Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ilya Startsev

Regulars
  • Posts

    782
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Ilya Startsev

  1. Ok, let's have laissez-faire capitalism and see what happens.
  2. softwareNerd, do you believe in climate change?
  3. Sounds dumb from the first glance, doesn't it? Yes, it's a childish freedom to steal, for example, or in any way acquire wealth that is for the sake of wealth only. Poor people can do reckless things in order to change.
  4. Here is a definition of space in Mathematics: "a system of objects with relations between the objects defined" (dictionary.com). In other words, space is not a point but at least a segment that consists of two points. Einstein discovered but also integrated spacetime in our minds. Besides, he discovered it by a thought experiment and was later proven correct by physical evidence. An immovable particle (think of a point) has a location but does not have space. Once there is a distance traveled we have space, and imagine how much of it is in our bodies. Concerning dynamic relationships, Body takes in many things from its Environment. We consume liquids and solid food (whether minerals, nutrients, carbonaceous or some other organic compounds, etc), we breathe in air (oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, argon, etc.), we absorb reflected light (photons), and we share in electromagnetic fields and spacetime (including gravity). These are the types of interactions we have with our natural environments. Artificial environments restrict us because we are not getting the aforementioned interactions directly from our own natural environments. Hence the restrictions of civilization that ultimately will transform humankind into artificial transhumans. The reason I say that yellow light is neither "go" nor "not go" is because under different conditions there are different answers. You started by saying that it is "go," and my grandpa said that it is "not go." Who is right? Neither one specifically, but both. You are correct in considering that anything in addition to "A," if it's inseparable from it, is also "not A." But this logic breaks down in this area, so integrating it cannot be done by a black and white identity mechanic. It is grey because once you try to separate the colors, you get gibberish, like in your teddy bear example. Although the teddy bear example is taken to an extreme, let's still try to solve it. I use identity associations. Here is how I look at it: you have a teddy bear, a rubber ducky, and another teddy bear with a blow torch, and they are all toys, but two teddy bears are more similar than a rubber ducky but they are different at the same time. There is no continuum here like in a color spectrum example, so there is nothing to integrate, just to see how things are the same and/or different at the same time. However, if the second teddy bear held a smaller rubber ducky, which we would give an equal importance as the other rubber ducky, we could then say that that teddy bear is both "A" and "not A," but I don't see a point in doing these types of examples unless to go insane. Wealth divides people and thus divides the whole world. You cannot make wealth (energy) out of nothing. There is always someone who suffers for it because of your taking. The perpetuation of wealth (greed) only leads to more energetic imbalance worldwide. America is #1 not just because it is the best, but because it is the best at taking energy and resources (including humans) from other countries. It is a form of vampirism. The new thread on this topic is posted in Debate Forums: Integrating Wealth and Health. You can still use this thread for the other stuff, but I would advise against it, since discussions with me are somewhat taboo on these forums, and although you don't get any of the negativity - I do, and all the repugnance directed against me does hurt me inside, so that I try sometimes to avoid your forums and wish that you would not reply, so I don't have to. You see, I am as if cursed with all my opinions and beliefs because I know that people hate them, but I cannot let them go because that's how I feel - I feel that they are right, and if I lose the feeling, I would be very unhappy.
  5. The alternative to being poor is greed. The problem with socialistic countries is that they do not allow the freedom of greed for the general populace. Capitalistic countries allow such freedom. To me, greed is a childish freedom. So, when will the greedy grow up to a global society? An even more interesting question is: how will they grow up? A recurring argument against socialism is wealth. Capitalism is the optimal way to acquire wealth. But what is wealth? Aren’t the two components of wealth greed and quality? Greed is a potential result of quality, but quality does not depend on greed. When you look at the socialistic countries, you find them relatively unwealthy. But when you look at the capitalistic countries, you find people there relatively unhealthy, and thus unhappy. So, the two components of health are wellbeing and happiness. Does health depend on quality? Yes, but it does not depend on greed. So, we have to come up with a new form of society that will allow quality and health. Quality comes from incentives. Must incentives be monetary? No, but they must depend on what people value in a society. Money allows people the freedom of greed, but what would only allow the freedom of quality? The idea is to transmute greed into thinking about Society. From Atlas Shrugged, Dagny: "there's something about people that I can't understand. [...] They dislike me, not because I do things badly, but because I do them well." Rand mistakes the reason for disliking by considering just the fact of competence (also purpose and productivity in her view) rather than the state of being arrogant or selfish (also self-esteem in Objectivist interpretation). To her, they are indistinguishable and in linear relationship. However, she should have known that competence and selfishness do not always go hand in hand. She was afraid of losing purpose in life by losing competence, but she did not have to lose competence - just lower that blind selfishness, that's all. This is to say that what competence is to wealth is maybe what self-esteem is to health, but they are not the same thing. We need to differentiate and identify these concepts before we find a way to integrate them. Here is a model for debate: 1) Purpose = productivity (= labor) = competence (I don't have a problem with these equations) ->? wealth 2) Self-esteem (->? health) =/= competence (health ->? competence, competence ->? happiness (purpose -> happiness from aynrandlexicon.com) 3) wealth = quality (= quantity by Aristotelian phase transitions and the second law of dialectics) -> greed (i.e., accumulation of wealth; wealth as an end in itself) 4) health = wellbeing -> happiness 5) wealth ->? health (if this is proven, then Objectivism will win this argument) 6) quality (-> greed ->?) -> wellbeing -> happiness where "->" means a transition or some dynamic process defined as a part or a whole of a human life or activity If you say that wealth necessarily leads to health, then, to me, this is the same as saying that a flower only needs water to survive. Water is like wealth, sunshine is like health. Both are absolutes and for their own sakes. How do they connect? Is the flower that is watered in a basement the same as a wild flower?
  6. <sigh> Since you, Harrison Danneskjold, among potential newcomers to the thread, misunderstand me so much and do not see the dynamics that I see nor separate your Environment (which you see with your own eyes) from other Environments (seen by others) from Nature (seen by the collective of humankind) and for many other reasons that would hopefully lead to a peaceful integration with the black&white Objectivism, I created a new thread in the Political forum under the name of "Integrating Wealth and Health." This thread, as pertains to the political integration of a specific individualism, viz. Objectivism, with a specific collectivism, viz. Marxism, I deem closed.
  7. The inner gum is immediately a part of the rat's space, but considering that a rat does not constitute only space, it is not a complete part of the rat (in other words, there is little interaction between the two). Think this way: All the levels of the model have their own spaces. Hence, starting from particles and ending with auras, all of those entities become a part of you at least on the characteristic of space. Now, what you suggested as wrapping the rat in the gum (on a permanent basis) is the same as wrapping anything organic into anything inorganic. It's like you are wrapped by the house without ever leaving it. Do you see a problem with this? You keep viewing space as bound locations, but space is a lot more than that. Einstein integrated Space and Time and now we have a spacetime continuum. Also, what I meant by Environment is a dynamic relationship that you experience with it, not something that restricts you in any way. In other words, space is not only a location but a distance traveled. Seemingly, Rand never integrated Einsteinian relativism into Objectivism. This is something that needs to be dealt with. I am not breaking down the concept of identity. I am breaking down the concept of human identity (i.e., what makes us human) and an identity of anything already identified. The form remains. I never prohibited a freedom to risk your life at an intersection by ignoring the yellow light. I don't understand what speed has to do with traffic lights. Under yellow light you can do whatever you want, just as under any other color. Following "social contract" of road rules is not like being subjugated to a dictatorship. But notice the problems that result from always driving through the yellow light, as you pointed out earlier. Taking by force and a desire to take by force is inherent in wealth, just as greed as inherent in wealth. Look at how early magnates, such as Carnagie and the Rockfellers started. Look at Russian oligarchs. Force does not have to be direct; it's simply intended to take something from others. Remember that greed affects all people, not just Objectivists, and even though Objectivist perception of wealth may not involve greed (although still arguable), Objectivists are not ruling the world and not seeing how greed affects capitalists. What's a point of spreading Objectivism if your definition does not include people who are already existing? Also, I created a new thread on this discussion in Political forum, so please refer to it. It's called "Integrating Wealth and Health."
  8. Both points are correct. However, I accept Objectivism (as should be obvious from my "haunting" and continuous returning to your forums). I will eventually read all of Rand and probably some of Marx not just to make you happy, but because I would like to learn more. I apologize if I joined these forums prematurely, as I was afraid of doing before, even though bluecherry mentioned that there is nothing here to be afraid of and that none of you "bite." If you want to talk about the metanarrative of this thread, then consider Spiral Architect's words from my other thread: "I have gotten into some pretty drawn out conversations here too (it can be quite fun and self clarifying which is cool)" (my italics). If your discussions with me help clarify your own ideas, then be my guest and let's continue our discussions in peaceful and gracious manners. My premises, which you should already well know, are: extreme, opposite, critical point. Are they wrong? You only seem to deny the critical point (grey), which is subjective. Oh, but please call me Russian. I associate myself with the Slavic race and the Russian traditions and culture. They are inherent to and inseparable from my being. And I am proud of achievements of Russians and Soviets. I do not think that you should group Hitler's Germans with Stalin's Russians, though. Sure, Stalin killed many soldiers and generals in order to prevent a retreat, but if he hadn't done that, Russia would had fallen. Please, tell me where I ignore reality. I do not ignore any realities out there. Instead, I allow space for all possible realities, including our own. Please, keep in mind that there are more realities than your own.
  9. It is a strange thread, indeed, but, as I said before, it's a challenge. If you would rather prefer nonchallenging content--well, I cannot help here. You also need to realize how challenging Ayn Rand's works are. I am still in search for an adviser for my thesis, since seemingly everyone at my university is opposed to her challenge. Also, I would like to discuss with you Disney's cartoon Pocahontas. It is dreamy, but it has interesting qualities of individualist and collectivist integration on the grounds of unconditional love.
  10. Here is a quote I liked from "The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility: Second Version" by Walter Benjamin: "The ancient truth expressed by Heraclitus [the first dialectician], that those who are awake have a world in common while each sleeper has a world of his own, has been invalidated by film [and I would think the Internet]--and less by depicting the dream world itself than by creating figures of collective dream, such as the globe-encircling Mickey Mouse."
  11. I do not differentiate between "have"s and "have-not"s (they are a dynamic), but what I take from Marxism is the belief in Society. Let Society be undefined until we find what suits both individualists and collectivists. This is the new direction of this thread. What an individual strives for is wealth. What a collectivist strives for is a healthy society. The unresolved conflict is between wealth and health. Please, refer to the pivotal post #194 for more on this before we continue our discussions of integration. The space inside the house is a part of the house, and you are a part of that space. Let's first differentiate natural and artificial environments. Humans have a lot more entering their bodies from the natural environment, interaction is greater, and evolution there is possible. The artificial environment cuts humans from the natural one by providing secondary protection. Humans lose themselves in the artificial environments and either interact with nature indirectly through secondary materials that carpenters get from stores or through technological devices. To draw a parallel: imagine a particle inside an atom. It can either be a free radical particle or it can join atom's particles. The same is true of humans in their environments. They can either be free from environment (which leads to transhumanism) or a part of it. So, when there is the yellow light, do you not feel like you should be stopping when you speed up? If you do, then this is an evidence that yellow also means "to stop." Ask older people how they view the yellow light. Here is how my grandpa defined the yellow light: "get ready to stop." Here is the rule of the road: "According to the law, every driver has to stop at a yellow light unless he or she is too close to the intersection to stop safely" (http://www.driversedguru.com/driving-articles/drivers-ed-extras/what-to-do-when-the-light-turns-yellow/). Hence yellow is a form of both "go" and "not go." I defined greed as "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions." You missed a part of my reply. Ok, yes, I see how atoms will not have intentionality. In fact, intentionality is defined as a human characteristic. But how is it that atoms form molecules? They must be doing it without intentionality but by using some other form of consciousness of which we are not aware. I appreciate you pointing out my inadequacies in philosophy. I am sure there will be some, since I am not as knowledgeable as you in this topic. Let me explain some other forms of consciousness in my view, so maybe you can find more errors. Let's examine the operation of our bodies that is not consciously controlled by our minds. For example, digestion is controlled by the digestive system, which perpetuates its own complex wave frequencies through the interstitial cells of Cajal. We are not conscious of it, but how can it work if it is not conscious at least of its own processes? The same can be said of any organism, entity, or even a body of another human being of whose consciousness we are not aware. We become aware of others' consciousness when we can identify with them. But what happens if we cannot? It does not mean that we can never identify with them. We are still in the process of understanding the nature of consciousness, and science is really helping with it. (Thank God for science! ) Beautiful words, Repairman, as usual. I commend your skill of writing. Although I should realize your attempts to thwart me, I am still inclined to point out to your readers that I attempt to understand your point of view, but also share with you my own, since I also have a stance on everything like Objectivists do. What you consider madness is merely a conflict of our points of view. That's what we are here for: to integrate them. I have abandoned Marx, so the integration is really of Objectivism and my Faith-Logic, as you correctly assessed. It is beneficial for both sides and will make them stronger once integrated. Calling names will not help in this. Scientology is insane, but even there are some interesting ideas. The problem of this discussion is that I am not an expert on Scientology, so I cannot tell you more about it or how it relates to our points of view. The problem with your belief, Repairman, is that you are determined to expose my so-called "misguided notions," but you are unable to convince me of your belief in the wrongness of my view. Instead, you keep thinking that I misunderstand you while you yourself do not want to understand me. Hence it will be ever repeating, so I advise you to take a break from my "open forum" threads and come back whenever you are ready to discuss these ideas on equal grounds. I am glad that some members, especially Eiuol and bluecherry, understand this.
  12. Also, your last words. "Idealism will do that to you." You probably meant "would," right? Otherwise, any idealism will lead to violence. I do not believe in violence even if you prove me wrong. Even if my model will be destroyed by your criticisms. This is not my first model, neither is it my last. My ideology survives through crisis. It is always developing, always evolving. Now, can you prove that Objectivism is not an idealism? Otherwise, your statement says that Objectivists will embrace violence if they are forced to live under collectivism, for instance.
  13. There is the Bilderberg Group as one example. Read up criticims on it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group. Some of the same people who go to this group also go to the Trilateral Commission. So, you think that wealth is all that people need. It's like saying that water is all that flowers need to survive. Your point of view is as extreme as that of the Soviet Union. Of course, I concede, only time will tell who is right. "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" This is how a common capitalist views what you said: "money, greed, and bigger house." This is how I view it: "community, wellbeing, and happiness." This is why I love to argue with intelligent opponents. You help me find and define flaws in my logic. Two key things that you found about my view: Irrational a priori ideal and the Primacy of Consciousness. And you are right. The problem with your criticism is that you are being so negative. You missed that I understood the flaws of Marxism and abandoned it later in that thread that you do not (unfortunately) visit anymore. What you call irrational is faith, which is belief, which is fundamental to a human being. I cannot imagine you being without a belief. However, your belief is that believing is irrational. Hmm, a contradiction of sorts. Let me explain how a belief starts. First there is imagination. A person imagines a wheel. Then there is belief--acceptance of imagination (note that belief can also be acceptance of knowledge--which is an inference based on a belief/trust that a person who shares the knowledge is not lying--but let's look at this primitive example for now). A person believes that this wheel will work in real life and tests it. Then there is factual knowledge. A person sees how a wheel works in real life and corrects his beliefs (hypotheses) in accordance. Then there is understanding and theoretical knowledge. A person tests a wheel in many different ways and records patterns in a theory. Then you "believe" that the body of a person exists before his consciousness. That's fine, since we cannot trace where consciousness comes from, but please, do not ignore any parts of the evolution of human consciousness: imagination, belief, and knowledge. It's good that you noticed the ambiguity of the word "state." Unfortunately, this remains an ambiguity. That's why I prefer to say "society" instead. Does "society" also seem ambiguous to you? Yes, I integrate concepts that do not easily mix, but let's not ignore that it is still possible to comprehend their stable unities. A dictionary provides many different and sometimes even contradictory meanings to words, but we still trust dictionaries. Yes, I might be misunderstanding Marx, so I will let go of him for now. He is not the primary concern here. I am very interested in what is so "grey" in Objectivism. Please, enlighten me. I am serious about believing that all Objectivists think in black and white.
  14. They are reconciled. There is white, grey, and black, or any three of anything. The problem here is that I am seemingly unable to explain it to you. Let's give it a try again by you giving me a contradiction that you find in my model. I think otherwise. Western and Eastern are metaphors that stand for contrasting and indefinite. Philosophy is a love of wisdom, and wisdom is "all-inclusive." A great example is Socrates, who went wherever he could to embrace everyone's views and assimilate them into his own. Philosophy is universal, science, on the other hand, is quite fragmented. Philosophy is about being right transcendentally as well as physically. This is a true philosophy, not that science-worship that is thought to be philosophy today. Objectivist philosophy has that hope of overcoming soulless and materialistically extreme science of today, and it's the reason I am on these forums. I am a Socratic philosopher, not scientist-imitator because I stand on my own ground. Hence, please do not call me pseudo-scientist or something like that. I do not wish you to exalt me as a brilliant philosopher. I exalt myself as a brilliant philosopher and do not care about what others think of me or my philosophy unless I find a way to integrate it. I want or need no fame or riches. I have no name on my philosophy and will never "patent" it because I want it to be global and shared. I want people to know that there is this view in the world. Whether people want to embrace it or shun it is their right, but I will fight for it until my death. This will be my "two cents" I throw into the collective savings box of humanity Ok, here is the answer: an infinity to the power of 4. But, first, mice do not have a formed mind like humans do, but they are still on the level of Body, so this is of course a gross approximation, as you intended. If mice would form minds like humans did (which would take many millions of years of evolution, as you know in biology), then it would take the same infinities as for humans to exist on the level of Star--Nebula. If you want me to be more specific in this ludicrous experiment of yours, be my guest and ask. Otherwise, let's be more serious about this. When humans say that they hear the voice of God (Source in my model) they are actually hearing their own voice that is trying to reach the level of Source--Vacuum. That is a jump of 6 levels. Now look at how much violence and how much wrong had been done by those religious fanatics throughout history. If you want to say that one Race is above all others (fragmenting Race--World level), then you have Hitler and his like to cause havoc in history. That's a jump of merely 2 levels. If you are like Lenin, then you completely ignore Body--Environment level and jump one level. See results and violence. Does the picture seem clearer now? No need to jump levels. If people only take APEIRON as the truth and jump a whopping 9 levels of evolution, the world will be destroyed and humankind will never shake off its self-destruction. Hence we have to work within the model, but never stop, as life is a constant battle toward an always greater future.
  15. Yes, but his fiction is very unrealistic. The reality I choose is Body--Environment that is connected to all other realities. You are overlapping with the space of the house, and thus share a part that is both you and the house. Vacuum is not "nothing" only in realities which we do not yet understand. Just because we can bring something out of vacuum does not mean that we are actually bringing it from out reality. You wrote: "Yellow = one may go, but be warned that soon that will change [and so should start stopping if too far from intersection]. At no point is it neither "one may go" nor "one may not go". Lack of yellow light would just mean a lot more accidents when people were caught by surprise when who may go and who may not changed." Yellow light is neither green nor red but both, and this is my point. "it's possible to be poor and greedy and it is possible to be wealthy and not greedy" The greedy poor either waste resources or become wealthy. The generous wealthy have either changed from being greedy or inherited their wealth. Please, do not cut moments like pictures out of reality - we are talking about whole or at least most of people's lives here. I have not mentioned this idea about greed before, so I will define it thus: "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions." Note that all my definitions come from dictionary.com unless stated otherwise. The issue that I see with greed is how inherent it is to capitalism. For example, one generally cannot be not greedy without buying a car or a house. So, greed, an evil, is inherent to the system, and there needs to be found a way to eschew it. It seems that your view of wealth only includes quality, but the issue here is that it is not the common view. In order for the real view on wealth to become Objectivist, Objectivists need to find a way to incline toward the common people. In the infinite growth paradigm today, wealth is exactly segmenting out reality into rich and poor by taking from the poor. What does America do with smaller countries? That's right, it reaps out their riches and makes them poor. Iraq is a great example. I know that you are against the violence (so am I), but let's face our reality - violence and greed is in what conventional capitalists believe. I am happy that you are not conventional. Non-conventionality, however, can easily become radical and extreme (look at anarchists). I am worried about the same future for Objectivists if you would ever become popular globally. Your definition of intentionality is fine for humans (those with formed "literal" minds), but it does not work for others. However, a more general metaphysical definition of intentionality implies phenomenological pointing beyond itself by representing, or standing for, other things (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intentionality). So, for example, an atom can become a molecule (with help of other atoms of course) through intentionality. Comparing people's consciousness to rocks is like comparing it to consciousness of crystals (Lattice). The difference between these two levels of consciousness is an infinity to the power of 4 (equate an infinity to a level of the model or a reality). This is how I calculate this: Particle is dimension zero, so from all levels above it, one must subtract 1 to find a proper level of consciousness. (One can also then divide by 2 in order to find a physical dimension). Hence Crystal is on proper level 2 (since it's on the right side, it's more like 2.5, but we round it down for simplicity) and Body is on proper level 6. Quite a difference in consciousness! And yes, if we ignore any awareness or consciousness, we merely regress into (physical) identities. Concerning information, it's like intentionality for me as well. It lets the elements connect to each other by their own free intentions. I use intention and intentionality interchangeably because I believe in the following: In order to be something, one has to be it already. Hence intention = intentionality. What I said about consciousness was metaphorical from the start. This is how I tried to explain consciousness to someone who, in my view, did not believe in it, so I misunderstood them. I explain my complete view of consciousness by mere motion. Engine is a metaphor, and the rest only pertains to humans. However, one can use minds, brains, and neurons as metaphors for entities outside of human bodies (that's an example of my metaphysical thinking). Telepathy is outside of this discussion, so let's leave it to a realm of belief (although I advise you to read more on Sheldrake's work, since he had done a lot more experiments on humans and dogs and some had been repeated). The Internet, though, is a communication of a nascent global society and would pertain more to this topic.
  16. This is what I believe in (the middle is really invisible but it's there, so it has to be taken on faith until discovered more objectively):
  17. I originally called this thread "A challenge." Maybe revert back to that? Do I have all your votes on this? I simply do not want to restate many ideas that were already mentioned in this thread and would like to continue this conversation with the hardened opponents of this forum.
  18. To be frank, there weren't many Marxist ideas in this forum, just the word Marxist is often recurring. I stated clearly in the beginning of this thread that I am not an expert on Marx, and now I have been proven wrong about accepting his ideology completely in the first place. The only idea that I would like to keep is Society in general, which seems to be lacking in Objectivism (unless I am again wrong) but prevalent in Marxism. This thread is mostly composed of my own ideas, whence I am trying to reach any kind of comprehensible ground between Objectivism and the concept of Society.
  19. The wealthiest individuals are in the Tri-lateral Commission, so, for simplicity's sake, let's consider them as the shadow government in the making. So, by you, globalization is seen only from the economical perspective. You would rather have our societies become mere economies than politically or ideologically bound people. People already live for the economy. That seems to be your goal. Yes, people create, initiate, cause societies (however you put it), but societies is what results, not a mere collection of traders (i.e., a market) living for the sake of the economy. As for governments, that's an example of globalization from above, which I oppose. Governments are not the ultimate societies and should never be. Repairman, please stop denigrating me, especially while you already well know what I believe. I believe in the law of identity and all identities there are. But in order to connect all identities, I also believe in the middle ground, which conflicts only with the law of excluded middle. I deem Objectivist black&white view correct but incomplete. Please, tell me what is so ambiguous about my comment on "Man must live for the state?" I am Russian and fluent in Russian, and I was also born in the U.S.S.R. and know its history. I said only what I knew. Now, if you found a contradiction in my post, please show it. Also, I have not read Marx, but I really want to. The problem is that there is so much to read and learn and just not enough time. I still haven't finished reading all of Ayn Rand yet. Thank you for your recommendation, though. It's on my list now Did Marx change his views at the end of his life?
  20. The alternative to being poor is greed. The problem with socialistic countries is that they do not allow the freedom of greed for the general populace. Capitalistic countries allow such freedom. To me, greed is a childish freedom. So, when will the greedy grow up to a global society? An even more interesting question is: how will they grow up? A recurring argument against socialism is wealth. Capitalism is the optimal way to acquire wealth. But what is wealth? Aren’t the two components of wealth greed and quality? Greed is a potential result of quality, but quality does not depend on greed. When you look at the socialistic countries, you find them relatively unwealthy. But when you look at the capitalistic countries, you find people there relatively unhealthy, and thus unhappy. So, the two components of health are wellbeing and happiness. Does health depend on quality? Yes, but it does not depend on greed. So, we have to come up with a new form of society that will allow quality and health. Quality comes from incentives. Must incentives be monetary? No, but they must depend on what people value in a society. Money allows people the freedom of greed, but what would only allow the freedom of quality? The idea is to transmute greed into thinking about Society.
  21. Your house is your environment, and you share its space when you are in it. You are the inner part of the outer context. Environment is basically all you can perceive with your five senses at one time. By Shipov's Theory of Physical Vacuum, vacuum consists of phytons, which is a type of paradoxical matter (particle and anti-particle in a neutral state of harmony with each other). Quantum physics repeats the idea of physical vacuum because energy does fluctuate that background of particles and anti-particles that we cannot see with our naked eyes. What's extraordinary to you sometimes is quite ordinary to me. The type of extraordinary ideas that I am working with would really blow you away. The dogs changed behavior and expectantly waited by the door/window about 10 minutes before the owner arrived. The following conventional explanations were understood by the experimenters: 1) the dog could be hearing or smelling its owner approaching. 2) the dog could be reacting to routine times of return. 3) it could be responding to subtle cues from people at home who know when the absent person is returning. 4) the animal may go to the place at which it waits for its owner when the person is not on the way home; the people at home may remember its apparent anticipation only when the person returns shortly afterwards, forgetting the other occasions. Thus the phenomenon could simply be an artifact of selective memory. Here is an experiment with statistical analysis, graphs, and references: http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles%26Papers/papers/animals/dog_video.html. All of these discussions are extremely important because they show that our views should be integrated in the following manner: white, grey, and black. In other words, we need the law of identity, but I am against the law of excluded middle. Life is more than just white and black. For example, imagine what would be, if we only had two-color street lights. Scientists, with the help of explosive energy, creating new particles and bosons out of void, such as Higgs boson, may be experiencing just the kind of evidence of their collective psychic abilities, but they take it too seriously materialistically rather than idealistically or mystically. My life is devoted to learning. Out of all science-fiction movies that I have seen I love The Matrix. My own stories are very serious fiction directly connected to the reality, though. No, we are not, but it would greatly help if the moderator would change the topic's title to "Integrating Objectivism and Society."
  22. "Man must live for the state" is taken from We the Living. This is what Ayn Rand saw during the hard, anarchic transitional time when the U.S.S.R. was only forming. I remember that those posters in Russian actually said: "Ты должен жить для страны." This literally translates to "You should live for the country." So, should is hardened to must by Ayn Rand, and the state is misinterpreted by Objectivists to mean the government instead of the country. As to "Man must live for himself" being a truism, that is exactly right. More than that, it was a covert (obvious) truism that was already meant by that statement "Man must live for the state" in its original meaning.
  23. Who or what is more important: Individual or Society? Bill Gates or Microsoft? President Obama or the government? If you picked the first part of every question, then you should favor globalization from below. If you picked the second, you should favor globalization from above (the "shadow government" model). In addition to answering the questions, please provide your view on globalization.
  24. Forget about Marxism. That integration will not work. What I am trying to integrate Objectivism with is Society. So far, I have no idea what the future global and unified society will be called. Let's just call it Society then with a capital letter. Socialism and Communism do not work and did not match Marxist theory of history. History worked out differently once we got to capitalism. What's next after capitalism - that's the new question.
  25. This is the only forum I am on. Sheldrake, just as myself, would rather fill gaps and holes in his knowledge with imagination than keep ideas disconnected and fragmented. It's pointless to prove or disprove something like what you said, since there is no evidence for it either way you look and it also would not affect our lives here, on Earth. What's important not to ignore is his experiments on dogs and people and ideas that are more earthy that we can use in understanding the reality in which we live.
×
×
  • Create New...