Ilya Startsev

Oh, and Nicky, would you believe that mystics channeled Ayn Rand's soul? You would say no, of course. But would you say no after reading "The answers to your questions about life"? It does remind of Rand's individualism, except her main three principles of Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem are changed to Love, Create, and Learn. Something to learn from mystics, no?

Have you ever considered that they may be using a different kind of Reason? I am not a mystic myself - I am an idealist - but I do not consider mysticism a threat. In fact, I consider them interesting and cherish their existence not differently than that of Objectivists. And I don't care about Rand's "sh*&t list." She was not 100% right in everything. If she were, her 60s streak with "a senior collective" would not have collapsed the way it did.

Nicky, calm down. Why are you so afraid of mystics? Is it because they are heretics?

Yes, thanks for getting us back on track. Any conversation is good, though, as I am new here also. May I nudge you a little, Fostruh, and tell you that it's a mistaken definition you got there? The idea is that other men is a sum of bodies. The state is a society where those bodies are bound by an idea. So, in other words, "other men" is randomness, chaos; "the state" is harmony, order. Here is a definition of "the state" that I would prefer you to use: "a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation." There is only one condition: if that "other" shares your goals towards the society. This is the value that I see. Your values may be different. Correct. And that context I call Environment. If the individual is an Objectivist, he does not need others to do anything for him/her. I don't think so. You do not see the whole picture here. In order for that individual to live for the state, that individual must live for him/herself first, and after (s)he is utterly bored with that narrow scope of his/her life, (s)he can always evolve to live in a true society of similarly minded people. And I agree that your statements were relatively objective. I think that we are in agreement then, don't you think?

bluecherry: What I meant by a self-dictatorship is a regression into an absolute extreme in Objectivism. This is when you exist as an ideal person. No one else is necessary for you. Everything is rationalized to an extreme. Every action, word, thought is in check. A person basically becomes a self-made machine having a carefree soul but not using it. I am a visual, object-oriented thinker, so what I mean by "calcified" is that part of the "law of identity" that basically says that white stays white and black stays black, always. The world does not have to alter itself to fit my will right away, but it may do so due to a potentiality of unforseen circumstances. I am not talking about miracles; I am talking about shaping the world and changing the reality in which we live in ways that are possible and avialable to us and our minds. A kind of transcendent thinking is required here. Not mysticism, just something that we know is possible, but we don't have it yet. This sounds like you have some neo-Objectivism here. I like it Are you using ideas of Nathaniel Branden after, um, he was expelled? Interesting. Not that I agree with this particular bit, but I am questioning it. I guess I am just stuck in suffering and don't want to let it go :/ softwareNerd: So you know, I believe in a kind of revolution that can happen only when everyone wants it. So, in other words, it's pretty much evolution all the way.

Nicky, I am more of a philologist than a physicist to evaluate engines. However, I studied Electrical Engineering at the Ohio State University and took 3 general physics courses (classical, electromagnetic, and relativity) and a quantum mechanics course. Yet, this is not enough for me to just go and evaluate other people's achievements. I simply evaluate videos online that showcase already implemented models. I watched a Russian video for a magnetic engine blueprint created in Russia and implemented in Japan. Then there is an air rotary engine from Australia. An engine that uses water for fuel in America, etc. Just search the net for magnetic, air, water engines, etc. and judge for yourself. bluecherry: I bow to an intelligent woman.

Yes, and so have people who invent new technologies. Except they find something new that physicists have not discovered yet. Remember, there are always ways to go around the first or second laws of thermodynamics. Even in seemingly impossible situations, people find creative solutions. For example, read "Programming the Universe" to see how Seth Lloyd resolved a contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics in quantum computing.

Here is a topic to ponder: are the aforementioned individuals creating something valuable when making money? They are not in culture-generating creative trades, like all the ideal people in Rand's stories. The individuals with the most money today create, in my opinion, nothing, other than strife among others. They get their money from interests paid to them on continual basis and from oil. Do you know that there are alternative energy technologies out there? Do you know that these oil magnates with the most profitable companies in the world (ExxonMobil is Rockfeller's, BP is Rothschild's, GasProm is Putin's) do NOT want any alternative energies or cold-fusion reactors or any kind of engines that run on air or even on mere magnetic fields? Oh, no! They want to ossify the economy by just reaping natural resources without allowing or creating new ones (think Rearden Metal in this case. They are the opposite of Rearden.).

bluecherry: REPTILIANS! lol, j/k. Of course, I meant race as in voluntary competition on who can control more. Rothschilds started in the 18th century, Rockfellers in the 19th, Putin in the 21st. The world is a divided place, ladies and gentlemen. (Are there any ladies on these forums?)

No, I just don't want to compete money-wise.

It's a great dream, Keith. The issue with it is that these individuals are controlling trillions of dollars, and do you know how much I have in my bank account? $300. That's with a zero-zero after the dot I don't want to earn a lot of money; I just need enough of it for my modest means of surviving. However, I hope that those individuals (who must not be named!), will change and embrace a better view of the world, such as Objectivism. Maybe, someone will enter their race, and help them change. Putin may be doing that, but they are putting much pressure on him, chipping at his armor, trying to take Ukraine away from their free trade agreement (i.e., Commonwealth of Independent States). I am not ready to learn more about this "shadow government" yet. I guess you can say that I am a bit scared. The same way as I was before entering these forums...

bluecherry: Have you heard of Noam Chomsky's ideas on nativism? His syntactic theory is quite inflexible, though, so I am not necessarily in favor of it. Although I am not sure if I am in favor of the other either. It is a complex topic without any solid evidence of which I know. Plasmatic: Agreed. Again, remember, that I look at this from the model (post #40). Thinking that I deny any form of consciousness would put you as far from the truth as possible. Merely because I don't write about consciousness in the model does not mean that it's actually not inherent to it. It is the binding glue; without it, the model would fall apart. Also, I differentiate consciousness from awareness; the latter is dead in the center between all levels. It is the ultimate undifferentiated state, which I call "grey" or "silver" in our case. If you know of deconstructuralism, it will be somewhere along the lines there.

bluecherry, concerning the "c" word - ok, I won't mention it again. However, I would rather have you not ignore it, since it was a mistake done by Objectivists before, and as any historical mistakes, we should understand them and learn from them, so we do not regress into an extreme of one's ideology. It was not merely "some group of friends that Rand had decades ago that shared a lot of her views," but a kind of dictatorship by Rand, a self-dictatorship, to be more accurate. Similarly, Marxists should learn from Lenin's revolution, and Christians from the Spanish Inquisition. softwareNerd: So far, I do not criticize anything except Objectivism, which is why I am interested in it. I am judging not merely good or bad, but good and bad, as a standard I am trying to understand. Eiuol: Let me put it this way: a human being's consciousness taken as a whole on the level Body--Environment is different than forms of consciousness from which it is composed, namely, mental states, beliefs, desires, etc. All those are also forms of consciousness in my view. I am not denying any of them. They are simply on lower levels in the model. All her positions on emotions are expressed in favorable light, just as the public wants to hear it. She talked of the best of emotions, not the worst of her own. However, what did she really believe? I judge that her true view on emotions can be seen through the way her ideal characters act in her books. They are introverts, you say? Yes, extreme introverts, to be sure. How does it work out for them through the stories? What about her semi-autobiographical "We the Living"? The kinds of sufferings her characters experience and how they suppress those sufferings is exactly what I am talking about. She talks about everything being light and dandy in public, but her stories show a much darker side of her. What I really want to get at is her psychology. What did she experience in the U.S.S.R. to get to be as determined as she was and as merciless? I contend that it was suffering that she suppressed, and by suppressing suffering, one learns to devalue emotions and easily suppress them too, if they contradict calcified reasoning.

I just discovered a logical error in my formula: for self and others. This formula is incorrect. Here is my proof: Consider levels: Body--Environment Society--Nature Ignore Nature for a moment. Body|Body|Body|Body|...--Environment Society I multiplied Bodies within Environment. These Bodies are not the same as Society, since they are on our level, not level above us. Hence, these Bodies are others we should not care about (unless they share our goals toward Society), since they are merely a sum of Bodies, not a true Society. "For self and others" regression is therefore not allowed, but for self and society (or state in the definition of: "a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation"). I apologize for earlier confusion. Please, accept this correction.

Hmm, I am starting to see all of your points clearer, and like it better. However, people have to grow up for laissez-faire capitalism, and people are not ready for it yet, as the financial disaster of 2008 has shown. Unregulated economy is currently not the right way to go. Now the question is the same as for Communalists: Will people ever wake up and desire the kinds of societies we are talking about? bluecherry: Yes, I believe that the planet is conscious, but I have no evidence for it, except the kinds of hypotheses you consider woo woo, e.g., Gaia hypothesis. I am an environmentalist, though, and I do not believe anti-environmentalists when they say that our planet and nature can take a lot of pressure. Sooner or later, it will all break. Humans, similarly, have a limit of patience. Our greatest difference is the following: I inherently believe in "grey" compromise - I was born with this feeling; I never got this or learned this from anyone. Rand, on the other hand, only liked seeing the world in black and white, good and evil. I cannot see it this way without forcing me to do so. It is not in my nature to believe in good or evil. In fact, belief in good and evil is exactly what I do not like about Christianity. The fall from Eden happened because people started differentiating between good and evil and keeping them separate. So, to reiterate, I am in Group 1: Grey, no, let's call it Silver (it's shiny ), and you are in Group 2: Black & White. Who is right, who is wrong? That's what we are trying to decide here. I was coming from the following: creators are the cause, users are the effect, mind is the cause, soul is the effect; all inseparable, albeit differentiated - call it grey goo or whatever, but I see this as truly beautiful. No spoilers on Atlas Shrugged, please! I haven't even finished the first part yet, writing all these commentaries! I think I will have to take a break from the forum and the computer if I ever want to finish reading the book.

In case the "emotional" argument did not satisfy you about a potential error of Objectivism, here is my other issue with your ideology: competence in linear relationship with self-esteem. Rand equates the two in Atlas Shrugged (I don't remember exactly where, but I have it in my comments on facebook; a lot of other issues are expressed there as well). So, for example, if a person's self-esteem decreases, does his competence necessarily decrease in proportion? Rand would say yes.

Well, unless you do not equate intentionality with consciousness, I should have satisfied your inquiry.

Repairman: It may sound strange to you at first, but happiness is not my prime objective in life. I like to experience a spectrum of emotions and derive equal pleasure from love and hate, joy and grief, happiness and depression, etc. It's happiness as an idea. I have nothing wrong with that as long as you are happy! True happiness (as an emotion) is happening and, once you ask yourself if you are happy, you interrupt it and have to send another signal to repeat that emotion. However, it costs energy, and sometimes, after an interruption, that state cannot be restarted. I would have hugged you for this, if we had met. Although, I have a strange view on philosophy. I don't like it when it's all too mental. My philosophy needs to be felt as well for it to have its best effect. I am doing my best on spreading the word! You have no idea how complex my assertions really are. What we have covered here is just a tip of an iceberg. Trying to explain all of this consistently and completely is an arduous, although pleasurable, task, believe me.

Eiuol, please read my post #51.

The lexicon only differentiates physical senses from nonphysical emotions, and I agree with that. But it does not show how emotions are actually expressed. For example, "Emotions are produced by man’s premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly" basically states that emotions are initiated by the brain, but nothing more. If you want to see something wrong with her view on how emotions are expressed, just look at her ideal characters. Howard Roark is especially a great example: showing emotions when just by himself, suppressing emotions when meeting with Dominique. Eiuol, it's only a metaphor as far as that statement not differentiating between heart and the circulatory system, the same can be said for brain and nervous system. It's for simplicity's sake. What I mean is that the heart is like a fulcrum for emotions. Do you think you can express emotions if you have just a brain and a robot's body?

Plasmatic: Yes, it involves opposites. An exchange of opposite but equal values. Read the term opposite loosely here. For example, financial and material goods are exchanged and benefit both parties at the same time, thus oneself and others formula is satisfied. It is a compromise because one gives away a thing to get something else which is at the time valued higher than what is given up. Thus, it is still a plus, a profit, a win, etc. - a compromise that is good. Integrity is retained, is it not? It's simple: Don't trade unless you want to. No one is forcing anybody here. Well, I disagree with the tendency to separate. I think we need to integrate, but unfortunately, here are the definitions of emotion: in Medical Dictionary: "arises subjectively rather than through conscious effort"; in Science Dictionary "arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort" (from dictionary.com). They still say it's in the mind, but to me, the definition is contradictory. Does it mean we cannot control some of our minds? Are we insane? No. Emotions are initiated by the brain, but go through the heart. That's the difference, and we should keep the two together. If we only favor Rand's stoic stance, we would suppress our emotions. Now, you could argue that Rand expressed her emotions through sex, but it still would be so limiting, would it not? Also, looking at individuals that she trained to be "ideal" during the cult years, it seems that it was a mere robot factory. And even sex was rationalized there!

New Buddha, then let's rephrase it to Checked and Balanced Representation elected through Democracy and Electorate. Please do not make this more difficult. We are not arguing against the Constitution. Would your representatives be only from the wealthiest individuals? We have that already. Today, one can either have money, or one can have money and power, and the more the better.

Plasmatic: I consider integration of opposites as a compromise. However, it is a compromise between a good and a good, not food and poison. Do you consider others as poison? And everything about others as poison? Then there can be no compromise, and you are right. In fact, then there can be no life, since life is change and motion, which consists of compromising motions. Think of balancing forces in Newtonian mechanics. A problem with Objectivism, you ask? Well, first, let's start by saying that Objectivism is not perfect. Why not? Well, why is there not a cult of it any longer? What's wrong? Ok, maybe there is nothing wrong; it's just people are tired of it and Rand is deceased. Then that's fine. But wait! We haven't identified problems with Objectivism yet. Hmm, what are the problems? I won't go the obvious way and instead will try some new criticism. Here is one: a difference between an initiation of anything and the resultant process. There had been criticisms that Objectivists are lacking emotions, and these criticisms had been countered by quotes from the texts. However, what is meant by an emotion is not merely a mental state, but a state that, scientists claim, is separate from the brain. Rand talked of initiating emotions, but usually suppressing the result (which I think she did quite a lot in the U.S.S.R.). Happiness is one such emotion. Do you think that happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient? A mental picture of happiness is, but not the experience of the emotion because, to experience an emotion, one needs to express that emotion. And why would one express an emotion in a closed room away from the world? I am not saying you cannot do that. I just think that it would be strange. I always thought that people enjoy emotions with others. That's how we connect, isn't it? Yet she studied history and Marxism. And I don't think that Marx was a biologist, either.

bluecherry: 1. All things are created and exist because of some particular people. There are creators, just like Rand argued, that initiate, or create, anything that is enjoyed by a society. The issue here is that it is not enough to create something for someone else to remember it. Hence, the creations are inseparable from their use over time. This is where creators and users are necessary parts of the formula (i.e., for oneself and others). 2. But the question remains: was Taggart Transcontinental the kind of "society" that he wanted to be with or not? It was ruled by looters, yet Rearden, thinking long-term, decided to help them (and himself). So, is it possible for Objectivists to cope with a society they do not enjoy - yes, and this is one example. Of course, our society today is another.

This is news to me. I thought that Rand had no problem with the democratic way of life. Please, elaborate on the way you are going to elect individuals, and whether such elections would even take place. A feeling of belonging not only to some small commune, but to Society of the entire world. It is a case of humankind and the planet coming to terms with each other, helping each other consistently. Currently, there is no such thing and is not being planned (unless by the shadow government, in which most of you do not believe anyway). In cases of Marxism and Objectivism, each view has something good to offer. Niether view is perfect. If it were, you could have continued the Objectivist cult of the 60s. That's what I would like to have us come to terms to: a society that satisfies both of our kinds. You could create a society where people would have a goal to eat 50 hot dogs or more in an hour or less. But, of course, we think more globally here, since we are bored with an endless stream of goals of a kind you have mentioned. I am not going to have kids unless I will live in a society I like. However, one may see children as a way to try to solve problems one could not solve by oneself.