Ilya Startsev

It's great info, but I don't quite know what to do with it. The Chinese have the same problem, except they care for their seniors. Would you rather let the American seniors die off, since you do not want the young to be pressured into paying for them? I do think there is a way out, though. I am against taxation myself, but so far this is the only way it works with a monetary economy. People are dependent on money in order to survive.

Please name an actual collectivist who became a louse. Becoming a louse is a personal choice, not a fault of a system. For the second part, please refer to post #30 of Integrating Wealth and Health. It is not going anywhere for you, but it is going somewhere for me. I love learning about Objectivism through the Platonic dialectic - a dialogue, involving two or more people sharing their ideas, opinions, meanings, etc, that is, sharing their minds. However, my views on race are not enough (in my opinion) to start a new topic. I realize that my defense of these views, even supported with physical evidence, is futile in your case, as you say so. I honestly hope, though, that someone else may take something out of it. Society is not all there is. There is also culture. Please read my essay - especially part 39.3.3.6. Life.

I never called my genes my most important trait. Genes are not even a part of my self-consciousness; they are a part of my body. I call my genes an evidence for race. I would be stupid to call any molecule greater than my organ or my body or anything above. Genes are simply an inseparable part of me - they are not my ultimate goal. The goal is to evolve to someone greater than yourself. In other words - to grow in all respects. Geneticists may be concerned with fragmentation into genes, but I am not a geneticist and do not wish to be one. If there is no need for NASA, then there is no need for the Outer Space Treaty. Apply Harrison Danneskjold's thinking here. And this means you won't be able to search for that Uranium outside of Earth and you are doomed. And if you do not want affordable healthcare, you can choose a private insurance.

Yes, I did.

Yes. Here are also two definitions from dictionary.com that I accept: race is "a group of persons related by common descent or heredity." culture is "the total of the inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, which constitute the shared bases of social action" among others. Some examples are: the American-Indian culture, the Slavic culture (or Slavic-Aryan), the Chinese culture, etc. Pretty much every country has a culture. However, countries such as the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. created their cultures relatively recently and thus could still be considered artificial and unnaturalized. Yes, if you wish to argue for the American culture (of the founding fathers, westerns, country music, thanksgiving and independence day holidays, the american flag, etc.) I will not disagree, but will even promote such identity as being considered race/culture. 1) Nature is the surface of the planet shared by people socially. World is a sphere that includes all events through time and that are inseparable from human societies (the artificial factors) as well as nature (natural factors, such as reproduction, and being in harmony with nature in general). 2) I differentiate between world and nature, just as I differentiate between society and race. Social identity can be undifferentiated and faceless, whereas racial identity always has a face (i.e., specific and unique culture). What you see as separating people is actually differentiating people in order to later unite all in the world. Cultural assimilation should only occur when one identifies with some culture, not when one is forced into it. Type "races" or "races peace" into google and you will hopefully understand what I mean. The unity of races, not just nations. frank harley: Thank you for joining the discussion! It's nice to meet new people! The society debate may still be a part of what I am writing here, but I would prefer to concentrate more on race instead. The model that I was referring to is my own. It is quite extensive and the piece that I posted here is only a small part of it. The thread that has the whole model is Integrating Objectivism and Marxism and specifically post #182. Another important point is that some of the expressed ideas in the beginning of that thread (except for the model) are obsolete and in lieu of which there are new upcoming developments (i.e., the Neo-Objectivist philosophy that I am still working on). The one idea that I do not promote anymore is democracy. Instead, it is going to be a republican government (specifically, aristocratic one). When I have finished reading some Objectivist books and have finalized the new theory, I will post it in the economic forum. Most people are living in that belief. I agree with pretty much everything you mentioned, though. There needs to be an integrative way of living one's life. It is not about living for the government or specific individuals. It is about living for one's own sake that is not in conflict with others.

Surely, thanks for asking. You all deserve clarifications in meanings from me. What I mean by culture is not just an industry made for comfort, but a natural, diachronic connection to nature intrinsically (through genes) and to the world extrinsically. In the model, nature is a part of race/culture and society is likened to civilization, or industry: Society--Nature Race--World

You are right, there is one, unified human race, but we have not approached that understanding fully yet and we are not living in that reality. In order to do so, we must compare our race against extraterrestrial races, of whose existence there is no consensus. Therefore, we can first subdivide our human race inso smaller races, similarly to how we subdivide the global society into smaller societies we have today. Unified human race is in unified human world with one global society.

Yes, I am racist who believes in his race and culture, loves his race and culture, and respects other races and cultures. In contrast to multiculturalists, or worse, patriots of an undifferentiated state who support those racists oversea who go against their own race.

Do you believe in genes? Races are genetic cultures. For example, my DNA analysis has shown that 64% of my world region match results belongs to the Slavic-Aryan race, which is basically all of Northern Europe and Russia. Races are inside of people. How can you abandon your own selves? The source of my DNA analysis is: http://www.dnatribes.com. I mathematically found the percentage from the data (the genes of Autosomal STR Profile).

Here is a gift for you: http://www.proza.ru/2014/04/05/2035. It's all based on reality, my personal experience, not like some "semi-autobiography" like "We the Living."

I would rather identify myself with a race and culture than not have any. No domestic borders are necessary in a global society, only races and cultures can have locational borders where they can coexist with others. This is called differentiation, like the law of identity, versus undifferentiation, which is meaninglessness without "absolutes."

<sigh> You misunderstand me, sNerd. I believe that people should not abandon their homelands, cultures, and traditions at least in their hearts. I am coming closer and closer to fully understanding your view, Objectivists, so thank you for that. But I also want to stress that a person is a nobody without the history of his own race or nation. Please do not separate yourselves from your contexts, whether they are environmental, social, or racial.

I will read all of Objectivist non-fiction, Repairman, I promise, but I just cannot do it right now, and I really do not want to abandon this discussion. Honestly, I am swamped with homework as I am a full time graduate student and also work part time. By the way, I am reading Aristotle's Rhetoric right now. What you said about Objectivist dialectic is inconsistent in my view. Ok, imagine for a second, that there is no such thing as dialectics. Then Objectivist White is consistent in separating itself from its Black and in its self-definitions. However, dialectics is natural to every person. I can account for that since I basically reinvented dialectics before I ever knew about it or read any dialecticians. The dialectics that I naturally invented in 2006 I called ultralogy. I abandoned this name once I learned about dialectics from Dr. Michael Kosok's work and was deeply impressed with the similarities. However, I still call thesis an extreme, antithesis an opposite, and synthesis a critical point because I want to show you how I came up with it when I was 19 years old to make it maybe a little easier to grasp than the general dialectics. So, by adding the dialectical third dimension to Objectivism one not only finds that Objectivism is incomplete without it but also that it is inconsistent because it separates/disconnects itself from everything, including reality, which has quite a lot of greyness.

First of all, Society in the model is undefined. I want us to come up with a society that suits both of us. You want a society that will allow you a freedom of greed. Ok, that's fine with me. I want a global society that will lead to world peace and harmony with nature because I want to avoid a World War III and the death of humans from natural forces. The level of your fears of the automatization of individuals is the same as my global fears. I also want to note that I am against nationalization of creative faculties of individuals. Also, please, do not regress my ideology into meaninglessness. I know that it's easy to do because Objectivism is lacking this area (in other words, it is incomplete), but we will never live in it since it will differentiate into Society and thus attain meaning that neither of us, seemingly, currently possesses. This is a thread for this kind of search for new ideas. Right now, we are in the meaningless state, and that's what you are afraid of, although I am comfortable with it (does not mean that I want you to be comfortable with it, although I am uncomfortable with your black & white state). Our objective reality (outside of Objectivism and outside of these threads) is the meaningless state that we are trying to differentiate. So far it is somewhere between Body--Environment and Society--Nature. It is a vertical conflict. Do presidents create wealth? Or do they merely consume it, spend it, and destroy it? Putin created a lot of wealth with the Sochi Olympics. If you haven't seen their opening ceremony, I highly recommend it to you. It is wonderful!

Ok, I think I get your position in the debate. You perceive businessmen as good because the majority perceives them as bad (which is bad for the majority). You want to continue stressing your position, so the majority does not forget about the good aspects of business-making. Yet, you see that there can be bad businesspeople as well as there can be good politicians or social workers. But how about going this way: keeping the good perception of businesspeople and the good perception of social people? The majority hates them not because of their great competence or happiness but because of their selfishness and arrogance that ignores the rest of the world. Please, do not confuse competence and selfishness. They are not the same thing. People in the U.S.S.R. were extremely competent and they produced very high quality goods (as I know from my and my family's first hand experience). Their factories were producing many goods before and are even producing now but a lot less because capitalistic Russia converted them into services. Now, violent and brutish Russians hate the sight of other people's happiness (whereas before there was no violence that came from this) because they do not think about others but only about their own selves! Why couldn't he simply take the minimum that he needed to survive and then not continue using the source. If he is a smart and balanced individual, he will continue striving and working towards his goals and desires. The secondary help from the society will be the last on his mind. It's like having cash saved for a black day or having an emergency phone. You do not have to use them, but having them is a smart and conscious decision, isn't it? If you use your emergency funds once does not mean that you become dependent on them for the rest of your life! Let's not ignore that we are all humans and get sick or get into accidents sometimes. Bad things happen in our shared objective reality, but what can we do about them? Should we prepare ourselves or just go on living like we did since childhood without learning from mistakes? Let's not regress into extremes and be more realistic (think of compromises). You do not have to beg, if you can live without it. It can even be offered to you, but you do not have to accept unless you have no hope of survival. You will have to beg for assistance if you cannot, for the life of you, find a way out of your problematic situation. If I take some money from the government, I will in the future be a lot smarter to avoid such demeaning circumstances that I could not originally avoid. Getting anything from anyone (whether other Objectivists or government or other societies) is demeaning and uncomfortable because it is equivalent to a sin. That's what we do: we stay away from sins. We can sin once or twice without permanently hurting anyone: e.g., get involved in a homosexual intercourse, take a fruit before asking for permission, or slap a woman for saying that destroying a society is the ultimate good. Note that I aspire to become a professor of English. It is a right to aspire, so I am not against it. I am not necessarily for equality; I am for equity. Here is another (unrealistic but Objectivistic) example: imagine an American free market capitalism and a genius who comes up with a way to build bridges completely out of Uranium. He also takes complete control of all Uranium resources and mines in the U.S. Some businessperson asks him to sell some Uranium but the genius declines. That businessperson goes to another country and finds another genius who controls all Uranium there and does not want to sell Uranium either because whatever he is doing with it gets him more money. Then that Objectivist businessperson goes to other countries and finds the same situation. What happens is that no genius will sell him Uranium that he desperately needs, and he cannot subsist any longer, so he commits suicide. This is a story that Ayn Rand did not want to write but she should have written it to show both sides of the conflict. I agree with your positive thinking about businessmen and I disagree with your negative thinking about everyone else. A social worker is helping the system by providing what's necessary to it but wasn't provided by the businessmen. Think of this as if we already were in the free market capitalism, so that there are people who help clean the roads (which would generate little income if any). I would like you to read and write criticisms to this article on the topic and focus on the following: 1) what happens without government or social support; 2) no Objectivist basis on the good and yet selfless ideology of the founding fathers; 3) the fact of questioning morality of government provisions. And concerning climate change, do you question the melting of ice caps? tadmjones, my view of managerial authority is delineated by sNerd. Your view is also acceptable and quite comfortable.

A=~A is the meaningless state that I told you about. It is not bad. It is faith.

You can buy a lot in today's world. But do the means justify the ends? Yes, it has nothing to do with location, but it has to do with a spacial relation of inner and outer. The identity of anything stays the same unless it changes in relation to the spacial relationship. The identity stay always the same if it is a free radical (like in the example when you move an object outside of its context - a no-no for me; besides, free radicals are bad like cancer, which undermines the system/whole.) This may sound way too complicated. Just look at the model. All examples are accounted for there. Concerning restrictions, imagine if you only live in a house and never go outside for 10 years. Now, imagine that you all of a sudden go to a natural location (like an island) and feel the difference. You will feel less restricted, the air will be cleaner, the food more fresh, and the environment much better. So, the idea of restriction here applies to restricting oneself to something bad (i.e., constantly artificial and thus unhealthy). Ok, concerning yellow light, we not only disagree on the basic logic, but we are even driving differently! You completely ignore the rules of the road that I quoted earlier. And who says that we live in the same perceived reality? Our realities are way different, like two different worlds. So, you go through an intersection and the other guy goes through as well (both on the yellow light). You don't get tickets, but both of you have a high chance to get into an accident. Your statement: "Should or should not is up to a human to determine on a case by case basis depending upon the rest of the circumstances going on while the light is yellow" basically adds the part "but think carefully and watch out before you do" to "you may go." Hence you have "A" (may go) and "not A" (some condition of not going). So, yes, in this respect, an "A" is also "not A" when there is something added to it. It's the same argument that Objectivists use about capitalism. Capitalism is "A," but whenever you have economic regulation then it's not capitalism, thus it's "not A." We can go on forever through a continuum of things that can be capitalism or socialism and that they are not. What's the point of the argument, if neither A nor not A but both is a meaningless state? Hence the argument is meaningless. I reiterate my premises: A, not A, and meaninglessness. The question then is whether you accept that there is something meaningless in our reality or not. If you accept, we agree completely. If you do not, then we only disagree on the meaninglessness part. You seem to think that teddy bear and rubber ducky example is the same as the traffic lights example. Let me show you the difference: green + red = yellow (look at a color spectrum picture); teddy bear + rubber ducky = toys (but questionable to take it further). Our standards of living are higher only because of scientific progress (quality) and hygiene, which is the basis of wealth but not the same thing. The generation of wealth does not equal a higher standard of living. An example is a scrooge or someone who only invests but spends little. Do you agree with me that there are such people in the world and that we should let them be? Hm, but you may ignore a part of objective reality which they inhabit. Either way, to ignore corrupt individuals with their corrupt ideas is to ignore a part of reality in which we all live (to follow Objectivist thinking about a single and indivisible objective reality that is shared by all people in societies). I will check out the forums if I get time away from this discussion But I was referring to something you said somewhere and cannot find where. I agree on: grey area is compromise; knowledge of your own method is the prerequisite. The open-minded definition is that the purpose of knowledge is to gain more knowledge. However, this can become an infinite regression into transhumanism and humans becoming mere robots. If you want anything natural and organic in the world, then you should realize the binding glue and the roots of innovation and new ideas in science coming from imagination (fiction) and beliefs (religions and philosophies). Ok, yes, when I said that I accept Objectivism I did not mean that I am an Objectivist. I am a non-Objectivist.

It is faith in a meaningless state. How can there be proof for something without meaning? Also, do not forget that my logic supports faith, and vice versa. In other words, meaninglessness is attained through meanings. Hence Faith-Logic.

sNerd, you keep stripping off any problems inside capitalism and calling them non-capitalism, but you are right theoretically and your points are well taken (and not forgotten, hopefully). So, as you said, let's be realistic. Let's have a global communist government and a capitalist system that is lesser regulated than currently in the U.S. That's what the Rockfellers, the Rothschilds, and others are doing starting with China. Let's support them. Everyone will be happy. If you still (unrealistically) think that we should not have a global communist government, then here is another argument: What is more important for an Objectivist who is very sick and cannot work and has no family or friends: being unable to live his/her purpose in life or receive healthcare from the government (or non-Objectivists). Or should he simply die? That is the first and thus most important step. Once you believe in it, everything else will come through collaboration. Interesting. So we have Objectivist greed and corrupt greed. You know what, you may be even right. My soul is indeed tattered and happiness is not my goal (remember that I am from Russia, which is probably the most corrupt nation on the planet). I like how you idealize capitalism and businessmen. Corruption does not enter your minds. I guess that your pure beliefs are commendable. I will try to do the same.

Social support.

Rearden, Dagny Taggart, Roark, etc. are managers of their own businesses. I want to point out to you that not all managers are Objectivists. However, you seem to think that your views are absolute and thus the views of everyone, and at the same time that there are those who think (Objectivists) and those who do not think (not Objectivists).

bluecherry, I could not find the area of debate among Objectivists that you mentioned earlier, but, in light of my explanations of greyness, do you find anything grey in Objectivism or would you reiterate what you mentioned earlier?

There will be no total control of people. We are past that. It's history. Just let it go. America is #1 in the size of the economy, Communists are #1 in the growth of their economy, if I remember correctly. Vampires do not hurt people, they simply create an imbalance of life forces. Big fish eat small fish. No one fish is wrong, only the actions are. In free market capitalism that vampirism will be mutual. Let's live and see how it would work out for everyone, not just for you and me.

In other words, sNerd, the following is true: 1. There is no practical way to implement your type of capitalism. 2. You ignore the existence or the effects of work stress, unhealthy workaholism, and extreme careerism. 3. Simple living is boring to you. 4. You do not believe that there should be managers or any authority. 5. Objectivism is an anti-idealism and an anti-ideology. 6. You are so afraid of death that in order to escape it you will allow the destruction of the world (or society). 7. You think that there should be cancer (the disease).

My values are not for sale. Nonetheless, should I vote for Evangelical Tea Party Republicans and watch Fox News?