Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Harrison Danneskjold

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Harrison Danneskjold last won the day on October 14

Harrison Danneskjold had the most liked content!


About Harrison Danneskjold

  • Rank
    The High Lord Infallible
  • Birthday 02/09/91

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Saint Paul
  • Interests

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Real Name
    William Harrison Jodeit
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • School or University
    Hard Knox
  • Occupation
    General Specialist

Recent Profile Visitors

15865 profile views
  1. The DIM Hypothesis - by Leonard Peikoff

    Why can't we quantify reality?
  2. All About Evasion

    After reviewing Ghate's speech, I think you might be right. And I was wrong. Now I have to go track down that Seppuku knife.
  3. Is Social Awareness a Value, a Virtue or a Second Class "Goodness"

    Primarily that it's an extraspective (instead of introspective) thing; i.e. it's somewhere out in physical reality, and not in your own head. As for whether or not everything is existential, that's ultimately true, but it's still a useful concept (like "infinity" or the way a map of a city doesn't account for the curvature of the Earth). The introspective idea of "a concept" looks very different from the extraspective neurons and dendrites it's ultimately composed of.
  4. All About Evasion

    As for recognition, evasion is typically more direct and persistent. A drifter might slip up here or there because they're multitasking (or whatever) and simply missed something; if someone can sit and maintain that A!=A then they're probably not just drifting. As for dealing with evasion, I usually try to determine why they're evading and possibly address it. Maybe their fears are unfounded, maybe they're opposed to some inescapable fact of reality; regardless of what their motive is they're shooting themselves in the foot, and sometimes I'll try to help them see it. Otherwise I'll stop addressing their points at all. When I think other people are drifting things get a bit more complicated. Yes. It's like missing a turn while you're driving because you're also lighting a cigarette and messing with the radio; it's one of those things that can happen to anybody, at any time, if they're being careless. And it definitely impacts things here, but yeah: it's not like everyone who's ever commented on IP rights (for example) did so while cruising down the highway. I highly recommend it. Towards the end he gets into moral responsibility (how the difference between "errors of ignorance" and "evasion" isn't actually binary and how to gauge degrees of either one), which I found invaluable in my own life. Very good stuff. That's interesting. I've always thought of evasion as a consciously chosen thing (which is also how it seemed back when I called it "faith"). I'll have to come back to that in an hour or two.
  5. All About Evasion

    I'm not sure about that. Referring back to "Seize the Reigns of Your Mind", it makes sense to me to distinguish between drifting and evading. One can drift (simply failing to pay attention) without realizing it, and in fact cannot do otherwise; if you realize that you're drifting, and continue to do so, then it becomes wilful evasion. You can't evade accidentally; if you're not consciously refusing to pay attention then you're drifting. With evasion - just don't evade, I think. Drifting (which seems like a good portion of what you've described) is more difficult and I'm not sure I can improve on your approach; I wish I'd thought of it.
  6. All About Evasion

    I will actually answer that question (probably tomorrow), but to respond this way was just too hilarious to be passed up. Not the first video. The editor isn't cooperating with me (I think it's offended at a few of the things I told it in the last few hours); the second one. That's how you respond to evasion! XD You've got to admit - that's funny.
  7. All About Evasion

    When it comes to Christians, at least, I think it runs a bit deeper than that. In my first experiences with evasion, my parents called it "faith". All of the scriptures I heard about revolved around "faith" in one of two ways: the characters either thought for themselves, based their knowledge on the evidence of their senses, worked to improve their own situations and were brutally annihilated or they threw their hands in their air, said "God will solve our problems for us", had all of their problems miraculously solved and lived happily ever after. Imagining that what's basically the mind of the universe itself is inside your head with you, waiting to dish out infinite pleasure or infinite pain depending on the particular trains of thought you choose to follow... It's a lot of pressure. In retrospect, I imagine it must be close to what it feels like to have a gun to the back of your head. They're still so much fun to mess with, though. Anyway. I'll be back momentarily.
  8. Is objectivism consequentialist?

    To the degree that someone is a mystic, they are not happy. I've met plenty of alleged mystics who hardly suffered from their ideology's symptoms, at all - and none of them gave the causeless or miraculous a moment's thought beyond the confines of their Church. I've known others who routinely expected their problems to be solved by magic and wailed just as often that the universe hated them. I've seen others being rushed to the psych ward after scrutinizing their own beliefs too closely. Mystics are not happy.
  9. We Should Be Fun People. We Aren't. Let's Change!

    Mine, too. When I said that certain Objectivists need to lighten up I was thinking of the difference between "I guess I'm sorta happy at eighty" Leonard Peikoff and "smartphones are supercomputers! how can you be depressed with a supercomputer in your pocket?!" Yaron Brook. Absolutely. We shouldn't seek fun for the sake of PR; we should seek it -well- for fun! In the speech I linked to, Yaron Brook also addresses that idea (he calls it "pessimistic determinism").
  10. Is Social Awareness a Value, a Virtue or a Second Class "Goodness"

    That's exactly the right generalization; very good. The phrase I've found most useful is that man is a "contractual animal". And being able to respond appropriately to any individual's nature (which can sometimes mean the difference between life and death) requires social awareness. We don't need each other to survive, though (yet another strike against survivalism), nor should we be each others' primary concerns. Other people can help you to flourish (indeed, I don't know if it's possible in isolation) but you cannot and must not attempt to flourish through them. The difference consists of autonomy. Human life consists of two kinds of motion. Existentially we walk, eat, breathe, plant crops, make tools, build factories, trade and organize companies (etc); we do all of the countless things we must do to survive. It would be impossible us to flourish if we stopped because we would be very dead. We're also in constant personal motion throughout our lives. We learn and grow, we forget, our preferences wax, wane or change entirely; who we are as people is always changing. And you have no choice about whether to change or not; as long as you're alive, it's built into your nature. The only control you have is in which direction to go. Now, the key to being a healthy, happy and successful human is to consciously determine the course of your own motion, in both senses. If you take charge of your own personal development and live to be whoever it is you want to be then you'll be able to walk into any job interview or first date with your head high and without a trace of fear, guilt or doubt; if you live your life just doing whatever strikes your fancy then you may or may not become somebody you can tolerate. If you choose carefully when and where to plant your crops and how much to keep in reserve (etc) then you'll always have food on your table; if not then not. But a choice requires knowledge of and feelings about its consequences. Letting some momentary impulse or habit dictate your behavior is doing what any animal can do; not deciding. And no two people on Earth have the same beliefs or desires to decide by. Even if we somehow cloned a human mind (from childhood memories to their feelings about the previous night's dinner), after any length of separation it'd be uniquely different from the original (since both would've gone on acquiring new experiences and changes independently). This makes independence essential to flourishing. You have to be able to think for yourself (pursuing in your own way whatever knowledge you find important, revising anything that doesn't make absolute sense to you and maintaining everything that does), want what you want (exploring, evaluating and expanding on your emotional mechanism), "see through your own eyes and think with your own brain", go out to act on your decisions and change your mind as frequently as may be necessary - without having to explain or justify a damn thing to anybody else. If you can't take autonomous action then you're not in charge of your own life and you're screwed. This is part of why you should never make another person your highest priority (the other part being that to emotionally invest your self in things you can't control -such as other people- is a recipe for frustration and self-torture). We can (and should) value each other to some degree because we can make each others' lives immeasurably better in so many different ways (and, again, I'm not sure it's even possible for us to flourish alone) but at the end of the day each of us has to be allowed to come or go as we please, without restriction. And that's "the point at which social consciousness becomes second-handedness". That was an extremely sloppy and misleading for me to phrase it, and I'm sorry about any potential confusion; I hope this at least alleviated some of it.
  11. How to Morally Judge Amoral vs. Immoral Men

    Poison is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. It's nothing more than what it is. Drinking poison because you thought it was Coca-Cola is neither moral nor immoral; it's nothing more than an unfortunate accident. Drinking poison with full knowledge of what it is (barring any truly extraordinary circumstances, such as a terminal illness) is immoral. The fact that something is bad for you doesn't necessarily make you evil for doing it, if you didn't know any better. You're not omniscient. The Arabian treatment of women is a symptom of their underlying view of mankind; that our proper place is as Allah's interchangeable and disposable slaves. I do not know of an honest way to make that kind of mistake. It's a somewhat technical part of this but I suspect that they do actually know better (in the same way that a playground bully, who has never heard of "rights" before, still feels the need to hide the nature of his actions). They pretend not to know better the same way they pretend that the Koran could ever make any sense; the same way Western Christians pretend that America was a product of Christianity, while the dark ages were not, and communists pretend that the USSR wasn't really communism. Ignorance excuses nothing if it's self-inflicted.
  12. We Should Be Fun People. We Aren't. Let's Change!

    Onkar Ghate defines three cognitive modes: Purposeful focus Aimless drifting Purposeful evasion
  13. We Should Be Fun People. We Aren't. Let's Change!

    While I generally agree with this, I think it's important to remember the circumstances she lived through. I'm sure it wasn't much fun to live in Soviet Russia, nor to have her ideas almost universally spat upon when she presented them to the West. It might make me a bit cranky, too. Firstly, I emphatically agree with you about acknowledging our own mistakes. Whether Objectivism ultimately stands, falls or corrects itself, as human beings our highest priority must be truth. Further, although some Objectivists certainly are comparable to religious worshippers (*cough* Peikoff *cough*), I don't think we all share such weaknesses. Peikoff just happened to have the biggest microphone for a while. Secondly, as Nathaniel Branden explained in The Psychology of Pleasure, there are many different varieties of "fun" we can experience... ... and not many could even recognize the kinds of fun which Objectivism emphasizes most. Hard work, self-improvement, rising to meet some challenge head-on; what Galt or Roark (who I consider truer Objectivist archetypes than Rand herself) call "fun" is what most people call "hard" and "stressful". Both perspectives are correct (Roark's kind of pleasure is both hard and fun) but choosing anything other than the path of least resistance is pretty radical today. Thirdly, while we should make more jokes, we should also be selective about their subjects. To laugh at something is to belittle it and make it seem small and impotent, which I think is why Rand said "one must never laugh at oneself". I don't agree with that principle, entirely; I think there are times when it's perfectly good and healthy to laugh at yourself - when you're laughing at your own flaws or weaknesses (or those of others). You must never laugh at the things dearest and most sacred to yourself (or what ought to be sacred to others). So I absolutely agree that some of us should lighten up a bit, but since we have such a nonstandard idea of what "fun" is this may not translate into the sort of behavior you might think (and certainly won't score us many brownie points with the general public, anyway). Hell, yes! That point, which at times seems lost on some of us, entails much of the "lightening up" I'd like to encourage. Amen! Thank you, but it hasn't come naturally. You should see some of my posts from a few years ago, if you're ever in a particularly masochistic mood. If you're interested in marketing Objectivism, there's a speech by Yaron Brook you should see.
  14. We Should Be Fun People. We Aren't. Let's Change!

    I'd just like to mention that I really don't think he's going to improve things. Although he'll certainly be better than Hillary would've, he explicitly conflates economic power with political power (he essentially ran on that) and that ought to be one of the requirements of holding the office. That being said, I can't help but like the bastard. Yawon Bwook actually seems like a pretty fun guy to me. I've seen a number of YouTube videos where he really radiates that (I've even seen him crack a joke or two), but it'll take just a bit for me to track them down. Is that really relevant, though? I'm sure you are a fun guy (and it's not dead; it's just worn out from a long night of shagging) but that's not the way you prove that point, man... Anyway. I'm sorry I haven't addressed anything substantive, yet; I'm very sleep deprived and I just wanted to clear up those details before I pass out.
  15. Is Social Awareness a Value, a Virtue or a Second Class "Goodness"

    What kind of social interaction, though? Are teaching, trading, stealing, sex and murder all equally good for you? The values one can gain from or lose to another person depends on what you do together, and there are plenty of different things to choose from. Why don't you start there? Good catch! Thank you.