from neurosis, from societal programming. In particular, if you have
ever gotten to meet a Zen or Tibetan Dzogchen master, you have met a
very free person. You'd have to have the experience to know what I
mean. On the other hand, I saw Rand on TV several times before she
died, and it was obvious she was very neurotic and very "blocked." Not
a happy person.
> Freedom includes the right to be wrong and self
> destructive and personally antilife. As long as it doesn't hurt
others it's a
> person's own business.
Fine.
B.
>
> Good seeing. JD
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
mahab...@my-deja.com
Have you ever made an effort to understand the several Asian
philosophies for yourself, or are you dismissing them because Ayn Rand
did?
B.
mahab...@my-deja.com
>
> >
> > There is such a thing as objective truth, but few of us every see
it,
> > and I'm sure Rand didn't. In order to see objective truth, you have
to
> > be able to step outside of yourself -- "kill" the self, in Zen
terms.
> > The ordinary reality most of us perceive is a social construct. Even
> > our self-identities and personalities are social constructs; we take
> > our ideas about who we are from our role in social order and our
> > relation to others.
> >
>
> Now, does that social construct really exist, or do we just think it
does?
Depends on what you mean by "exist." A dollar bill has a value because
we live in a society that agrees it does. Otherwise it's just a piece
of colored paper. The value of the money is "real" but it's a kind of
relative reality that depends on context. It is not absolute.
> When we kill the self in zen terms, what are we killing, other than
our
> RELATIONSHIP to something that exists?
Umm, no. We're killing our conceptions of what the "self" is. What most
of us think of as our "selves" is a conglomeration of ideas and
conceptions that come partly from our experiences and partly from our
family and society and our role in that family and society. When that
stuff is peeled away, who is left?
> Also, have YOU stepped outside yourself and experienced objective
reality?
Yes, briefly.
> Or are you basing that on what other people have said?
One should never do that. It has to be experienced directly.
>
> When you did, did anything change in reality except your relationship
> to it?
That's a marvelous question. The Asian philosopher Nagarjuna (ca. 200
AD) said that nothing has intrinsic identity; all things take their
identity from their relation to other things. So in a way it's all
relationship.
Anyway, the absolute doesn't change; only relative things change. At
the same time, relative and absolute are one and inseparable.
I know that doesn't make sense. You had to be there.
>
> If so what?
Some things can't be said with words.
>
> If you haven't then by what authority can you state that the world
around us
> is not objectively real?
I didn't say that the world around us is not objectively real. I
said "the reality most of us perceive" is a social construct. Very few
people ever see the world around us except through many, many filters
of conditioning. It's very difficult to peel away all the conditioning
and see the world around us with naked eyes.
>
> If nothing changed (which is the cosistent cross religious report of
those
> who have), the objective reality is open to everyone, not just the
> enlightened. It is our RELATIONSHIP to that objective reality that
changes,
> not the reality itself.
Yes, and our perception of it.
>
> Or what is your experience?
The oak tree in the garden.
B.
>
> mark
Schoonertrash
<jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qvqcr$8c6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Unfortunately FDR's policy save one major exception were also failures with
the unemployment rate showing an increase during his first terms. The
exception was getting the US into war which instantly although in some cases
temporarily cured unemployment, the depression and a number of other actual
or perceived socio-economic problems.
Schoonertrash
all get much more of reading the various posts than by wasting time watching
a Ted&Jane ripoff.
<mahab...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8r2tm0$fg6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8r170s$2u9$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Mark Lewis" <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
> >
> > <mahab...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
jddescr...@my-deja.com
mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <20000929093200...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
> jddes...@aol.com (Jddescript) wrote: the comments with two(>>)
marks and four (>>>>) marks.
> > >Subject: Re: Atlas Shrugged to be made into a Mini-Series
> > >From: Jeffrey Davis da...@ca.uky.edu
---------------excerpted, see original-----------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I probably haven't made an adequate effort. I have a
brother-in-law who goes along with the contemplation
method of dealing with stress like bad people and I can
understand that as a MUM, NUM, and DUM strategy for
being on mind strike from socman.I keep hearing rumors
that all the eastern philosophies are not antifreedom,
antiAmerican and antilife. To the exent I have looked I
have always found the opposite[I recently double checked
Confusious(sp) = statist socialist manipulator]. There
is some master or masters who are special king's men
in some mystical GODlike way from birth or decree. For
example the boy-GOD-King of Eygpt always has impressed me
with how very, very smart the king's men have to be to
sell that socialist big lie!
You mention a book by the head of Tibet and I like the title
because I would summarize much of the Ayn Rand Theory [ART]
as human freedom is essential to human happiness. Why is he
a special person and not an "all created equal" expert free
people leader like the American model and Ayn Rand or
President Reagan? Why has his country been occupied by the
china socialists? Don't they believe in self protection of
their own human life? I would be interested in any ideas you
have on how I could see the freedom loving Buddist people
in amongst the other eastern philosophies in different countries.
Good seeing. JD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
jddescr...@my-deja.com
mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <20000929094725...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
> jddes...@aol.com (Jddescript) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hardly anyone thinks anything new. Philosophers I admire -- the
> Greek
> > >> Stoics, especially Marcus Aurelius, and the great mystics such as
> Rumi.
> > >> As a Buddhist, I have come to appreciate the wisdom of Buddhist
> > >> teaching on the nature of the human self and life and happiness,
> and in
> > >> just about every way you can think of, Buddhist philosophy is the
> exact
> > >> opposite of Rand's. I have observed that devout Buddhists are a
> much
> > >> happier group than Rand and her Objectivist followers, so I'll
> stick
> > >> with what works, thanks.
> > >>
> > >> B.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Since you mention your religion I'm surprised you speak of happiness
> > on this
> > earth now as the Ayn Rand Theory [ART] and the American Constitution
> > does. The
> > western image of Buddists is sitting and chanting and praying to get
> > into the
> > next world with their master.
>
> That is an inaccurate and prejudiced view of Buddhism that has nothing
> whatsoever to do with what Buddhism is.
>
> Anyway, as a Zen Buddhist, I don't believe in a "next world" and I
> punch masters in the nose (figuratively speaking; there's an old Zen
> saying that when you meet a master on the road, punch him in the nose.
> A variation on that is when you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.
> This refers to killing pre-conceived ideas about what masters or
> Buddhas are).
>
> > Some times they even hurry things along with some
> > harry carry [sp?].
>
> Oh, no no no no no no no. That's a cultural Japanese thing; it's not
> Buddhism.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm afraid my ignorance is showing but certainly when we think
of the eastern philosophies the images of kami kazi[sp] pilots and
people torching themselves has to come to mind. Please inform me as
to how to distinguish the zen Buddists from the others.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Is there now a deliberate pursuit of happiness rather than
> > sacrificing to the masters?
>
> Nobody sacrifices to masters, unless the "master" is some kind of
> phoney cult leader. There have been such. And in some sects of
Buddhism
> the "pursuit of happiness" is fundamental. For example, I
> recommend "The Art of Happiness," a best selling book by His Holiness
> the Dalai Lama.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see why you were sensitive to the issue of thinking for
oneself or following a master. I know it's always some distortion
but was the Jim Jones religious movement linked to some of the
California Buddists [the rich ones]? Maybe zen Buddism isn't subject
to such intense worship that minds can be manipulated?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Ayn Rand had little use for organaized religions
> > but freedom trumps the situation so she would say no laws should be
> > passed to
> > restrict people's beliefs.
>
> Buddhism is very much a path to personal liberation. The practice of
> the Eightfold Path leads to freedom from fears, from internal blocks,
> from neurosis, from societal programming. In particular, if you have
> ever gotten to meet a Zen or Tibetan Dzogchen master, you have met a
> very free person. You'd have to have the experience to know what I
> mean. On the other hand, I saw Rand on TV several times before she
> died, and it was obvious she was very neurotic and very "blocked." Not
> a happy person.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a deep question but let me say a couple of things.
First we need to distinguish freedom from escape from reality.
One could say a drug user is escaping unpleasantness but has
lost the capability to accomplish positive acts of happiness.
This is the way many of the sitting,chanting,praying people
look to me. I've often wondered if the long prayer breaks in
the middle east aren't mainly about escaping the masters whip
hand for awhile. Your going to now tell me about the great zen
Buddists who have accomplished this or that like Ayn Rand
and I welcome the information. They obviously weren't just sitting
and chanting and praying. Ayn Rand lived a long and immensely
purposful life. When you saw her she was in her mid seventies,
had just lost her husband and was facing a largely negative
audience [mostly women!] and still was suffering from her giant
happiness error which happened in 1968. She violated her own
philosophic morality then and she never worked much or was really
happy again. She was a freedom giant and maybe the giants always
have to fall hard? She definitely had a life long struggle for
happiness starting with her escape from Russian socialism in 1926
at the age of 20 [she was still trying to get her family out in the
1950s] but I think that that is part of why her theories ART = Ayn
Rand Theories are so valuable to US today and in the evolving
crushing of the free people society [FPS] by socialist forces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Freedom includes the right to be wrong and self
> > destructive and personally antilife. As long as it doesn't hurt
> > others it's a
> > person's own business.
>
> Fine.
>
> B.
>
> >
> > Good seeing. JD
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------
Mark Lewis
<mahab...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >
> > > There is such a thing as objective truth, but few of us every see
> it,
> > > and I'm sure Rand didn't. In order to see objective truth, you have
> to
> > > be able to step outside of yourself -- "kill" the self, in Zen
> terms.
> > > The ordinary reality most of us perceive is a social construct. Even
> > > our self-identities and personalities are social constructs; we take
> > > our ideas about who we are from our role in social order and our
> > > relation to others.
> > >
> >
> > Now, does that social construct really exist, or do we just think it
> does?
>
> Depends on what you mean by "exist." A dollar bill has a value because
> we live in a society that agrees it does. Otherwise it's just a piece
> of colored paper. The value of the money is "real" but it's a kind of
> relative reality that depends on context. It is not absolute.
But does the piece of paper exist? This is the crucial question.
Also, do values exist? Money or sex or water may have different values at
different times, but does value exist?
Does the human consciousness that experiences values and the paper exist?
>
> > When we kill the self in zen terms, what are we killing, other than
> our
> > RELATIONSHIP to something that exists?
>
> Umm, no. We're killing our conceptions of what the "self" is. What most
> of us think of as our "selves" is a conglomeration of ideas and
> conceptions that come partly from our experiences and partly from our
> family and society and our role in that family and society. When that
> stuff is peeled away, who is left?
If there is anything left, then we have not killed the self.
We may dis indentify with some conception of the self, and if that is what
you mean, I can handle that. however, it makes your original post somewhat
confusing.
>
> > Also, have YOU stepped outside yourself and experienced objective
> reality?
>
> Yes, briefly.
>
> > Or are you basing that on what other people have said?
>
> One should never do that. It has to be experienced directly.
>
> >
> > When you did, did anything change in reality except your relationship
> > to it?
>
> That's a marvelous question. The Asian philosopher Nagarjuna (ca. 200
> AD) said that nothing has intrinsic identity; all things take their
> identity from their relation to other things. So in a way it's all
> relationship.
Funny, you quoted some one else when I asked you about your experience.
>
> Anyway, the absolute doesn't change; only relative things change. At
> the same time, relative and absolute are one and inseparable.
>
> I know that doesn't make sense. You had to be there.
But I wasn't, and neither were you, cause YOU were dead, right?
>
> >
> > If so what?
>
> Some things can't be said with words.
>
> >
> > If you haven't then by what authority can you state that the world
> around us
> > is not objectively real?
>
> I didn't say that the world around us is not objectively real. I
> said "the reality most of us perceive" is a social construct. Very few
> people ever see the world around us except through many, many filters
> of conditioning. It's very difficult to peel away all the conditioning
> and see the world around us with naked eyes.
>
> >
> > If nothing changed (which is the cosistent cross religious report of
> those
> > who have), the objective reality is open to everyone, not just the
> > enlightened. It is our RELATIONSHIP to that objective reality that
> changes,
> > not the reality itself.
>
> Yes, and our perception of it.
Of what? Something that exists?
>
> >
> > Or what is your experience?
>
> The oak tree in the garden.
>
> B.
>
> >
> > mark
> >
> >
>
>
mahab...@my-deja.com
Having spent several years exploring various Asian philosophies and
religions, I have no idea what you are talking about.
>I keep hearing rumors
> that all the eastern philosophies are not antifreedom,
> antiAmerican and antilife.
Lies and anti-Asian prejudice.
IMO Taoism (Chinese, very ancient) is the "freest" philosophy anyone
has ever come up with. Remember the "beats" -- Jack Kerouac, Alan
Ginsberg, et al.? They can trace their philosophical roots back through
Zen Buddhism and Taoism. Some of the early Taoist poets were "beats"
back in the first millenium BC. They were into poetry, free love,
nudity, that kind of thing.
> To the exent I have looked I
> have always found the opposite[I recently double checked
> Confusious(sp) = statist socialist manipulator].
Confucianism is probably the most "socialist" of the Asian
philosophies, but to really understand Confucianism you need to let go
of modern political concepts and look at it for what it is, not
comparing it to other things.
Taoism and Confucianism are polar opposites in some respects. Zen
Buddhism was heavily influenced by Taoism, and Zen has had an enormous
impact on the arts and literature of Asia, and also on modern western
art and literature.
> There
> is some master or masters who are special king's men
> in some mystical GODlike way from birth or decree. For
> example the boy-GOD-King of Eygpt always has impressed me
> with how very, very smart the king's men have to be to
> sell that socialist big lie!
The old Egyptian religion doesn't have any relation to modern Asian
philosophies or religions. The religions that came out of
Mesopotamia/Persia evolved into Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
>
> You mention a book by the head of Tibet and I like the title
> because I would summarize much of the Ayn Rand Theory [ART]
> as human freedom is essential to human happiness.
Fine.
> Why is he
> a special person and not an "all created equal" expert free
> people leader like the American model and Ayn Rand or
> President Reagan?
The Dalai Lama himself tells everyone he is just a simple monk, not a
god.
> Why has his country been occupied by the
> china socialists? Don't they believe in self protection of
> their own human life?
Yes they do. Basically, China had a bigger army than Tibet. The
Tibetans want very much to be free of China, which is still in the
process of destroying the culture of Tibet and absorbing the Tibetan
people into Chinese Communism. The Tibetans want to be free of
Communism but they have gotten little support from the West.
If you are interested in learning more, try the web page of the Tibetan
Government in Exile:
> I would be interested in any ideas you
> have on how I could see the freedom loving Buddist people
> in amongst the other eastern philosophies in different countries.
Check out what's going on in Burma:
And read about Daw Aung San Suu Kyi:
If Buddhists are not "freedom loving," how come so many of them are
fighting to be free?
B.
mahab...@my-deja.com
Yes, it exists, but what is it? A piece of paper may be something to
write on, or something to start a fire with. It might be a page from a
book. A physicist sees it as empty space with molecules in it. "Piece
of paper" is not an objective view of a piece of paper. It's a
subjective view.
>
> Also, do values exist? Money or sex or water may have different
values at
> different times, but does value exist?
Nothing tangible. Ripples on an ocean. Fog on a mirror. One has to deal
with it to live in human society, but don't cling.
>
> Does the human consciousness that experiences values and the paper
exist?
Yes, it's a sense organ. You smell with your nose, you see with your
eyes, you think with your brain.
Do you think your consciousness is you? Is your nose you? Who are you?
That's the question you have to answer. (I can't help you with that.)
>
> >
> > > When we kill the self in zen terms, what are we killing, other
than
> > our
> > > RELATIONSHIP to something that exists?
> >
> > Umm, no. We're killing our conceptions of what the "self" is. What
most
> > of us think of as our "selves" is a conglomeration of ideas and
> > conceptions that come partly from our experiences and partly from
our
> > family and society and our role in that family and society. When
that
> > stuff is peeled away, who is left?
>
> If there is anything left, then we have not killed the self.
Exactly so.
>
> We may dis indentify with some conception of the self, and if that is
what
> you mean, I can handle that. however, it makes your original post
somewhat
> confusing.
Yes, I know it is confusing. I regret I cannot make it clearer.
>
> >
> > > Also, have YOU stepped outside yourself and experienced objective
> > reality?
> >
> > Yes, briefly.
> >
> > > Or are you basing that on what other people have said?
> >
> > One should never do that. It has to be experienced directly.
> >
> > >
> > > When you did, did anything change in reality except your
relationship
> > > to it?
> >
> > That's a marvelous question. The Asian philosopher Nagarjuna (ca.
200
> > AD) said that nothing has intrinsic identity; all things take their
> > identity from their relation to other things. So in a way it's all
> > relationship.
>
> Funny, you quoted some one else when I asked you about your
experience.
I don't have words to discuss my experience. I was just responding to
your very excellent and astute question.
>
> >
> > Anyway, the absolute doesn't change; only relative things change. At
> > the same time, relative and absolute are one and inseparable.
> >
> > I know that doesn't make sense. You had to be there.
>
> But I wasn't, and neither were you, cause YOU were dead, right?
No, not at all. What makes you think I was dead? That's very silly.
>
> >
> > >
> > > If so what?
> >
> > Some things can't be said with words.
> >
> > >
> > > If you haven't then by what authority can you state that the world
> > around us
> > > is not objectively real?
> >
> > I didn't say that the world around us is not objectively real. I
> > said "the reality most of us perceive" is a social construct. Very
few
> > people ever see the world around us except through many, many
filters
> > of conditioning. It's very difficult to peel away all the
conditioning
> > and see the world around us with naked eyes.
>
> >
> > >
> > > If nothing changed (which is the cosistent cross religious report
of
> > those
> > > who have), the objective reality is open to everyone, not just the
> > > enlightened. It is our RELATIONSHIP to that objective reality
that
> > changes,
> > > not the reality itself.
> >
> > Yes, and our perception of it.
>
> Of what? Something that exists?
Ultimately there is just existence itself, and uncounted manifestations
thereof. The manifestations are in a constant state of flux; real but
intangible. That includes you.
B.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Or what is your experience?
> >
> > The oak tree in the garden.
> >
> > B.
> >
> > >
> > > mark
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
mahab...@my-deja.com
The suicide pilots were into a Japanese cultural thing.
The self-torching monks in Vietnam -- those were Zen monks. They were
protesting oppression by the government of Vietnam that was taking away
their freedom. Their act is still controverial in Buddhist circles, as
suicide it not encouraged for any reason. But it did have the desired
effect, which was to call attention to the oppression.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> > > Is there now a deliberate pursuit of happiness rather than
> > > sacrificing to the masters?
>
> >
> > Nobody sacrifices to masters, unless the "master" is some kind of
> > phoney cult leader. There have been such. And in some sects of
> Buddhism
> > the "pursuit of happiness" is fundamental. For example, I
> > recommend "The Art of Happiness," a best selling book by His
Holiness
> > the Dalai Lama.
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I can see why you were sensitive to the issue of thinking for
> oneself or following a master.
Ayn Rand is your master. She's more of a guru to you than any teacher I
have studied with.
> I know it's always some distortion
> but was the Jim Jones religious movement linked to some of the
> California Buddists [the rich ones]?
Absolutely not. Those were "Christians."
> Maybe zen Buddism isn't subject
> to such intense worship that minds can be manipulated?
Zen Buddhists don't worship; it is non-theistic, not based on belief in
a god.
Anyone who is emotionally needy can be manipulated. Anyone who buys
into any ideology is no longer thinking for himself. It's fine to read
Ayn Rand books, but if you've stopped thinking for yourself since,
that's a problem. Look with your own eyes. Think with your own brain.
Ultimately we don't need masters; our lives are our teacher.
> > > Ayn Rand had little use for organaized religions
> > > but freedom trumps the situation so she would say no laws should
be
> > > passed to
> > > restrict people's beliefs.
>
> >
> > Buddhism is very much a path to personal liberation. The practice of
> > the Eightfold Path leads to freedom from fears, from internal
blocks,
> > from neurosis, from societal programming. In particular, if you have
> > ever gotten to meet a Zen or Tibetan Dzogchen master, you have met a
> > very free person. You'd have to have the experience to know what I
> > mean. On the other hand, I saw Rand on TV several times before she
> > died, and it was obvious she was very neurotic and very "blocked."
Not
> > a happy person.
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> This is a deep question but let me say a couple of things.
> First we need to distinguish freedom from escape from reality.
I agree completely.
> One could say a drug user is escaping unpleasantness but has
> lost the capability to accomplish positive acts of happiness.
> This is the way many of the sitting,chanting,praying people
> look to me.
Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's just the opposite.
> I've often wondered if the long prayer breaks in
> the middle east aren't mainly about escaping the masters whip
> hand for awhile. Your going to now tell me about the great zen
> Buddists who have accomplished this or that like Ayn Rand
> and I welcome the information. They obviously weren't just sitting
> and chanting and praying. Ayn Rand lived a long and immensely
> purposful life. When you saw her she was in her mid seventies,
> had just lost her husband and was facing a largely negative
> audience [mostly women!] and still was suffering from her giant
> happiness error which happened in 1968. She violated her own
> philosophic morality then and she never worked much or was really
> happy again. She was a freedom giant and maybe the giants always
> have to fall hard? She definitely had a life long struggle for
> happiness starting with her escape from Russian socialism in 1926
> at the age of 20 [she was still trying to get her family out in the
> 1950s] but I think that that is part of why her theories ART = Ayn
> Rand Theories are so valuable to US today and in the evolving
> crushing of the free people society [FPS] by socialist forces.
In other words, her philosophy didn't make her happy. When bad things
happened to her, she suffered and was miserable.
Now, put down the books and think for yourself.
B.
Legal_Ideal
> > > > > There is such a thing as objective truth, but few of us every
> see
> > > it,
> > > > > and I'm sure Rand didn't. In order to see objective truth, you
> have
> > > to
> > > > > be able to step outside of yourself -- "kill" the self, in Zen
> > > terms.
What about oneself perceiving reality?
> > > > > The ordinary reality most of us perceive is a social construct.
I condem that sentence of yours. Since reality is a social construct, as
you have asserted, I have shown that it isn't
> Even
> > > > > our self-identities and personalities are social constructs; we
> take
> > > > > our ideas about who we are from our role in social order and our
> > > > > relation to others.
You suck.
> > > >
> > > > Now, does that social construct really exist, or do we just think
> it
> > > does?
In the name of benevolence, I have to admit that I was just kidding in
playing devils advocate. Obviously the social does not determine the
individual, as I'm sure you were arguing above.
> > >
> > > Depends on what you mean by "exist." A dollar bill has a value
> because
> > > we live in a society that agrees it does. Otherwise it's just a
> piece
> > > of colored paper.
Concerning this argument, I think you are right.
The value of the money is "real"
No, it's not. All a dollar bill really is is a piece of tinderwood.
but it's a kind
> of
> > > relative reality that depends on context.
With no alternative value, thanks to the elimination of the gold standard.
It is not absolute.
tinderwood is tinderwood. It is absolute.
> >
> > But does the piece of paper exist? This is the crucial question.
Do you? Does anything? Obviously, existence exists.
>
> Yes, it exists, but what is it? A piece of paper may be something to
> write on, or something to start a fire with. It might be a page from a
> book. A physicist sees it as empty space with molecules in it. "Piece
> of paper" is not an objective view of a piece of paper. It's a
> subjective view.
It is an objective thing, with subjective potential.
> >
> > Also, do values exist? Money or sex or water may have different
> values at
> > different times, but does value exist?
Define value.
>
> Nothing tangible. Ripples on an ocean. Fog on a mirror. One has to deal
> with it to live in human society, but don't cling.
Whateverrrrrrr...
> >
> > Does the human consciousness that experiences values and the paper
> exist?
What asks this question?
>
> Yes, it's a sense organ. You smell with your nose, you see with your
> eyes, you think with your brain.
I think that you might want to read the book, Introduction to Objectivist
Epistemology.
>
> Do you think your consciousness is you? Is your nose you? Who are you?
> That's the question you have to answer. (I can't help you with that.)
I am everything that I am.
> > > > When we kill the self in zen terms, what are we killing, other
> than
> > > our
> > > > RELATIONSHIP to something that exists?
You are killing yourself.
> > > Umm, no. We're killing our conceptions of what the "self" is.
I think that you are ignoring the above first sentence in this train of
thought.
What
> most
> > > of us think of as our "selves" is a conglomeration of ideas and
> > > conceptions that come partly from our experiences and partly from
> our
> > > family and society and our role in that family and society. When
> that
> > > stuff is peeled away, who is left?
Self.
> >
> > If there is anything left, then we have not killed the self.
True.
> > > > Also, have YOU stepped outside yourself and experienced objective
> > > reality?
How can one experience if one is not one?
> > > Anyway, the absolute doesn't change
Not, at the time the absolute is what the absolute is.
; only relative things change.
Just the law of gravity which says that all matter attracts all other
matter, shows that all matter changes. This is absolute.
At
> > > the same time, relative and absolute are one and inseparable.
How is relating to, and being the same, connected to each other, and the
same at the same time?
> > >
> > > I know that doesn't make sense. You had to be there.
Then why assert it?
> >
> > But I wasn't, and neither were you, cause YOU were dead, right?
I believe that you mean unborn.
> > > I didn't say that the world around us is not objectively real. I
> > > said "the reality most of us perceive" is a social construct. Very
> few
> > > people ever see the world around us except through many, many
> filters
> > > of conditioning.
I DEFY that sentence!
It's very difficult to peel away all the
> conditioning
> > > and see the world around us with naked eyes.
Read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology..., please.
> >
> > > > If nothing changed (which is the cosistent cross religious report
> of
> > > those
> > > > who have), the objective reality is open to everyone, not just the
> > > > enlightened. It is our RELATIONSHIP to that objective reality
> that
> > > changes,
> > > > not the reality itself.
Do you have any power to create, alter, improve, or conquer reality?
> Ultimately there is just existence itself, and uncounted manifestations
> thereof. The manifestations are in a constant state of flux; real but
> intangible. That includes you.
So, in summary, do you want to be a passive, conquered drifter, or rise and
face reality with willful courage, aspire to greater, and greater
achievement, live, conquer nature, and be proud of what one is, and have
been.
Paul Wharton
Legal...@msn.com
mahab...@my-deja.com
"Legal_Ideal" <Legal...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > There is such a thing as objective truth, but few of us
every
> > see
> > > > it,
> > > > > > and I'm sure Rand didn't. In order to see objective truth,
you
> > have
> > > > to
> > > > > > be able to step outside of yourself -- "kill" the self, in
Zen
> > > > terms.
>
> What about oneself perceiving reality?
Until you can be objective about yourself, you can't be objective about
anything else.
>
> > > > > > The ordinary reality most of us perceive is a social
construct.
>
> I condem that sentence of yours. Since reality is a social
construct, as
> you have asserted, I have shown that it isn't
Isn't what?
Social psychologists say that "reality" is a social construct. I am not
making that up. What they mean by that is the way we process
information in our heads to construct "reality" is very much programmed
into us by our culture. People who are raised in diverse cultures have
diverse ways of interpreting and understanding the world around them
and their place in it. That doesn't mean that what's Out There
isn't "real," just that the way we understand it isn't real. It's just
programming.
The first step in being objective about yourself is recognizing the
programming as programming.
>
> > Even
> > > > > > our self-identities and personalities are social
constructs; we
> > take
> > > > > > our ideas about who we are from our role in social order
and our
> > > > > > relation to others.
>
> You suck.
Wow, that's a compelling argument.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, does that social construct really exist, or do we just
think
> > it
> > > > does?
>
> In the name of benevolence, I have to admit that I was just kidding in
> playing devils advocate. Obviously the social does not determine the
> individual, as I'm sure you were arguing above.
It does, though. Society creates the individual just as much as
individuals create society. It's a two-way dynamic. It's very difficult
(and rare) to see through the programming and recognize it as
programming.
> > > >
> > > > Depends on what you mean by "exist." A dollar bill has a value
> > because
> > > > we live in a society that agrees it does. Otherwise it's just a
> > piece
> > > > of colored paper.
>
> Concerning this argument, I think you are right.
>
> The value of the money is "real"
>
> No, it's not. All a dollar bill really is is a piece of tinderwood.
For the record, I didn't say that the value of the money is "real." A
dollar bill can be a lot of things. It can be money, or tinderwood, or
a historical relic, or scrap paper. A physicist might way that like any
other "solid" object it is really just molecules in space. What it is
depends on your relation to it. It has no intrinsic identity. Nothing
has intrinsic identity.
>
> but it's a kind
> > of
> > > > relative reality that depends on context.
>
> With no alternative value, thanks to the elimination of the gold >
standard.
>
> It is not absolute.
>
> tinderwood is tinderwood. It is absolute.
No, that is still relative. A dollar bill is a temporary arrangement of
molecules. Even linear time is a delusion; what the molecules are "now"
is really just intangible and ephemeral manifestation. Not absolute.
> > >
> > > But does the piece of paper exist? This is the crucial question.
>
> Do you? Does anything? Obviously, existence exists.
Yes. But the forms of existence are in a constant state of flux. That
includes you.
> >
> > Yes, it exists, but what is it? A piece of paper may be something to
> > write on, or something to start a fire with. It might be a page
from a
> > book. A physicist sees it as empty space with molecules in
it. "Piece
> > of paper" is not an objective view of a piece of paper. It's a
> > subjective view.
>
> It is an objective thing, with subjective potential.
By giving the piece of paper an identity as a piece of paper, you have
made it subjective.
> > >
> > > Also, do values exist? Money or sex or water may have different
> > values at
> > > different times, but does value exist?
>
> Define value.
The dictionary definition works for me. Relative worth or importance;
ranking according to esteem or usefulness. Values are created by
societies. What is valued in one society may not be valued in another.
It's all relative.
> >
> > Nothing tangible. Ripples on an ocean. Fog on a mirror. One has to
deal
> > with it to live in human society, but don't cling.
>
> Whateverrrrrrr...
> > >
> > > Does the human consciousness that experiences values and the paper
> > exist?
>
> What asks this question?
Very good! Yes, that's the ultimate question. Who is asking? Who is
seeing? Who is living this life? Well ... I can't tell you. You have to
find the answer yourself. But it's a GREAT question. Keep asking it.
> >
> > Yes, it's a sense organ. You smell with your nose, you see with your
> > eyes, you think with your brain.
>
> I think that you might want to read the book, Introduction to
Objectivist
> Epistemology.
No thanks. I've had enough exposure to Objectivist literature to know
that it's really all about being utterly Subjective, and I'm not
interested.
> >
> > Do you think your consciousness is you? Is your nose you? Who are
you?
> > That's the question you have to answer. (I can't help you with
that.)
>
> I am everything that I am.
And who is that?
When you are 18 years old and full of wishes to be in a killer rock
band, and when you are 68 years old and full of wishes to live off your
investments and do some traveling and visit your grandchildren, are you
the same person? The 18 year old and the 68 year old may have
absolutely nothing in common.
Hint: You are not who you think you are.
>
> > > > > When we kill the self in zen terms, what are we killing, other
> > than
> > > > our
> > > > > RELATIONSHIP to something that exists?
>
> You are killing yourself.
Who is it that is killed? Who is it that kills? Who is it that you
think you are?
>
> > > > Umm, no. We're killing our conceptions of what the "self" is.
>
> I think that you are ignoring the above first sentence in this train
of
> thought.
I'm not ignoring anything. The phrase "killing the self" is one that I
introduced to the conversation, and it means what I say it means. And
what I say it means is killing the idea of self that has been
programmed into you, so that you see who you really are.
> What
> > most
> > > > of us think of as our "selves" is a conglomeration of ideas and
> > > > conceptions that come partly from our experiences and partly
from
> > our
> > > > family and society and our role in that family and society. When
> > that
> > > > stuff is peeled away, who is left?
>
> Self.
Yes, but who is that?
> > >
> > > If there is anything left, then we have not killed the self.
>
> True.
>
> > > > > Also, have YOU stepped outside yourself and experienced
objective
> > > > reality?
>
> How can one experience if one is not one?
>
> > > > Anyway, the absolute doesn't change
>
> Not, at the time the absolute is what the absolute is.
If it changes, it isn't absolute.
>
> ; only relative things change.
>
> Just the law of gravity which says that all matter attracts all other
> matter, shows that all matter changes. This is absolute.
Matter itself is absolute; form is relative.
>
> At
> > > > the same time, relative and absolute are one and inseparable.
>
> How is relating to, and being the same, connected to each other, and
the
> same at the same time?
Matter itself is absolute; form is relative. Yet you can't have form
without matter, eh?
> > > >
> > > > I know that doesn't make sense. You had to be there.
>
> Then why assert it?
Sometimes speech is useful; sometimes it isn't.
> > >
> > > But I wasn't, and neither were you, cause YOU were dead, right?
>
> I believe that you mean unborn.
I am not the person who said anything about being dead.
>
> > > > I didn't say that the world around us is not objectively real. I
> > > > said "the reality most of us perceive" is a social construct.
Very
> > few
> > > > people ever see the world around us except through many, many
> > filters
> > > > of conditioning.
>
> I DEFY that sentence!
You're a fool, then.
>
> It's very difficult to peel away all the
> > conditioning
> > > > and see the world around us with naked eyes.
>
> Read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology..., please.
I know the filters are there. I've found mine. We all have them. They
are programmed into us from birth. You can deny it, but then you don't
know yourself very well. Until you know yourself, you are a slave to
your own programming.
> > >
> > > > > If nothing changed (which is the cosistent cross religious
report
> > of
> > > > those
> > > > > who have), the objective reality is open to everyone, not
just the
> > > > > enlightened. It is our RELATIONSHIP to that objective reality
> > that
> > > > changes,
> > > > > not the reality itself.
>
> Do you have any power to create, alter, improve, or conquer reality?
I'm only discussing the perception of reality.
>
> > Ultimately there is just existence itself, and uncounted
manifestations
> > thereof. The manifestations are in a constant state of flux; real
but
> > intangible. That includes you.
>
> So, in summary, do you want to be a passive, conquered drifter, or
rise and
> face reality with willful courage, aspire to greater, and greater
> achievement, live, conquer nature, and be proud of what one is, and
have
> been.
You will be nothing but a puppet on a string until you've conquered
yourself. And to do that, you have to see clearly who you are,
programming and all. Until you have come to terms with yourself and
seen your programming as programming, you are the passive, conquered
drifter. When you perceive your programming as programming and get a
glimpse of who you really are, you are boundless.
B.
Legal_Ideal
<mahab...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> You will be nothing but a puppet on a string until you've conquered
> yourself. And to do that, you have to see clearly who you are,
> programming and all. Until you have come to terms with yourself and
> seen your programming as programming, you are the passive, conquered
> drifter. When you perceive your programming as programming and get a
> glimpse of who you really are, you are boundless.
Doesn't conquering oneself mean negating oneself. If one stops oneself
and holds on to existence by a thread, wouldn't _that_ make one a puppet?
You discuss the concept programming repeatedly. I do not understand what
you mean by this. Can you define what you mean when you use that word?
From what I imagine that you mean, programming is psychological control by
others. Doesn't the assertion that man is controled by others violate the
fundamental free-will in man's nature?
Now, let's assume that individuals were to capitulate with your above
paragraph, and attempt to conquer themselves. Some would completely succeed
and die. They're gone. Others would rebel right before death. While
others wouldn't go that far, but, they are not capitulating, so they don't
count. Look what your philosophy has created.
Now there is another issue, if everything in man's nature is due to
"programming". Who does this programming. For those who capitulated with
you, there isn't much self left, so there is a lot of human wreckage wide
open for influencing. But, in summary, doesn't the fact that "programming"
has to be done by someone, alone, show a contradiction in your assertion.
Good luck with you witch doctorial campaign. I look forward to meeting
you again on the Usenet News field of battle.
Paul Wharton
Legal...@msn.com
"I like to expand things, before I implode them."
mahab...@my-deja.com
> > yourself. And to do that, you have to see clearly who you are,
> > programming and all. Until you have come to terms with yourself and
> > seen your programming as programming, you are the passive, conquered
> > drifter. When you perceive your programming as programming and get a
> > glimpse of who you really are, you are boundless.
>
Just the opposite.
> If one stops oneself
> and holds on to existence by a thread, wouldn't _that_ make one a
puppet?
You are confusing "identity" with "being."
> You discuss the concept programming repeatedly. I do not understand
what
> you mean by this.
I can tell that you don't. Academically, this is something that
cultural and social psychologists are into, among others. Their
research shows that the way we use our minds -- the functions of
cognition and perception -- is determined from birth by culture. If you
had been born into a different culture, the way you perceive yourself
and the world around you would be different from the way you see it now.
There are resources on this at this URL:
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~gramzow/ISSI/
Here's a really interesting paper on What Is the Self?
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~gramzow/ISSI/daily.htm
> Can you define what you mean when you use that word?
Yes. The way you define yourself, your mental conception of who you
are, is in large part programmed into you from birth. This self-concept
is in large part determined by your family and also by your society. An
obvious example of this would be if you were born a girl into a culture
that de-values women. Also, the way that you see yourself in relation
to others and to the world around you is programmed. People born into
different cultures have very different cognitive models of "self"
and "other" than Westerners do.
I'm not saying this is the way it "should" be. I'm saying this is the
way it is, whether you realize it or not.
It's hard to see because, as individuals, we're too close to ourselves
to see ourselves objectively. I saw a cartoon once in which two fish
were leaping out of a lake; one pointed down with his fin and
said, "See? THAT'S WATER." You have to have an experience like that to
realize what I'm saying.
> From what I imagine that you mean, programming is psychological
control by
> others.
No, not at all. The controls are more likely to be internal than
external. I'm saying that it isn't possible to be objective about
anything until you can be objective about yourself. And it isn't
possible to be really free until you are free from your own
programming, repressions, prejudices, neuroses, and baggage.
> Doesn't the assertion that man is controled by others violate the
> fundamental free-will in man's nature?
I'm a great believer in free will, but you aren't really free until you
are free from your own programming, repressions, prejudices, neuroses,
and baggage.
>
> Now, let's assume that individuals were to capitulate with your
above
> paragraph, and attempt to conquer themselves. Some would completely
succeed
> and die.
No no no. If you succeed, you are well.
>They're gone. Others would rebel right before death.
I can't imagine what you are talking about. What is it that you think
is going to kill you?
> While
> others wouldn't go that far, but, they are not capitulating, so they
don't
> count. Look what your philosophy has created.
It's not a "philosophy." It's the way we all are.
>
> Now there is another issue, if everything in man's nature is due
to
> "programming".
I'm not saying "everything." I'm saying that the way we perceive
ourselves and others is mostly a result of programming.
> Who does this programming.
We all do. Everyone in a particular society takes part in it, including
you.
> For those who capitulated with
> you,
No, son, I'm one of the ones who rebelled. You are the slave. You just
don't see the chains.
> there isn't much self left, so there is a lot of human wreckage wide
> open for influencing.
No no no no no. When the old deluded self is gone, something much
stronger emerges.
> But, in summary, doesn't the fact that "programming"
> has to be done by someone, alone, show a contradiction in your
assertion.
Alone? You have taken part in it.
>
> Good luck with you witch doctorial campaign.
Witch? No, dear, this is standard social science and psychology. You
need to broaden your education.
> I look forward to meeting
> you again on the Usenet News field of battle.
Get to know yourself better first.
B.
>
> Paul Wharton
> Legal...@msn.com
>
> "I like to expand things, before I implode them."
>
>
legal...@my-deja.com
> > Doesn't conquering oneself mean negating oneself.
>
> Just the opposite.
That's just as bad.
Academically, this [programming] is something that
> cultural and social psychologists are into, among others. Their
> research shows that the way we use our minds -- the functions of
> cognition and perception -- is determined from birth by culture.
This is ridiculous. Man is tabula rasa at birth. His mind is a blank
slate. Man has free will. One is free to rebel against a stimulus, a
family, and a culture.
If you
> had been born into a different culture, the way you perceive yourself
> and the world around you would be different from the way you see it
now.
Not necessarily.
> > From what I imagine that you mean, programming is psychological
> control by
> > others.
>
> No, not at all. The controls are more likely to be internal than
> external. I'm saying that it isn't possible to be objective about
> anything until you can be objective about yourself.
I'd like to see you define the word, "objective". If you do, you'll
show your own contradiction.
> >
> > Now, let's assume that individuals were to capitulate with your
> above
> > paragraph, and attempt to conquer themselves. Some would completely
> succeed
> > and die.
>
> No no no. If you succeed, you are well.
A conquered man is a healthy man?
>
> >They're gone. Others would rebel right before death.
>
> I can't imagine what you are talking about. What is it that you think
> is going to kill you?
I bet you are a real socialist. You want man repressed, but not to
die, so you can feed off of him, right?
>
> > While
> > others wouldn't go that far, but, they are not capitulating, so they
> don't
> > count. Look what your philosophy has created.
>
> It's not a "philosophy." It's the way we all are.
Man is a being of self-made soul. One is only conquered if one makes
oneself that way. You want us to accept your assertion that man is
that way inevitably, so man will stop trying to conquer nature. You
want to conquer those who conquer nature. You are a witch doctor.
>
> >
> > Now there is another issue, if everything in man's nature is due
> to
> > "programming".
>
> I'm not saying "everything." I'm saying that the way we perceive
> ourselves and others is mostly a result of programming.
>
> > Who does this programming?
>
> We all do. Everyone in a particular society takes part in it,
including
> you.
>
> > For those who capitulated with
> > you,
>
> No, son, I'm one of the ones who rebelled. You are the slave. You just
> don't see the chains.
This reveals quite a bit of your soul. You not only want man to
destroy himself, you want to rule those who are still alive after the
self-inflicted carnage.
>
> > there isn't much self left, so there is a lot of human wreckage wide
> > open for influencing.
>
> No no no no no. When the old deluded self is gone, something much
> stronger emerges.
Like you, oh ruler?
>
> > But, in summary, doesn't the fact that "programming"
> > has to be done by someone, alone, show a contradiction in your
> assertion.
>
> Alone? You have taken part in it.
If I had, I would have your advice to thank for it's guidance.
>
> >
> > Good luck with you witch doctorial campaign.
>
> Witch? No, dear, this is standard social science and psychology.
Why do you think I gave up on college, and devoted myself to a self-
education in Objectivist philosophy?
Paul Wharton
Legal...@msn.com
"The punishment for witch doctors is utter annihilation in the
intellectual realm."
jddescr...@my-deja.com
mahab...@my-deja.com wrote: the comments with one(>), three (>>>)
and six(>>>>>>) marks.
> In article <8r48fo$fom$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote: the comments with none (0),
two (>>), and four(>>>>) marks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm having a hard time understanding what a zen Buddist
is but I've developed several impressions and I thank you for the
information. It looks like zen is less authoritarian and mystical/magic
than most of the dictatorial eastern philosophies and religions but I
think your comment that it is almost the exact opposite of the Ayn Rand
Theories [ART] is also true. You arrive at objective truth
(occasionally) by mystical/magic dream states with some guru. Ayn Rand
shows us how to converge on the objective truth by a learning
experiment and understanding(thinking) process routinely, no magic or
mysticism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hardly anyone thinks anything new. Philosophers I admire -- t
> > > > >> the Greek
> > > > >> Stoics, especially Marcus Aurelius, and the great mystics
> > > > >> such as Rumi.
> > > > >> As a Buddhist, I have come to appreciate the wisdom of
> > > > >> Buddhist
> > > > >> teaching on the nature of the human self and life and
> > > > >> happiness and in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess you are saying there is a range of opinions on what a zen
Buddist is including doubt as to whether Budda is a special
mystical/magic socialist master or just a learned teacher like Ayn Rand
or as some view Jesus.
-----------------excerpted, see original----------------------------
> The self-torching monks in Vietnam -- those were Zen monks. They were
> protesting oppression by the government of Vietnam that was taking
away
> their freedom. Their act is still controverial in Buddhist circles, as
> suicide it not encouraged for any reason. But it did have the desired
> effect, which was to call attention to the oppression.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
The ART is a strong LOL [Love Of Live] philosophy and suicide isn't
controversial it is antilife and antiAmerican.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Is there now a deliberate pursuit of happiness rather than
> > > > sacrificing to the masters?
> > >
> > > Nobody sacrifices to masters, unless the "master" is some kind of
> > > phoney cult leader. There have been such. And in some sects of
> > > Buddhism
> > > the "pursuit of happiness" is fundamental. For example, I
> > > recommend "The Art of Happiness," a best selling book by His
> > > Holiness
> > > the Dalai Lama.
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
-
I'm afraid we are going to find out that the Buddist and the American
model/Jeffersonian/Lincoln/Reagan/Ayn Rand meaning of happiness are
very different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I can see why you were sensitive to the issue of thinking for
> > oneself or following a master.
>
> Ayn Rand is your master. She's more of a guru to you than any teacher
I
> have studied with.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I, of course, don't know anything about your teachers and I certainly
have enormous respect for the ART works of Ayn Rand but in no way is
she more than a very smart lady who worked very hard to figure out why
the special king's men rulers of the world have dominated and enslaved
average people who produce all the real wealth down through history.
She discovered and revealed these answers [ the socialist idea that it
is moral to use force to do "good" deeds = altruism ]. She documented
all her findings and they are becoming more available as word of the
philosophy and it's importance for happiness becomes known. Let me
suggest that your Tibet friends might do well to understand about the
evil socialist forces in the world who live by looting. The mongol
hordes who murdered so many; what part and what religion of the east
did they represent?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
About your mystic/magic guys. Do these people have somethiung to do
with reincarnation? Were you fudging words when you said you don't
believe in a next world? Are those monks who torched themselves gone
forever?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > I know it's always some distortion
> > but was the Jim Jones religious movement linked to some of the
> > California Buddists [the rich ones]?
>
> Absolutely not. Those were "Christians."
>
> > Maybe zen Buddism isn't subject
> > to such intense worship that minds can be manipulated?
>
> Zen Buddhists don't worship; it is non-theistic, not based on belief
> in
> a god.
>
> Anyone who is emotionally needy can be manipulated. Anyone who buys
> into any ideology is no longer thinking for himself. It's fine to read
> Ayn Rand books, but if you've stopped thinking for yourself since,
> that's a problem. Look with your own eyes. Think with your own brain.
> Ultimately we don't need masters; our lives are our teacher.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
That's part of the story but you have never answered me as to whether
you can use the studies of people you respect or do you have to start
from ground zero on all ideas?
Certainly some of those California strange religions have something to
do with zen, YES? What about the rich hippies of the 1960s and 1970s
weren't they zen related in their bathing habits and such?
An important part of the happiness teachings of ART is about productive
family products of routine and creative nature. The idea of lying
around all doped up is definitely the opposite of ART. Were the Fondas
and Easy Rider the best of zen Buddism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Ayn Rand had little use for organaized religions
> > > > but freedom trumps the situation so she would say no laws should
> be
> > > > passed to
> > > > restrict people's beliefs.
> >
> > >
> > > Buddhism is very much a path to personal liberation. The practice
of
> > > the Eightfold Path leads to freedom from fears, from internal
> blocks,
> > > from neurosis, from societal programming. In particular, if you
have
> > > ever gotten to meet a Zen or Tibetan Dzogchen master, you have
met a
> > > very free person. You'd have to have the experience to know what I
> > > mean. On the other hand, I saw Rand on TV several times before she
> > > died, and it was obvious she was very neurotic and very "blocked."
> Not
> > > a happy person.
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --
> >
> > This is a deep question but let me say a couple of things.
> > First we need to distinguish freedom from escape from reality.
>
> I agree completely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weren't the hippies escaping from the effort of earning the
wealth that they got king's free from their parents? Did they ever
accomplish anything positive in the common sense of American values?
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pride of People, Pride of Purpose = POP is one of the big SOUL [Self
Ownership of yoUr Life] rewards of ART. Ayn Rand had this happiness
about herself because the goals that she set out on as a young girl of
10 all were turned by her accomplishments into reality. YES! she made
some enormous happiness errors also but I view the whole process as a
giant happiness lesson. She loved philosophy and considered objective
moral principles and rational truth of the highest value. When she
violated her own principles[ betraying her family love partner] she
had to pay the price in unhappiness. Big positive values can't be
triffeled with or they will bite you.
I mainly just use the books for reference these days but one defect
of the fictional form that she used is that it is hard to look up all
the critical quotes. Hopefully people will organize them one of these
days so her thoughts can be more accessible to people everywhere. It's
not only Americans who need to be able to see the SOCMAN [social
manipulator] and keep at a safe and secure distance from his looting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good seeing. JD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
mahab...@my-deja.com
legal...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> > > Doesn't conquering oneself mean negating oneself.
> >
> > Just the opposite.
>
> That's just as bad.
You don't even know who you are. Until you do, you won't understand
what I'm talking about.
>
> Academically, this [programming] is something that
> > cultural and social psychologists are into, among others. Their
> > research shows that the way we use our minds -- the functions of
> > cognition and perception -- is determined from birth by culture.
>
> This is ridiculous. Man is tabula rasa at birth. His mind is a blank
> slate. Man has free will. One is free to rebel against a stimulus, a
> family, and a culture.
Yes, you are free to rebel, but first you have to see what it is you
are rebelling against. You don't seem to have seen it yet.
> If you
> > had been born into a different culture, the way you perceive
yourself
> > and the world around you would be different from the way you see it
> now.
>
> Not necessarily.
Yes, necessarily. Copious research has been done on this. This is
standard, mainstream sociology.
>
> > > From what I imagine that you mean, programming is psychological
> > control by
> > > others.
> >
> > No, not at all. The controls are more likely to be internal than
> > external. I'm saying that it isn't possible to be objective about
> > anything until you can be objective about yourself.
>
> I'd like to see you define the word, "objective". If you do, you'll
> show your own contradiction.
By objective I mean being able to view from a position that is bigger
in scope than one's own limited, personal view.
> > >
> > > Now, let's assume that individuals were to capitulate with
your
> > above
> > > paragraph, and attempt to conquer themselves. Some would
completely
> > succeed
> > > and die.
> >
> > No no no. If you succeed, you are well.
>
> A conquered man is a healthy man?
If you've conquered yourself, you are the VICTOR. The conquered self
dissolves and the victorious self emerges.
Have you ever had the experience of being so caught up in something, so
absorbed in what you are doing, that you forget yourself? This happens
to people when they are playing sports sometimes and they get into
a "zone" so that they experience the pure joy of athletics with no
inhibitions or self-consciousness. Or you get so caught up in reading a
book or writing a paper that you lose track of time, and three hours go
by and it feels like ten minutes. Then when you come back to yourself,
so to speak, and notice the clock and notice it's time for dinner or
whatever, you are left with a wonderfully refreshed, expansive feeling.
Ever happen to you? If not, you haven't lived. But that's just a
glimpse of what it means to "conquor" the self. Another way of saying
it is to forget the self. Just forget the repressions, the neuroses,
the baggage; let it go. Just be. It's wonderful, if you can do it.
Ain't easy.
> >
> > >They're gone. Others would rebel right before death.
> >
> > I can't imagine what you are talking about. What is it that you
think
> > is going to kill you?
>
> I bet you are a real socialist. You want man repressed, but not to
> die, so you can feed off of him, right?
YOU are the one defending YOUR repressions and clinging to them in the
delusion that your repressions are "you." I am saying to let it all go,
and be free.
> >
> > > While
> > > others wouldn't go that far, but, they are not capitulating, so
they
> > don't
> > > count. Look what your philosophy has created.
> >
> > It's not a "philosophy." It's the way we all are.
>
> Man is a being of self-made soul. One is only conquered if one makes
> oneself that way.
It's funny that you zero in on the "conquered" part and don't notice
that it's you that is to be the conqueror. Are you afraid to be a
conqueror?
> You want us to accept your assertion that man is
> that way inevitably, so man will stop trying to conquer nature. You
> want to conquer those who conquer nature. You are a witch doctor.
> >
> > >
> > > Now there is another issue, if everything in man's nature is
due
> > to
> > > "programming".
> >
> > I'm not saying "everything." I'm saying that the way we perceive
> > ourselves and others is mostly a result of programming.
> >
> > > Who does this programming?
> >
> > We all do. Everyone in a particular society takes part in it,
> including
> > you.
> >
> > > For those who capitulated with
> > > you,
> >
> > No, son, I'm one of the ones who rebelled. You are the slave. You
just
> > don't see the chains.
>
> This reveals quite a bit of your soul. You not only want man to
> destroy himself, you want to rule those who are still alive after the
> self-inflicted carnage.
I don't want to rule anybody. And I don't say "destroy" the self, not
at all. I am trying to tell you that you are trapped in a box, and you
can get yourself out of it. But you have to do it; nobody can do it for
you. DISCOVER the self. REALIZE the self. You are much, much more than
you think you are.
Something somebody said to me years ago was very illuminating to me. We
all live in a box, and the top, bottom, and sides of the box are made
up of our concepts and expectations of who we think we are and what we
think life is supposed to be. We're afraid to break out of the box
because we think the box is "us," but it isn't us, and in fact the box
is the source of most of our personal pain, neuroses, repressions,
whatever.
Most psychotherapy and stuff like "positive self-esteem" programs are
about expanding the box, redecorating it, and making it more livable.
But what I'm talking about is getting out of the box altogether. No
limits, no boundaries. That's another way to describe what I mean by
conquering the self.
> >
> > > there isn't much self left, so there is a lot of human wreckage
wide
> > > open for influencing.
> >
> > No no no no no. When the old deluded self is gone, something much
> > stronger emerges.
>
> Like you, oh ruler?
Like YOU, who you really are, if you have the guts.
> >
> > > But, in summary, doesn't the fact that "programming"
> > > has to be done by someone, alone, show a contradiction in your
> > assertion.
> >
> > Alone? You have taken part in it.
>
> If I had, I would have your advice to thank for it's guidance.
There's no escape. If you live in a human society and obey its
conventions, you are both programmed and programmer. No escape.
> >
> > >
> > > Good luck with you witch doctorial campaign.
> >
> > Witch? No, dear, this is standard social science and psychology.
>
> Why do you think I gave up on college, and devoted myself to a self-
> education in Objectivist philosophy?
Too bad. You have so much more potential. Well, if you are ever ready
to get out of the Objectivist box, take courage and go for it. Free
yourself.
B.
mahab...@my-deja.com
jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8rb1ij$dlo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
> mahab...@my-deja.com wrote: the comments with one(>), three (>>>)
> and six(>>>>>>) marks.
>
> > In article <8r48fo$fom$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
> jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote: the comments with none (0),
> two (>>), and four(>>>>) marks.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm having a hard time understanding what a zen Buddist
> is but I've developed several impressions and I thank you for the
> information. It looks like zen is less authoritarian and
mystical/magic
> than most of the dictatorial eastern philosophies and religions but I
> think your comment that it is almost the exact opposite of the Ayn
Rand
> Theories [ART] is also true. You arrive at objective truth
> (occasionally) by mystical/magic dream states with some guru.
No. Zen meditation is a kind of mind training that enables one to
concentrate and realize inner stillness. Not a dream state, but being
more awake and aware than most of us are. Ordinary consciousness is a
dream state in comparison.
> Ayn Rand
> shows us how to converge on the objective truth by a learning
> experiment and understanding(thinking) process routinely, no magic or
> mysticism.
There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't seem to have helped her
very much. When her life got tough, she was defeated. And I think her
ideas about the nature of the self in relation to society are just
plain wrong and amount to a prescription for making yourself more
unhappy.
One of the most common delusions people take through life is the notion
that out there, somewhere, there is something that will make you happy.
It might be a person, or a thing, or an ideology. But ultimately
nothing can make you happy. You make yourself happy (or miserable).
There's no magic formula. You have to cultivate happiness from within,
not from without. It's up to you.
Here's an interesting paper on attributes common to happy people:
http://www.rocamora.org/Page148.html
Zen Buddhism discourages belief in magic. Zen literature is full of
stories about masters who debunked magicians. Instead, Zen encourages
mindfulness, paying attention to what's right here, right now. Facing
reality head on, not escaping into daydreams and fantasies. Zen is
essentially a path of practice for working with your own mind to
realize what's real.
The historical Buddha was a guy from India who founded the religion of
Buddhism 25 centuries ago. He lived, he died, he is still dead.
Sometimes the word "Buddha" (which is a title, meaning "awakened"), is
used to represent enlightenment itself, and in that context people
sometimes confuse "Buddha" as some kind of god. The concept of "god" as
understood in the Western religions doesn't exist in Buddhism.
>
> -----------------excerpted, see original----------------------------
>
> > The self-torching monks in Vietnam -- those were Zen monks. They
were
> > protesting oppression by the government of Vietnam that was taking
> away
> > their freedom. Their act is still controverial in Buddhist circles,
as
> > suicide it not encouraged for any reason. But it did have the
desired
> > effect, which was to call attention to the oppression.
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The ART is a strong LOL [Love Of Live] philosophy and suicide isn't
> controversial it is antilife and antiAmerican.
Vietnam isn't America. I am opposed to suicide, but in this case the
monk was reacting to religious oppression. The government of Vietnam
had made Catholicism the state religion and was oppressing Buddhists.
The death did help bring about change.
If you fight against an oppressor and die as a result, is that wrong?
Is it better to live under oppression than fight against it if you
might lose your life?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > > Is there now a deliberate pursuit of happiness rather than
> > > > > sacrificing to the masters?
>
> > > >
> > > > Nobody sacrifices to masters, unless the "master" is some kind
of
> > > > phoney cult leader. There have been such. And in some sects of
> > > > Buddhism
> > > > the "pursuit of happiness" is fundamental. For example, I
> > > > recommend "The Art of Happiness," a best selling book by His
> > > > Holiness
> > > > the Dalai Lama.
> > > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -
>
> I'm afraid we are going to find out that the Buddist and the American
> model/Jeffersonian/Lincoln/Reagan/Ayn Rand meaning of happiness are
> very different.
Nonsense. I'm a tenth generation American. My ancestors fought in the
American Revolution. My ideas about what "happy" is are the same as any
other American's.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > >
> > > I can see why you were sensitive to the issue of thinking for
> > > oneself or following a master.
> >
> > Ayn Rand is your master. She's more of a guru to you than any
teacher
> I
> > have studied with.
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I, of course, don't know anything about your teachers and I certainly
> have enormous respect for the ART works of Ayn Rand but in no way is
> she more than a very smart lady who worked very hard to figure out why
> the special king's men rulers of the world have dominated and enslaved
> average people who produce all the real wealth down through history.
> She discovered and revealed these answers [ the socialist idea that it
> is moral to use force to do "good" deeds = altruism ].
The Taoists of China said something like that 25 centuries ago. This is
from the Tao Teh Ching (ca. 600 BC; John Wu translation):
High virtue is non-virtuous;
Therefore it has virtue.
Low virtue never frees itself from virtuousness;
Therefore it has no virtue.
High virtue makes no fuss and has no private ends to serve:
Low virtue not only fusses but has private ends to serve.
High humanity fusses but has no private ends to serve:
High morality not only fusses but has private ends to serve.
High ceremony fusses but finds no response;
Then it tries to enforce itself with rolled-up sleeves.
Failing Tao, man resorts to Virtue.
Failing Virtue, man resorts to humanity.
Failing humanity, man resorts to morality.
Failing morality, man resorts to ceremony.
Now, ceremony is the mere husk of faith and loyalty;
And the beginning of folly.
...
Therefore, the full-grown man sets his heart upon the substance rather
than the husk;
Upon the fruit rather than the flower.
Truly, he prefers what is within to what is without.
<verse 38>
Rand's limitation is that she had no understanding of true altruism,
or "high virtue" of the verse above. She only saw the "low virtue" and
thought that's all altruism is. True altruism is a rare thing, but it's
the pure manifestation of true humanity. True altruism is selfless and
serves no master or purpose. True altruism is humanity taking care of
itself. But, as I say, it is rare. Most people cling to their selfish
little selves and practice "low virtue."
> She documented
> all her findings and they are becoming more available as word of the
> philosophy and it's importance for happiness becomes known. Let me
> suggest that your Tibet friends might do well to understand about the
> evil socialist forces in the world who live by looting.
You are very arrogant if you think the Tibetans don't understand
socialism all too well. They hate Communism and want to be free of it.
> The mongol
> hordes who murdered so many; what part and what religion of the east
> did they represent?
I don't believe they had a religion. The Tibetans were a warlike people
also, closely related to the Mongols, but they gave up being warriors
when they adopted Buddhism, ca. 1000 AD.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> About your mystic/magic guys. Do these people have somethiung to do
> with reincarnation?
Reincarnation is an Asian cultural belief. Most people understand
reincarnation as meaning that each individual has a "soul" that enters
into a new body when the old body dies; sort of like a hermit crab.
Buddhism has no such teaching. The Buddha taught that there is no such
thing as a soul. So without a soul, how does one reincarnate? Pretty
tricky.
> Were you fudging words when you said you don't
> believe in a next world? Are those monks who torched themselves gone
> forever?
The monks and you and me are ripples on a great ocean. The ripples
appear and disappear; the ocean remains.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > I know it's always some distortion
> > > but was the Jim Jones religious movement linked to some of the
> > > California Buddists [the rich ones]?
> >
> > Absolutely not. Those were "Christians."
> >
> > > Maybe zen Buddism isn't subject
> > > to such intense worship that minds can be manipulated?
> >
> > Zen Buddhists don't worship; it is non-theistic, not based on belief
> > in
> > a god.
> >
> > Anyone who is emotionally needy can be manipulated. Anyone who buys
> > into any ideology is no longer thinking for himself. It's fine to
read
> > Ayn Rand books, but if you've stopped thinking for yourself since,
> > that's a problem. Look with your own eyes. Think with your own
brain.
> > Ultimately we don't need masters; our lives are our teacher.
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> That's part of the story but you have never answered me as to whether
> you can use the studies of people you respect or do you have to start
> from ground zero on all ideas?
The entire phenomenal universe has something to teach you, if you are
tuned into it. And the wisdom of all the ages is in your very bones, if
you are tuned into it. The catch is that you have to be tuned into it.
>
> Certainly some of those California strange religions have something to
> do with zen, YES?
Not really.
> What about the rich hippies of the 1960s and 1970s
> weren't they zen related in their bathing habits and such?
"Rich hippies"? I never met a "rich hippie." The freaks I knew looked
shabby but bathed and brushed their teeth every day and even used
deoderant. Uptight reactionaries spread lies about the freaks being
dirty, but generally the freaks took more baths than the reactionaries.
Basically we were just middle-class American kids with frayed jeans and
a lot of hair.
>
> An important part of the happiness teachings of ART is about
productive
> family products of routine and creative nature. The idea of lying
> around all doped up is definitely the opposite of ART. Were the Fondas
> and Easy Rider the best of zen Buddism?
Buddhism discourages use of drugs and intoxicants. Staying sober is one
of the Precepts, in fact.
The hippies weren't Buddhists. But as a former "freak" (hippies didn't
call themselves hippies; we were freaks) I must explain that the whole
sixties counter-culture thing was a very natural reaction to the
oppression and repression and devaluation of individualism of the
1950s. It was a reaction against a lot of the same crap that Rand was
reacting against. You have to understand the 1950s to understand the
1960s. (Suggested reading: A novel from the 1950s called "The Man in
the Gray Flannel Suit") And I think the counter-culture cleared the air
and did the whole world some good. It also produced great music. <g>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> Pride of People, Pride of Purpose = POP is one of the big SOUL [Self
> Ownership of yoUr Life] rewards of ART.
Who are you? What is the self? What is life? Don't assume you know.
These are fundamental questions.
> Ayn Rand had this happiness
> about herself because the goals that she set out on as a young girl of
> 10 all were turned by her accomplishments into reality. YES! she made
> some enormous happiness errors also but I view the whole process as a
> giant happiness lesson. She loved philosophy and considered objective
> moral principles and rational truth of the highest value. When she
> violated her own principles[ betraying her family love partner] she
> had to pay the price in unhappiness. Big positive values can't be
> triffeled with or they will bite you.
Yes, that's a true thing.
>
> I mainly just use the books for reference these days but one defect
> of the fictional form that she used is that it is hard to look up all
> the critical quotes. Hopefully people will organize them one of these
> days so her thoughts can be more accessible to people everywhere. It's
> not only Americans who need to be able to see the SOCMAN [social
> manipulator] and keep at a safe and secure distance from his looting.
Well, good luck with that. Social manipulators don't bother me any
more, but maybe that's because I'm too old and cranky to be
manipulated. <g>
Regards,
B.
jddescr...@my-deja.com
mahab...@my-deja.com wrote: the comments with one (>)
and three (>>>) marks
> In article <8r4098$9ih$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote: the comments with two (>>) marks.
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Have you ever made an effort to understand the several Asian
> > > philosophies for yourself, or are you dismissing them because Ayn
> > > Rand
> > > did?
> > >
> > > B.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
Is realism real? Can humans know/learn/approach certainty about
objective physical reality?
I'm sure you recognize that these are the sort of questions which
have given philosophy such a bad name. Common sense Americanism
or the Ayn Rand Theory [ART] rejects such word games of the
Kantians or academic socialists, in general, and says yes ; THIS
human can achieve understandings or I wouldn't be trying and have
so many past successes. I would otherwise give up on life
accomplishments which are such a foundational part of happiness
according to ART.
------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I probably haven't made an adequate effort. I have a
> > brother-in-law who goes along with the contemplation
> > method of dealing with stress like bad people and I can
> > understand that as a MUM, NUM, and DUM strategy for
> > being on mind strike from socman.
>
> Having spent several years exploring various Asian philosophies and
> religions, I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course I don't have the right words since I've only observed
it at a distance but it is usually called meditation or yogi or
higher consciousness or something. The idea is that a person can
just turn off the encounter with an unpleasant customer [ my
brother-in-law's case] by mentally disappearing. You certainly
have heard about this aspect of eastern religion NO? The MUM,
NUM and DUM approach to the socman [social manipulator] takings
/taxing/forcings is an escape into deliberate ignorance. You are
familiar with the SHRUGGING strategy of Atlas I suppose? This is
similar on a more of a slacker appearance mode. One of the Ayn
Rand principles was to never over emphasize the socman [social
manipulator]. We see him and know his evil intents but he never
gets life's center stage in an ART work. That is held by the good
people (GPs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >I keep hearing rumors
> > that all the eastern philosophies are not antifreedom,
> > antiAmerican and antilife.
>
> Lies and anti-Asian prejudice.
>
> IMO Taoism (Chinese, very ancient) is the "freest" philosophy anyone
> has ever come up with. Remember the "beats" -- Jack Kerouac, Alan
> Ginsberg, et al.? They can trace their philosophical roots back
> through
> Zen Buddhism and Taoism. Some of the early Taoist poets were "beats"
> back in the first millenium BC. They were into poetry, free love,
> nudity, that kind of thing.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
These sorts of things [like Fonda and Easy Rider] are obviously
destructive to solid happy family life similar to the acceptance
of "queer" marriages. As you say they are a repetitive impulse
throughout human history as is drug dependence and alcohol excess
and other such give-up mechanisms of escape. The ART explains that
the happy values may not be quick and whimish but over time they
are what humans have learned about happy living. The proper balance
of a strong dependable family is very important and is the reason
that the world socialists are destroying family business since
they gave up on direct take over by violence like WW II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To the exent I have looked I
> > have always found the opposite[I recently double checked
> > Confusious(sp) = statist socialist manipulator].
>
> Confucianism is probably the most "socialist" of the Asian
> philosophies, but to really understand Confucianism you need to let go
> of modern political concepts and look at it for what it is, not
> comparing it to other things.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Shouldn't we look at the intrinsic principles as well as their
comparisons to the other theories such as ART?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Taoism and Confucianism are polar opposites in some respects. Zen
> Buddhism was heavily influenced by Taoism, and Zen has had an enormous
> impact on the arts and literature of Asia, and also on modern western
> art and literature.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there any singular great works that you could point to?
Ayn Rand liked the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE so much that
she said this work of Jefferson is not only the greatest
political document in human history but the greatest work of
Literature {high praise indeed, given her giant literary
accomplishments - she didn't speak English when she arrived in
Hollywood to work as a screen writer. She labored over every
word she ever produced - many millions which are now available
in for example "The Journals of Ayn Rand"} since she kept every
word, including noted to the grocer! Incidentally her
contributions to human liberty and freeedom are described in the
book "The Triumph of Liberty" by Jim Powell just recently published.
Of course she isn't the only one presented!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the references!
Good seeing. JD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
legal...@my-deja.com
> > > No, son, I'm one of the ones who rebelled. You are the slave. You
> just
> > > don't see the chains.
You lie.
> Something somebody said to me years ago was very illuminating to me.
We
> all live in a box, and the top, bottom, and sides of the box are made
> up of our concepts and expectations of who we think we are and what we
> think life is supposed to be. We're afraid to break out of the box
> because we think the box is "us," but it isn't us, and in fact the box
> is the source of most of our personal pain, neuroses, repressions,
> whatever.
>
The box is reality, and you say to rebel against it. The sides are our
concepts, and you say to break through them. To what? Sensations and
Perceptions? A corpse without a mind?
> Most psychotherapy and stuff like "positive self-esteem" programs are
> about expanding the box, redecorating it, and making it more livable.
> But what I'm talking about is getting out of the box altogether. No
> limits, no boundaries. That's another way to describe what I mean by
> conquering the self.
Nature to be conquered must be obeyed. Man can gain more control over
metaphysical nature, but he cannot defy reality. If he does, he won't
survive.
_______________________
> > > > there isn't much self left, so there is a lot of human wreckage
> wide
> > > > open for influencing.
> > >
> > > No no no no no. When the old deluded self is gone, something much
> > > stronger emerges.
> >
> > Like you, oh ruler?
>
> Like YOU, who you really are, if you have the guts.
Woe. A challenge. What would happen if I tried to prove you wrong? I
end up a selfless servant.
> > >
> > > > But, in summary, doesn't the fact that "programming"
> > > > has to be done by someone, alone, show a contradiction in your
> > > assertion.
> > >
> > > Alone? You have taken part in it.
> >
> > If I had, I would have your advice to thank for it's guidance.
>
> There's no escape. If you live in a human society and obey its
> conventions, you are both programmed and programmer. No escape.
In other words, you are saying that the world is communistic, and there
is no possible alternative.
Well, if you are ever ready
> to get out of the Objectivist box, take courage and go for it. Free
> yourself.
And, die? I think I will ignore that advice.
Just out of curiousity, how selfless are you? Have you rid yourself of
all of your "programming"? Are you identifying a way out to prevent
yourself from totally dying right before you capitulate completely with
your philosophy? What will sustain you at that point? Is there any
altruist person that you know of who will be willing to give you food,
so you'll survive? Isn't the spreading of altruism the only way that
you can survive if you keep promoting this terrible philosophy of yours?
But, wait. What if you keep doing what you have been doing, and
secretly give up self-sacrifice youself? Why don't you just stop
asserting this damn philosophy?
Paul Wharton
Capitalist Soldier
legal...@my-deja.com
> > > No, son, I'm one of the ones who rebelled. You are the slave. You
> just
> > > don't see the chains.
You lie.
> Something somebody said to me years ago was very illuminating to me.
We
> all live in a box, and the top, bottom, and sides of the box are made
> up of our concepts and expectations of who we think we are and what we
> think life is supposed to be. We're afraid to break out of the box
> because we think the box is "us," but it isn't us, and in fact the box
> is the source of most of our personal pain, neuroses, repressions,
> whatever.
>
The box is reality, and you say to rebel against it. The sides are our
concepts, and you say to break through them. To what? Sensations and
Perceptions? A corpse without a mind?
> Most psychotherapy and stuff like "positive self-esteem" programs are
> about expanding the box, redecorating it, and making it more livable.
> But what I'm talking about is getting out of the box altogether. No
> limits, no boundaries. That's another way to describe what I mean by
> conquering the self.
Nature to be conquered must be obeyed. Man can gain more control over
metaphysical nature, but he cannot defy reality. If he does, he won't
survive.
_______________________
> > > > there isn't much self left, so there is a lot of human wreckage
> wide
> > > > open for influencing.
> > >
> > > No no no no no. When the old deluded self is gone, something much
> > > stronger emerges.
> >
> > Like you, oh ruler?
>
> Like YOU, who you really are, if you have the guts.
Woe. A challenge. What would happen if I tried to prove you wrong? I
end up a selfless servant.
> > >
> > > > But, in summary, doesn't the fact that "programming"
> > > > has to be done by someone, alone, show a contradiction in your
> > > assertion.
> > >
> > > Alone? You have taken part in it.
> >
> > If I had, I would have your advice to thank for it's guidance.
>
> There's no escape. If you live in a human society and obey its
> conventions, you are both programmed and programmer. No escape.
In other words, you are saying that the world is communistic, and there
is no possible alternative.
Well, if you are ever ready
> to get out of the Objectivist box, take courage and go for it. Free
> yourself.
And, die? I think I will ignore that advice.
Just out of curiousity, how selfless are you? Have you rid yourself of
all of your "programming"? Are you identifying a way out to prevent
yourself from totally dying right before you capitulate completely with
your philosophy? What will sustain you at that point? Is there any
altruist person that you know of who will be willing to give you food,
so you'll survive? Isn't the spreading of altruism the only way that
you can survive if you keep promoting this terrible philosophy of yours?
But, wait. What if you keep doing what you have been doing, and
secretly give up self-sacrifice youself? Why don't you just stop
asserting this damn philosophy?
Paul Wharton
Capitalist Soldier
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark Lewis
<legal...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8rrhps$6gv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Something somebody said to me years ago was very illuminating to me.
> We
> > all live in a box, and the top, bottom, and sides of the box are made
> > up of our concepts and expectations of who we think we are and what we
> > think life is supposed to be. We're afraid to break out of the box
> > because we think the box is "us," but it isn't us, and in fact the box
> > is the source of most of our personal pain, neuroses, repressions,
> > whatever.
> >
> The box is reality, and you say to rebel against it. The sides are our
> concepts, and you say to break through them. To what? Sensations and
> Perceptions? A corpse without a mind?
>
> > Most psychotherapy and stuff like "positive self-esteem" programs are
> > about expanding the box, redecorating it, and making it more livable.
> > But what I'm talking about is getting out of the box altogether. No
> > limits, no boundaries. That's another way to describe what I mean by
> > conquering the self.
>
> Nature to be conquered must be obeyed. Man can gain more control over
> metaphysical nature, but he cannot defy reality. If he does, he won't
> survive.
Just to throw a wrench in the gears. He isn't necessarily equating the "box"
to reality itself (though if he is, I agree with you.). Just as I can read
the following sequence 14916253649 as a phone number 1 491 625-3649, I can
also read it as a string of squares 1, 4, 9, 16. 25, 36, 49. The former
conceptualization of the number sequence is not "wrong," and neither is the
latter. However, to the degree that I automatically impose the former
parsing of numbers onto it, it is a conceptual "box". All of the information
is there, and could be understood many different ways, but I parse it
according to a pre-given set of filters or "box". If I am emotionally
committed through fear or misplaced loyalty to the "phone number box" I am
limited by my own ideas and concepts (filter's, box) from seeing other,
perhaps more interesting patterns that exist in reality such as the
sequential squares. By gaining perspective on my own filters, I can gain
choice in investigating alternate interpretations and parsings of reality. A
beautiful example of this was used in the movie "Contact" where the attempts
to decode the patterns of the space transmission were impossible given the
conceptual filter (box) that led them to only look in two dimensions. Once
they broke out of the "2 dimensional box" and considered the problem in 3
dimensions, the code was easy to break.
We can understand the "self" (little 's' as it is typically referred to in
mystical contexts the "little self" of concepts, personality and ideas) as
those sets of filters or "box." At the same time, we can understand the
Self (capital 'S') as the consciousness that experiences reality through
(and prior to) those filters. In this conception, the (s)elf continually
develops and alters through time. As small children, we have few
distinctions about how to parse experience into meaningful objects, and
patterns between these objects. As we grow and develop, our distinctions
(concepts) become refined and sometimes discarded as inaccurate. There are
many basic ideas and understandings I held as a child which parsed my
experience in ways that I now find to be wholly inadequate if not violently
wrong. In other words my conceptual understanding of the world, my (s)elf,
is constantly developing.
One aspect of that developing set of distinctions or knowledge ('s'elf) is
our understanding of who we are. This includes self-concept (what is my
personality like?) and self-esteem (what is my personality worth? what is
its value?). At each point in my development, my understanding of what I
am, of who I am, is a function of my level of knowledge and beliefs. As my
knowledge grows, so does my understanding of what I am and what the world
is. My "box" changes and develops. When I recognize an aspect of my ideas
and beliefs (my box) are inadequate to describe the reality of what I am and
the nature of reality, I discard it for the more accurate understanding.
This can be understood as breaking out of the box, or transcending it, or
healing it, etc. It is going beyond my former idea of (s)elf.
Now, as I continue to develop, I am likely to eventually turn my awareness
to the question "what is the nature of my consciousness itself?" After I
have studied the world, the objects of awareness and reality, I might begin
to study the very nature of awareness itself. This is a more philosophical
question. What is the nature of that consciousness that sees and hears and
feels?; What s the essence of that which I call "I" ?; What is it that
directs my thoughts and hears the words I speak to myself that I call
"thinking?"; What is it that experiences pain and pleasure, appreciates
beauty and dislikes ugliness? What is the essence of "that which
experiences?" This understanding of who I am, what my nature consists of, is
often considered one of the most profound purposes of philosophy. In the
words of the oracle at Delphi: "Know thyself."
This can be considered the essential and central spiritual question. Note,
this has ZERO to do with "religion" in any normal sense. This is not about
any "GOD", revelation, or dogma. This is about the essence of the human
spirit! It is about the nature of the seat of human consciousness, that
strange and miraculous thing that (as far we know) only living human beings
possess.
Of course, we are only ever aware of objects IN consciousness and never
consciousness itself. Consciousness is always aware of SOMETHING! In
metaphor, we can never look at our eyes directly. However, like using a
mirror, we can explore the nature of consicousness by careful study of how
we experience the world. We learn about the (S)elf by studying the (s)elf.
This study is much more subtle and demanding than study of gross physical
objects or ideas encapsulated in the form of language. I sometimes will
even describe it as slippery. It requires tremendous concentration and the
ability to finely focus your awareness. However, it is possible, and I
submit, incredibly fascinating and pleasurable.
However, it is important to remember that the benefit of any piece of
knowledge is what it allows you to DO with the object of knowledge. When we
learn about physics, we can build bridges and manage space travel. When we
study bio-chemistry we can heal sickness and affect the course of living
organisms. When we study human consciousness (our 'S'elf) we can learn to
shift our very experience of life itself. We can systematically enter into
finer and more subtle states of consciousness according to how we want to
feel and "relate to" our experiences.
In fact, Let me go further with this point. Any connoisseur of wine will
tell you that the most pleasurable experiences of wine tasting ONLY comes
after tremendous practice and experience in making ever more subtle
distinctions about the taste of wine itself. It is only AFTER one has
learned fine distinctions about the balance of different flavors, the
consistency of the wine in the mouth, how the wine tastes on different parts
of the tongue, the flourish in and after the swallow, etc., that one can
truly enjoy the beauty of a good wine. In a different realm, until you learn
to understand the game of American Football, a superbowl is just a bunch of
guys running into each other. However, when you learn the rules of the game,
and make ever finer distinctions in the types of defense, the execution of
various plays, the historical significance of a particular record that was
just broken, the configuration of teams though the playoffs, etc, the
superbowl can become a truly ecstatic experience. As a rule, only someone
familiar with fine distinctions of ideas can recognize the beauty of a
particular abstraction. For non-specialists, the beauty is too subtle for
their untrained mind to grasp and appreciate. This is true in mathematics,
literature, art, quilting, and especially rational philosophy as well as
every field of conceptual experience. The general principle is that the
finer distinctions you can make in any subject, the more complex and
intricate patterns you can learn to discern, and the more glorious these
patterns become. Nature in all its incarnations is so beautiful WHEN you
have the eyes for it!
In the same way, the more we study the (S)elf, consciousness itself, the
more we discover and unfold ever more subtle, complex, intricate, and (by
any other words) beautiful human experiences. In so doing, we learn to
distinguish the types of phenomenological/emotional results of using
different states of consicousness. Each state of consciousness will offer
different mental/emotional perspectives and experiences in relation to any
event. For example, ten people might hear the same piece of music or the
same speech but experience it completely differently. One person might
experience disgust, another confusion, another boredom, and another profound
love. In the exploration of the subtle of emotions, ideas, visual,
auditory, kinesthetic, and olfactory/gustatory sensations, there exists
whole worlds of truly awesome pleasure and delight. In order to have these
experiences we must enter into the appropriate states of consciousness, and
in order to enter them, we are required to make the subtlest distinctions
about the very nature of consciousness. As we learn to distinguish and
enter into subtle states of consciousness by choice, we begin to gain true
control our experience of life.
In light of this, the study of the nature of consciousness could be argued
to be the most important field in the context of happiness. Think about it,
EVERYTHING we do involves the use of consciousness.
As an aside.We might argue that rational thought is the next most
fundamental aspect of human experience. It is certainly the most useful for
purposes of definition! However, when eating a fine meal, or making love,
for example, there are wonderful aspects of the experience which are not
sufficiently abstracted to be manipulated conceptually. They are directly
perceived. However, this non-conceptual experience is not "a corpse without
a mind," (if so, I have compassion for your sex life!...) but a rich and
beautiful experience of the joy of human existence.
As an example. The most common forms of sexual dysfunction are focusing on
the (s)elf (self-esteem, self concept) rather than relaxing into the (S)elf
(direct experience) while having sex. If we are rationally trying to perform
according to some conceptual standard of "a good girl" or "a good lover," we
miss out on the beauty of the experience. However, this is true in ALL human
experiences. To the degree that we reduce our experience of life to the
mental/conceptual (s)elf aspects of experience, we lose the ability to
experience the (S)elf direct perception of our experience. This can lead to
very smart (conceptual) people with extremely narrow emotional lives. How
tragic.
However, there is NOTHING we experience that is not DIRECTLY related to
consciousness. Hence, to the degree that we learn to make fine distinctions
in HOW to use our consciousness itself, we can transform our experience of
everything we experience. Of all the skills we can learn, mastering the
direction and focus of consicousness is important and useful in EVERY
context.
Now, back to the subject of the post. In the process of directing our
awareness the systematic study of consciousness itself (S)elf, we COULD say
that we are transcending or going beyond the "box" of (s)self completely and
focusing entirely on (S)elf.
It is in this way that I can understand what he means when he says "getting
out of the box altogether." When we turn our attention to the study of
consciousness itself, we leave the world of the "box" behind, and deal with
the perceiver, the actor, the consciousness that experiences the box. We
open ourselves up to more direct experience and with it gain access to parts
of experience we had previously ignored and choices we had previously denied
ourselves. In this sense, getting outside the box is incredibly powerful.
Where I disagree with him radically is that by changing our focus of
attention that we are no longer limited by the box IN TOTO. Although I might
transcend those ideas that made me "unhappy," "fearful," or "jealous" by
recognizing them as thought forms, I do not escape material reality. I must
still eat, breath, and maintain my body temperature. I am still subject to
all the forces of physics and biology/biochemistry. "REALITY" in terms of
the physical realities of being human are not constructs of the mind that I
can transcend, but constraints of reality that I attempt to escape at my
peril. In the same way, to the degree that I reduce or disparage the use of
my mind in recognizing and abstracting out the patterns of physics and
biology, to that degree to I destroy my ability to survive and thrive.
However, virtually all of the social beliefs that I use as excuses to govern
or limit my behavior can be transcended. I can break out of THAT box. Where
I used to feel embarrassed at the thought of being naked, I can go "beyond"
the thoughts/concepts that lead to that emotion and become completely
comfortable with it. Where I used to feel fear in talking to groups of
people or the opposite sex (etc.) I can feel comfortable. Where I used to
fear other people's judgments of my behavior I can learn to laugh! I can
learn to engage in any behavior that other human beings engage in with
equanimity.
Again, it is the distinction between (s)elf and (Self) COMBINED with the
distinction between physical/biological constraints of reality and social
conditioning that makes all the difference.
In summary, making an either/or choice between (s)elf and (S)elf is
incredibly destructive and has horrid consequences. Rather, it is a balance
of both/and that is required. The (s)elf of concepts and abstract
recognition of patterns in reality is essential to the survival and thrival
of the human organism. It is the foundation on which the happiness of human
being is built. The ability to open and relax into the (S)elf of direct
experience and consciousness is essential for the creation of that most
profound and difficult of achievements: happiness, which is its purest form
might be called bliss.
In fact, to put is simply, it is only when we recognize 1) the absolute
nature of physical/biological reality and 2) the flexibility of abstract
social conventions internalized into mental "boxes" of limitation and
emotional conditioning, that we can integrate objectivism and an
experiential (non-religious, non-mystical) spirituality; Rationality and
Reality; concept and experience; carcass and the life that infuses it.
However, once we make these distinctions, commit wholly and completely to
the reality of experience above all else, we can truly begin to explore, map
out, create, and enjoy the aesthetic realm of experience. The essence of
Roark is not the thoughts thinks or the buildings he built (his 's'elf) but
his conscious commitment to reality/truth and the creative expression of his
spirit (his 'S'elf) at all costs.
Although there are many things to add to this to make it more complete, I
think I communicate the gist of the idea. Now let's see the feather's fly!
--
Mark Michael Lewis
No man is free who is a slave to himself.-unknown.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; he who dares not
is a slave. - William Drummond.
mahab...@my-deja.com
legal...@my-deja.com wrote:
> mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > > No, son, I'm one of the ones who rebelled. You are the slave.
You
> > just
> > > > don't see the chains.
>
> You lie.
No, you are deluded.
> > Something somebody said to me years ago was very illuminating to me.
> We
> > all live in a box, and the top, bottom, and sides of the box are
made
> > up of our concepts and expectations of who we think we are and what
we
> > think life is supposed to be. We're afraid to break out of the box
> > because we think the box is "us," but it isn't us, and in fact the
box
> > is the source of most of our personal pain, neuroses, repressions,
> > whatever.
> >
> The box is reality, and you say to rebel against it. The sides are
our
> concepts, and you say to break through them. To what? Sensations and
> Perceptions? A corpse without a mind?
The box is not reality. It's conceptual. The box is what is getting in
the way of fulling experiencing your life.
Your box seems to have something to do with fear of authority figures,
but I would have to get to know you better to know for sure. Whatever
the box is made of, however, only you can get yourself out of it. Until
you do, you will be a slave to your own emotions and fears and
delusions.
>
> > Most psychotherapy and stuff like "positive self-esteem" programs
are
> > about expanding the box, redecorating it, and making it more
livable.
> > But what I'm talking about is getting out of the box altogether. No
> > limits, no boundaries. That's another way to describe what I mean by
> > conquering the self.
>
> Nature to be conquered must be obeyed. Man can gain more control over
> metaphysical nature, but he cannot defy reality.
I'm not telling you to defy reality. I'm telling you to defy non-
reality and embrace reality.
> If he does, he won't
> survive.
If he does, he'll be free.
> _______________________
>
> > > > > there isn't much self left, so there is a lot of human
wreckage
> > wide
> > > > > open for influencing.
> > > >
> > > > No no no no no. When the old deluded self is gone, something
much
> > > > stronger emerges.
> > >
> > > Like you, oh ruler?
> >
> > Like YOU, who you really are, if you have the guts.
>
> Woe. A challenge. What would happen if I tried to prove you wrong?
I
> end up a selfless servant.
You can't prove me wrong. If you try and succeed, you'll see I'm right.
If you try and fail, you'll still be stuck where you are, blind and
deluded, not seeing anything, not having a clue what I'm talking about,
as you clearly don't.
> > > >
> > > > > But, in summary, doesn't the fact that "programming"
> > > > > has to be done by someone, alone, show a contradiction in your
> > > > assertion.
> > > >
> > > > Alone? You have taken part in it.
> > >
> > > If I had, I would have your advice to thank for it's guidance.
> >
> > There's no escape. If you live in a human society and obey its
> > conventions, you are both programmed and programmer. No escape.
>
> In other words, you are saying that the world is communistic, and
there
> is no possible alternative.
No, "communistic" is a political idea. Human beings -- all hominids, I
believe -- are social animals. Brain development is partly innate and
partly a product of socialization. From the moment you are born you are
taught how to use your brain to cognate and perceive the world around
you, and the way you are taught impacts how you identify yourself and
how you relate to the world around you. This is such a well-tested,
fundamental fact of the pyshoclogical sciences that denying it is like
denying the earth revolves around the sun. Your self-identity is a
creation of your society and your own cognitive abilities.
>
> Well, if you are ever ready
> > to get out of the Objectivist box, take courage and go for it. Free
> > yourself.
>
> And, die?
And LIVE.
> I think I will ignore that advice.
> Just out of curiousity, how selfless are you? Have you rid yourself
of
> all of your "programming"?
A lot of it.
> Are you identifying a way out to prevent
> yourself from totally dying right before you capitulate completely
with
> your philosophy?
I can't imagine what you think is going to kill me.
>What will sustain you at that point?
I have a job, thanks.
> Is there any
> altruist person that you know of who will be willing to give you food,
> so you'll survive?
Yes, but as I make pretty good money I can buy food at the grocery
story. I even go to restaurants now and then.
> Isn't the spreading of altruism the only way that
> you can survive if you keep promoting this terrible philosophy of
yours?
It's not my philosophy. It's been around for thousands of years, and
will be around for thousands of years more.
> But, wait. What if you keep doing what you have been doing, and
> secretly give up self-sacrifice youself? Why don't you just stop
> asserting this damn philosophy?
What are you afraid of?
B.
mahab...@my-deja.com
Very good. The "box" is not reality, not at all. The box is a delusion.
>Just as I can read
> the following sequence 14916253649 as a phone number 1 491 625-3649,
I can
> also read it as a string of squares 1, 4, 9, 16. 25, 36, 49. The
former
> conceptualization of the number sequence is not "wrong," and neither
is the
> latter. However, to the degree that I automatically impose the former
> parsing of numbers onto it, it is a conceptual "box".
Yes, that's an example of a conceptual box.
> All of the information
> is there, and could be understood many different ways, but I parse it
> according to a pre-given set of filters or "box". If I am emotionally
> committed through fear or misplaced loyalty to the "phone number box"
I am
> limited by my own ideas and concepts (filter's, box) from seeing
other,
> perhaps more interesting patterns that exist in reality such as the
> sequential squares. By gaining perspective on my own filters, I can
gain
> choice in investigating alternate interpretations and parsings of
reality.
Yes.
> A
> beautiful example of this was used in the movie "Contact" where the
attempts
> to decode the patterns of the space transmission were impossible
given the
> conceptual filter (box) that led them to only look in two dimensions.
Once
> they broke out of the "2 dimensional box" and considered the problem
in 3
> dimensions, the code was easy to break.
>
> We can understand the "self" (little 's' as it is typically referred
to in
> mystical contexts the "little self" of concepts, personality and
ideas) as
> those sets of filters or "box." At the same time, we can understand
the
> Self (capital 'S') as the consciousness that experiences reality
through
> (and prior to) those filters.
For purposes of this discussion, I'll agree with that. You may be aware
that there are other ways to understand the Self.
> In this conception, the (s)elf continually
> develops and alters through time. As small children, we have few
> distinctions about how to parse experience into meaningful objects,
and
> patterns between these objects. As we grow and develop, our
distinctions
> (concepts) become refined and sometimes discarded as inaccurate.
There are
> many basic ideas and understandings I held as a child which parsed my
> experience in ways that I now find to be wholly inadequate if not
violently
> wrong. In other words my conceptual understanding of the world, my
(s)elf,
> is constantly developing.
Yes, and this conceptual understanding is also shaped from by the
society you live in. This is what social psychologists mean when they
refer to "reality" as a social construct. They are referring to
conceptualizations of reality, not absolute reality itself.
>
> One aspect of that developing set of distinctions or knowledge
('s'elf) is
> our understanding of who we are. This includes self-concept (what is
my
> personality like?) and self-esteem (what is my personality worth?
what is
> its value?). At each point in my development, my understanding of
what I
> am, of who I am, is a function of my level of knowledge and beliefs.
As my
> knowledge grows, so does my understanding of what I am and what the
world
> is. My "box" changes and develops. When I recognize an aspect of my
ideas
> and beliefs (my box) are inadequate to describe the reality of what I
am and
> the nature of reality, I discard it for the more accurate
understanding.
> This can be understood as breaking out of the box, or transcending
it, or
> healing it, etc. It is going beyond my former idea of (s)elf.
Yes.
>
> Now, as I continue to develop, I am likely to eventually turn my
awareness
> to the question "what is the nature of my consciousness itself?"
After I
> have studied the world, the objects of awareness and reality, I might
begin
> to study the very nature of awareness itself. This is a more
philosophical
> question. What is the nature of that consciousness that sees and
hears and
> feels?; What s the essence of that which I call "I" ?; What is it that
> directs my thoughts and hears the words I speak to myself that I call
> "thinking?"; What is it that experiences pain and pleasure,
appreciates
> beauty and dislikes ugliness? What is the essence of "that which
> experiences?" This understanding of who I am, what my nature consists
of, is
> often considered one of the most profound purposes of philosophy. In
the
> words of the oracle at Delphi: "Know thyself."
Excellent.
I never said anyone escapes material reality.
> I must
> still eat, breath, and maintain my body temperature.
Of course.
> I am still subject to
> all the forces of physics and biology/biochemistry. "REALITY" in
terms of
> the physical realities of being human are not constructs of the mind
that I
> can transcend, but constraints of reality that I attempt to escape at
my
> peril. In the same way, to the degree that I reduce or disparage the
use of
> my mind in recognizing and abstracting out the patterns of physics and
> biology, to that degree to I destroy my ability to survive and thrive.
>
> However, virtually all of the social beliefs that I use as excuses to
govern
> or limit my behavior can be transcended. I can break out of THAT box.
That's exactly what I am talking about.
IMO that was an excellent analysis. Thank you.
B., who btw is a "she"
>
> --
> Mark Michael Lewis
>
> No man is free who is a slave to himself.-unknown.
> He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; he who
dares not
> is a slave. - William Drummond.
>
>
mahab...@my-deja.com
jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8rb00j$ccf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
> mahab...@my-deja.com wrote: the comments with one (>)
> and three (>>>) marks
>
> > In article <8r4098$9ih$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote: the comments with two (>>)
marks.
>
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Have you ever made an effort to understand the several Asian
> > > > philosophies for yourself, or are you dismissing them because
Ayn
> > > > Rand
> > > > did?
> > > >
> > > > B.
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> Is realism real? Can humans know/learn/approach certainty about
> objective physical reality?
Yes, they can. Many have done it. I'm saying that Ayn Rand didn't do it.
>
> I'm sure you recognize that these are the sort of questions which
> have given philosophy such a bad name. Common sense Americanism
> or the Ayn Rand Theory [ART] rejects such word games of the
> Kantians or academic socialists, in general, and says yes ; THIS
> human can achieve understandings or I wouldn't be trying and have
> so many past successes. I would otherwise give up on life
> accomplishments which are such a foundational part of happiness
> according to ART.
I postulate that you won't know what "real" is until you sweep Ayn Rand
Theory completely out of your brain. See with your own eyes.
> > >
> > > I probably haven't made an adequate effort. I have a
> > > brother-in-law who goes along with the contemplation
> > > method of dealing with stress like bad people and I can
> > > understand that as a MUM, NUM, and DUM strategy for
> > > being on mind strike from socman.
>
> >
> > Having spent several years exploring various Asian philosophies and
> > religions, I have no idea what you are talking about.
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Of course I don't have the right words since I've only observed
> it at a distance but it is usually called meditation or yogi or
> higher consciousness or something. The idea is that a person can
> just turn off the encounter with an unpleasant customer [ my
> brother-in-law's case] by mentally disappearing. You certainly
> have heard about this aspect of eastern religion NO? The MUM,
> NUM and DUM approach to the socman [social manipulator] takings
> /taxing/forcings is an escape into deliberate ignorance.
You have been lied to about what the various eastern religions are all
about. Instead of escaping into ignorance, one learns to discipline the
mind to avoid escaping into ignorance.
> You are
> familiar with the SHRUGGING strategy of Atlas I suppose? This is
> similar on a more of a slacker appearance mode. One of the Ayn
> Rand principles was to never over emphasize the socman [social
> manipulator]. We see him and know his evil intents but he never
> gets life's center stage in an ART work. That is held by the good
> people (GPs).
Your conceptual model bears little resemblance to reality, sir.
>
> > >I keep hearing rumors
> > > that all the eastern philosophies are not antifreedom,
> > > antiAmerican and antilife.
> >
> > Lies and anti-Asian prejudice.
> >
> > IMO Taoism (Chinese, very ancient) is the "freest" philosophy anyone
> > has ever come up with. Remember the "beats" -- Jack Kerouac, Alan
> > Ginsberg, et al.? They can trace their philosophical roots back
> > through
> > Zen Buddhism and Taoism. Some of the early Taoist poets were "beats"
> > back in the first millenium BC. They were into poetry, free love,
> > nudity, that kind of thing.
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> These sorts of things [like Fonda and Easy Rider] are obviously
> destructive to solid happy family life similar to the acceptance
> of "queer" marriages.
You have just declared yourself to be a social manipulator. I can have
no respect for someone who wants to manipulate and control the intimate
lives of others.
Good bye.
<remainder snipped>
B.
legal...@my-deja.com
> > > Something somebody said to me years ago was very illuminating to
me.
> > We
> > > all live in a box, and the top, bottom, and sides of the box are
> made
> > > up of our concepts and expectations of who we think we are and
what
> we
> > > think life is supposed to be. We're afraid to break out of the box
> > > because we think the box is "us," but it isn't us, and in fact the
> box
> > > is the source of most of our personal pain, neuroses, repressions,
> > > whatever.
> > >
> > The box is reality, and you say to rebel against it. The sides are
> our
> > concepts, and you say to break through them. To what? Sensations
and
> > Perceptions? A corpse without a mind?
>
> the way of fulling experiencing your life.
Objectivists, this is an example of someone trying to invalidate man's
conceptual faculty.
>
> Your box seems to have something to do with fear of authority figures,
> but I would have to get to know you better to know for sure.
With tyranny throughout the world, and even in America to some extent,
you're damn right I'm afraid of despotic authority. The only solution
is to kill the evil political philosophies before they kill me.
> > > Most psychotherapy and stuff like "positive self-esteem" programs
> are
> > > about expanding the box, redecorating it, and making it more
> livable.
> > > But what I'm talking about is getting out of the box altogether.
No
> > > limits, no boundaries. That's another way to describe what I mean
by
> > > conquering the self.
> >
> > Nature to be conquered must be obeyed. Man can gain more control
over
> > metaphysical nature, but he cannot defy reality.
>
> I'm not telling you to defy reality. I'm telling you to defy non-
> reality and embrace reality.
Define reality.
>
> > If he does, he won't
> > survive.
>
> If he does, he'll be free.
The freedom of everlasting non-existence.
>
> > _______________________
> >
> > > > > > there isn't much self left, so there is a lot of human
> wreckage
> > > wide
> > > > > > open for influencing.
> > > > >
> > > > > No no no no no. When the old deluded self is gone, something
> much
> > > > > stronger emerges.
> > > >
> > > > Like you, oh ruler?
> > >
> > > Like YOU, who you really are, if you have the guts.
> >
> > Woe. A challenge. What would happen if I tried to prove you wrong?
> I
> > end up a selfless servant.
>
> You can't prove me wrong. If you try and succeed, you'll see I'm
right.
> If you try and fail, you'll still be stuck where you are, blind and
> deluded, not seeing anything, not having a clue what I'm talking
about,
> as you clearly don't.
I don't understand at all how you can reach the above conclusions.
You're right in that I don't understand the irrational.
> > > > > > But, in summary, doesn't the fact that "programming"
> > > > > > has to be done by someone, alone, show a contradiction in
your
> > > > > assertion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alone? You have taken part in it.
> > > >
> > > > If I had, I would have your advice to thank for it's guidance.
> > >
> > > There's no escape. If you live in a human society and obey its
> > > conventions, you are both programmed and programmer. No escape.
> >
> > In other words, you are saying that the world is communistic, and
> there
> > is no possible alternative.
>
> No, "communistic" is a political idea. Human beings -- all hominids, I
> believe -- are social animals.
What individual produces what is necessary for life?
Brain development is partly innate and
> partly a product of socialization. From the moment you are born you
are
> taught how to use your brain to cognate and perceive the world around
> you, and the way you are taught impacts how you identify yourself and
> how you relate to the world around you.
Wrong. Man is tabula rasa at birth. And, he has free-will.
This is such a well-tested,
> fundamental fact of the pyshoclogical sciences that denying it is like
> denying the earth revolves around the sun.
Then damn psychology and sociology. The analogy does not relate.
Your self-identity is a
> creation of your society and your own cognitive abilities.
Who is society? Who commands the group? If you answer no one, then
how does the group accomplish anything?
> > Just out of curiousity, how selfless are you? Have you rid yourself
> of
> > all of your "programming"?
>
> A lot of it.
>
> > Are you identifying a way out to prevent
> > yourself from totally dying right before you capitulate completely
> with
> > your philosophy?
>
> I can't imagine what you think is going to kill me.
>
> >What will sustain you at that point?
>
> I have a job, thanks.
Is it in the private sector, the legitimate public sector (police,
courts, military, diplomacy, or treasury), or other, non-legitimate
public sector?
> > Isn't the spreading of altruism the only way that
> > you can survive if you keep promoting this terrible philosophy of
> yours?
>
> It's not my philosophy. It's been around for thousands of years, and
> will be around for thousands of years more.
Not if I can kill it.
>
> > But, wait. What if you keep doing what you have been doing, and
> > secretly give up self-sacrifice youself? Why don't you just stop
> > asserting this damn philosophy?
>
> What are you afraid of?
Brutal, oppressive, tyrannical force, and torture where I can't die.
Am I honest enough?
jddescr...@my-deja.com
mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8rmg11$ktn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8rb00j$ccf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >
> > mahab...@my-deja.com wrote: the comments with one (>)
> > and three (>>>) marks
> >
> > > In article <8r4098$9ih$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote: the comments with two (>>)
> marks.
> >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you ever made an effort to understand the several Asian
> > > > > philosophies for yourself, or are you dismissing them because
> Ayn
> > > > > Rand
> > > > > did?
> > > > >
> > > > > B.
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --
> >
> > Is realism real? Can humans know/learn/approach certainty about
> > objective physical reality?
>
it.
>
> >
> > have given philosophy such a bad name. Common sense Americanism
> > or the Ayn Rand Theory [ART] rejects such word games of the
> > Kantians or academic socialists, in general, and says yes ; THIS
> > human can achieve understandings or I wouldn't be trying and have
> > so many past successes. I would otherwise give up on life
> > accomplishments which are such a foundational part of happiness
> > according to ART.
>
Rand
> Theory completely out of your brain. See with your own eyes.
>
> > > >
> > > > brother-in-law who goes along with the contemplation
> > > > method of dealing with stress like bad people and I can
> > > > understand that as a MUM, NUM, and DUM strategy for
> > > > being on mind strike from socman.
> >
> > >
> > > Having spent several years exploring various Asian philosophies
and
> > > religions, I have no idea what you are talking about.
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Of course I don't have the right words since I've only observed
> > it at a distance but it is usually called meditation or yogi or
> > higher consciousness or something. The idea is that a person can
> > just turn off the encounter with an unpleasant customer [ my
> > brother-in-law's case] by mentally disappearing. You certainly
> > have heard about this aspect of eastern religion NO? The MUM,
> > NUM and DUM approach to the socman [social manipulator] takings
> > /taxing/forcings is an escape into deliberate ignorance.
>
> about. Instead of escaping into ignorance, one learns to discipline
the
>
> > You are
> > familiar with the SHRUGGING strategy of Atlas I suppose? This is
> > similar on a more of a slacker appearance mode. One of the Ayn
> > Rand principles was to never over emphasize the socman [social
> > manipulator]. We see him and know his evil intents but he never
> > gets life's center stage in an ART work. That is held by the good
> > people (GPs).
>
>
> >
> > > > that all the eastern philosophies are not antifreedom,
> > > > antiAmerican and antilife.
> > >
> > > Lies and anti-Asian prejudice.
> > >
> > > IMO Taoism (Chinese, very ancient) is the "freest" philosophy
anyone
> > > has ever come up with. Remember the "beats" -- Jack Kerouac, Alan
> > > Ginsberg, et al.? They can trace their philosophical roots back
> > > through
> > > Zen Buddhism and Taoism. Some of the early Taoist poets
were "beats"
> > > back in the first millenium BC. They were into poetry, free love,
> > > nudity, that kind of thing.
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> >
> > These sorts of things [like Fonda and Easy Rider] are obviously
> > destructive to solid happy family life similar to the acceptance
> > of "queer" marriages.
>
> no respect for someone who wants to manipulate and control the
intimate
> lives of others.
>
> Good bye.
>
> <remainder snipped>
>
> B.
>
I assume that this is one of your "bad spirit" days but the
message comes through loud and clear anyway. You support
the dictator mentalities who are the socialist masters of
eastern religions and philosophies with the corresponding
low value for human life. If they didn't teach and enforce
low life values how could so few rule so many? You are
compliant and supportive of these socialist taking/taxing/
manipulating ideas however much you try to cover your tracks.
You reject a philosophy of the American way that is happiness
and Love Of Life [LOL] oriented such as the Ayn Rand Theories
[ART] which celebrates the pride of individual family life and
accomplishments. You had me deceived that zen Buddism was maybe
somewhat different but in the end your support of socialist
enslavement was revealed. JD
mahab...@my-deja.com
And this is why Objectivism is not objective. By clinging to your
subjective, narrow, prejudiced, neurotic concepts you turn away from
the glorious reality that is outside your concepts.
I am not invalidating your conceptual faculties, only pointing out that
concepts are not reality.
> >
> > Your box seems to have something to do with fear of authority
figures,
> > but I would have to get to know you better to know for sure.
>
> With tyranny throughout the world, and even in America to some extent,
> you're damn right I'm afraid of despotic authority. The only solution
> is to kill the evil political philosophies before they kill me.
But your fear of me is utterly irrational. Not only do I not want to
kill you, my personal code of ethics requires that respect your life
and personal freedom and not cause you any harm. Yet you react to me
with fear and call me evil. This is a prime example of what I am
talking about. It's the "box" that's causing your fear, not me, and
only you can elminate it.
>
> > > > Most psychotherapy and stuff like "positive self-esteem"
programs
> > are
> > > > about expanding the box, redecorating it, and making it more
> > livable.
> > > > But what I'm talking about is getting out of the box altogether.
> No
> > > > limits, no boundaries. That's another way to describe what I
mean
> by
> > > > conquering the self.
> > >
> > > Nature to be conquered must be obeyed. Man can gain more control
> over
> > > metaphysical nature, but he cannot defy reality.
> >
> > I'm not telling you to defy reality. I'm telling you to defy non-
> > reality and embrace reality.
>
> Define reality.
As simply as I can do so: Reality is what is objectively real, viewed
without conceptual filters. You are incapable of sorting out the
difference between "conceptual" and "objective," which is one reason so-
called Objectivism is a pile of crap.
> >
> > > If he does, he won't
> > > survive.
> >
> > If he does, he'll be free.
>
> The freedom of everlasting non-existence.
No, free from your delusions and fear and neuroses, which are plentiful
and obvious.
> >
> > > _______________________
> > >
> > > > > > > there isn't much self left, so there is a lot of human
> > wreckage
> > > > wide
> > > > > > > open for influencing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No no no no no. When the old deluded self is gone, something
> > much
> > > > > > stronger emerges.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like you, oh ruler?
> > > >
> > > > Like YOU, who you really are, if you have the guts.
> > >
> > > Woe. A challenge. What would happen if I tried to prove you
wrong?
> > I
> > > end up a selfless servant.
> >
> > You can't prove me wrong. If you try and succeed, you'll see I'm
> right.
> > If you try and fail, you'll still be stuck where you are, blind and
> > deluded, not seeing anything, not having a clue what I'm talking
> about,
> > as you clearly don't.
>
> I don't understand at all how you can reach the above conclusions.
> You're right in that I don't understand the irrational.
Let me be blunt: This entire conversation is way over your head.
>
> > > > > > > But, in summary, doesn't the fact that "programming"
> > > > > > > has to be done by someone, alone, show a contradiction in
> your
> > > > > > assertion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alone? You have taken part in it.
> > > > >
> > > > > If I had, I would have your advice to thank for it's guidance.
> > > >
> > > > There's no escape. If you live in a human society and obey its
> > > > conventions, you are both programmed and programmer. No escape.
> > >
> > > In other words, you are saying that the world is communistic, and
> > there
> > > is no possible alternative.
> >
> > No, "communistic" is a political idea. Human beings -- all
hominids, I
> > believe -- are social animals.
>
> What individual produces what is necessary for life?
>
> Brain development is partly innate and
> > partly a product of socialization. From the moment you are born you
> are
> > taught how to use your brain to cognate and perceive the world
around
> > you, and the way you are taught impacts how you identify yourself
and
> > how you relate to the world around you.
>
> Wrong. Man is tabula rasa at birth. And, he has free-will.
Your "tabula rasa" argument is beside the point. As soon as you are
born, the programming begins. And yes, you have free will, but what you
want to "will" is mostly programmed into you by your family and
culture. It's very difficult to escape that. And you can't escape it
until you see it, and you haven't even seen it.
>
> This is such a well-tested,
> > fundamental fact of the pyshoclogical sciences that denying it is
like
> > denying the earth revolves around the sun.
>
> Then damn psychology and sociology. The analogy does not relate.
Willful ignorance, then? The truth frightens you and threatens your
precious self-concepts, so you deny it. Oh, yes, very Objective.
>
> Your self-identity is a
> > creation of your society and your own cognitive abilities.
>
> Who is society? Who commands the group? If you answer no one, then
> how does the group accomplish anything?
The answer to these questions would require a several hour course in
sociology. It's interesting that you get hung up on "who commands the
group," which once again reveals where your conceptual boundaries are.
You are filtering the world through some kind of master-slave paradigm,
it seems.
>
> > > Just out of curiousity, how selfless are you? Have you rid
yourself
> > of
> > > all of your "programming"?
> >
> > A lot of it.
> >
> > > Are you identifying a way out to prevent
> > > yourself from totally dying right before you capitulate completely
> > with
> > > your philosophy?
> >
> > I can't imagine what you think is going to kill me.
> >
> > >What will sustain you at that point?
> >
> > I have a job, thanks.
>
> Is it in the private sector, the legitimate public sector (police,
> courts, military, diplomacy, or treasury), or other, non-legitimate
> public sector?
Private sector.
>
> > > Isn't the spreading of altruism the only way that
> > > you can survive if you keep promoting this terrible philosophy of
> > yours?
> >
> > It's not my philosophy. It's been around for thousands of years, and
> > will be around for thousands of years more.
>
> Not if I can kill it.
So you want to control what others think, then? If something threatens
your prejudcies and concepts, even though I am no threat to you
whatsoever, you become so irrationally fearful that you want to destroy
the thing that makes you afraid?
This, sir, is the root of all tyranny and oppression. And it is in you.
> >
> > > But, wait. What if you keep doing what you have been doing, and
> > > secretly give up self-sacrifice youself? Why don't you just stop
> > > asserting this damn philosophy?
> >
> > What are you afraid of?
>
> Brutal, oppressive, tyrannical force, and torture where I can't die.
> Am I honest enough?
Yes, you are honest enought, but utterly irrational, because I do not
threaten you with those things.. I wish I could free you from those
things, and from your fear. However, only you can free yourself. Good
luck with that. You've got a lot of work to do.
B.
mahab...@my-deja.com
What comes through loud and clear is your own ignorance and prejudice.
>If they didn't teach and enforce
> low life values how could so few rule so many? You are
> compliant and supportive of these socialist taking/taxing/
> manipulating ideas however much you try to cover your tracks.
You are the one who wants to control others, deny their individuality,
and otherwise oppress them. You revealed that with your remark
on "queer" marriages. I am not homosexual, but I have a REAL commitment
to personal freedom and the need for people to live self-honest lives,
whereas YOU are just paying lip service to freedom. You are opposed to
these things. YOU are the tyrant. YOU are the social manipulator.
>
> You reject a philosophy of the American way that is happiness
> and Love Of Life [LOL] oriented such as the Ayn Rand Theories
> [ART] which celebrates the pride of individual family life and
> accomplishments.
I am not against individual family life, YOU are. YOU want to control
what families are. YOU want to judge and control how everyone is
supposed to live.
> You had me deceived that zen Buddism was maybe
> somewhat different but in the end your support of socialist
> enslavement was revealed. JD
YOU are a slave to Ayn Rand's bankrupted, hypocritical philosophies,
and I must say you are one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever run
into on Usenet. And I've encountered some doozies.
People have to be free to be who they are. People need to break out of
the bonds of prejudice and rigid, conceptual thinking in order to see
with true objectivity. Rand didn't do it, you obviously haven't done
it, and this demonstrates why Rand and her theories are all crap.
B.
ds
>YOU are a slave to Ayn Rand's bankrupted, hypocritical philosophies,
>and I must say you are one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever run
>into on Usenet. And I've encountered some doozies.
>
>People have to be free to be who they are. People need to break out of
>the bonds of prejudice and rigid, conceptual thinking in order to see
>with true objectivity. Rand didn't do it, you obviously haven't done
>it, and this demonstrates why Rand and her theories are all crap.
>
I know I missed the beginning of this thread, but I have to ask. Do
you have any examples of this bankruptcy, hypocricy that would make
Rand and her theories "all crap", or are you just spewing this garbage
out of your ass?
doug