dan_edge

The Reverse-Outline: The Reverse-Outline is a method of reading analysis and editing, especially useful in self-editing, in which one thoroughly studies a draft and formulates a summary outline. Pre-draft outlines are critical in professional writing, but even after they are used, the draft result can contain errors in order and focus. The Reverse-Outline is a powerful tool for identifying and correcting these errors. < I learned this method at the OAC, but have seen it taught elsewhere, so I'm assuming there's no copyright issue.> A note on application: I've found that the Reverse-Outline is most useful for short, one-page documents with limited focus: op-eds, cover letters, internal business emails, public business memos, marketing scripts, stock letters...and more. A Reverse Outline for such short drafts can often be written in the mind, without having to commit the summary to paper. This makes it extremely efficient for effective editing on-the-fly. The method: Study a short, approx. one-page draft, and write/think an outline of its essential points. These points should be formulated into clear, grammatically correct sentences which accurately summarize the material. Points can cover one or more paragraphs, depending on the flow and focus of ideas. A one-page document will typically contain 3-5 main points. If you find more than 7, then either you're not thoroughly essentializing the material, or the draft itself is overly complex. For example, following is a Reverse Outline for the current top story on CNN.com, Deported bin Ladin Widows, Daughters Leaving for Saudi Arabia. It's about a 2/3 page document, so I anticipate 2-4 points. Writing Reverse Outlines of news articles is good practice because news stories are (usually) already essentialized, making the main points easier to tease out: After the end of their detention in Pakistan last week, members of Osama bin Laden's family are now being deported to the country of their choice: Saudi Arabia. One of the widows provided details about how their family moved into and around Pakistan with the help of friendly Pakistanis. I have been using the Reverse Outline method throughout the writing of this article. After I finish a new section, I look back over the previous sections, form a Reverse Outline in my mind, and confirm that the ideas flow in some kind of logical order. The method isn't full-proof, but it did allow me to complete this one-page article to my satisfaction. Try it out. --Dan Edge Cross-posted from Metablog

How about, instead of nymphomania, just -- someone who enjoys having sex very, very frequently? Is it frequent sex to which you object, or my (playful) use of that term? --Dan Edge

Be there, or be...a stupidhead.

There are many non-physical attributes that attract a woman to me, several of which have already been mentioned. In no particular order: Sense of Humor - Love of Laughter Ability to Dance Confidence in her Sexuality Feminine in her Response to Aggressiveness (tied to the above) Good Natured / Kind Loves Children and Animals Aesthetic Sophistication (something I don't have) Thinly Veiled, Compulsive Nymphomania There are many more, but that's a good start. --Dan Edge

Holding On To You by Terence Trent D'Arby Truly poetic lyrics... ------------------- I left the east side for a west coast beauty A girl who burned my thoughts like kisses She was down by street decree She swore she'd pull my best years out of me Fat painted lips on a live wire beauty A tangerine girl with tambourine eyes Her face was my favorite magazine Her body was my favorite book to read They say that poets must have as unrequited love As all lovers must have thought provoking fears But holding on to you means letting go of pain Means letting go of tears Means letting go of rain Means letting go of what's not real Holding on to you I left the rough side for a seaside baby A chamomile smile the pouts on cue For every moment I breathe her sigh Her bosom contains my sweet alibi In an emotional mist she brathes in fog And breathes it out as garden flowers Why me of all that tough talking boys I guess she heard my heartbeat through the noise They say that all poets must have an unrequited love As all lovers must have thought provoking fears But holding on to you Means letting go of pain Means letting go of tears Means letting go of rain Holding on to you Means letting sorrows heal Means letting go of what's not real Holding on to you They say that all poets must have an unrequited love As all lovers I'm sure must have thought provoking fears But holding on to you means letting sorrows heal Means letting go of what's not real Holding on to you I left the east coast for a west coast beauty a woman who wet my thoughts like kisses she was down down by street decree she swore she'd pull my best years out of me fat wet lips on a sea salt canvas Goodbye Picasso hello Dolly/Dali The soil is fertile where her footsteps trod She's my new religion she's all I got They say that all poets must have an unrequited love as all lovers I'm sure must have thought provoking fears But holding on to you means letting go of tears means letting go of rain means letting sorrows heal It means letting go of pain

Anylesca, This may not sound comforting, but your experience is not unique or unusual. When you get old enough to question your parents' authority (as you clearly are), there is often friction as your family gets used to you becoming an adult. This is almost always a difficult process, especially if you begin to embrace a worldview that your parents do not share. This doesn't mean that you will lose your relationship with them, only that the adjustment will take time. That you were able to work things out with them and come to a compromise in a difficult situation shows promise. I wouldn't worry too much at this point whether your feelings and reactions are "objectivist" enough. Part of being an objectivist is going through life's challenges and dealing with them as rationally as you can. Everyone makes mistakes and experiences pain and joy and anger and frustration and all that. Focus on learning from your experiences as you continue to work to keep everything together (busy schedules make productive people!). Take solace and pride in your struggles and accomplishments. I am happy for you that you have found love so early in life. If things don't work out, keep in mind that you will fall in love again. Build yourself into the kind of person who is worthy of great love, and worthy men will be beating down your door (especially objectivist men!). Never deny your feelings, whether good or bad. Own your feelings -- but take care to analyze your own mind so that you understand where the feelings come from. Use your heart as a guide, but your mind as the final arbiter. Your sincerity as displayed in your initial post will be a great tool for acheiving this goal. I know this is all very general advice, but it's all I have. I wish you the best of luck. Stick around. You are surrounded by many good, kindred souls in this place. --Dan Edge

For the benefit of the MLK detractors on this thread (with whose criticism I sympathize), I would like to point out some additional historical facts: - Read up on the Jim Crow Laws that were still in effect in the south as late as the 1960's. Schools, buses, and many other public/private services were segregated by law. In WW2, blacks were not allowed to be in the same military units as whites. (Could a black Patton have saved thousands of American lives? We'll never know.) Blacks were routinely beaten, arrested, jailed, or killed for no reason whatsoever -- oftentimes with no pursuit of justice in the aftermath. - RE: the above, blacks had every reason to be brutally pissed off. King touted only peaceful resistance via protest and political advocacy in a time when many blacks were actively involved in racial violence. - King's "I Have a Dream" speech and other speeches were exquisitely written, passionately delivered, and viewed by millions and millions of people. King's arguments left no doubt -- even in the minds of the most vicious racists -- that blacks are every bit as much human as whites, and ought to be afforded the same rights under the Constitution. Note in my post above his explicit (and accurate) references to America's Declaration and Constitution. - Contrast King's "color blind" message to the "black power" message of his contemporaries. He argued that blacks should be treated equal to whites, not that they should receive preferential treatment. Note that his arguments are often presented in opposition to Affirmative Action. - Finally, consider how effective was Mr. King in achieving his primary objective: the repeal the Jim Crow laws. This man changed the country, perhaps the entire world, for the better, and he did it without taking the "time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to tak[ing] the tranquilizing drug of gradualism." - (As an ancillary study note, look into WEB DuBois and other educated blacks, and consider their impact on the slavery issue in the 1800's. King took very much the same approach, to a powerfully similar effect.) --Dan Edge

The earlier (negative) quotes from MLK are not the ones for which he is remembered and celebrated. From the "I Have a Dream" speech: "In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." "So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism." "We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone." And of course: "I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today." --Dan Edge

I'm a big fan of hip hop and electronica music because I'm a big fan of dancing. I hated Black Eyed Peas until I danced to to remixes of their music in the club. Many songs of that kind could be defined as sound design rather than music, but for purposes of dancing it doesn't matter. It serves its purpose. I agree with many of the criticisms levied here, but I advise all to be careful what music you brand as "evil." --Dan Edge

My thoughts, from my blog -- http://danedgeofreas...houghts-on.html A Summary of My Thoughts on the Peikoff/McCaskey Affair Over the past few weeks I've been digesting the details of the Peikoff/McCaskey affair and the subsequent fallout in the online Objectivist community. A few days ago I wrote a short, 4-page essay about this issue and the possible implications for the future of the Objectivist movement. While I wrote this in large part to clarify my own thoughts, I originally intended to publish it in full. But I have a tendency to get wrapped up in controversies of this kind, and I've grown weary of the heated polemics on both sides. For this reason and others, I'm only going to post three general conclusions that came out of my reflection and research. I don't plan to spend too much time defending these conclusions; I'm ready to move on to other things. 1. Over the last decade, the ARI has experienced unprecedented growth in its income, project support, positive publicity, and large-scale dissemination of Objectivist ideas. I believe that this degree of success is due primarily to the expert leadership and organizational management of Yaron Brooke and his team. The new tendency to hire business and public relations professionals in leadership positions, rather than PhD intellectuals, is a very positive trend for the ARI which I hope will continue in the future. This is not to say that the ARI board of 1990 was of poor quality, but that the current group is better equipped to carry out ARI's mission. 2. Based on the unprecedented success of the current ARI leadership, I believe that they are more than competent to make board-level decisions without threats from Dr. Peikoff or anyone else. Such threats are unnecessary and display a disregard for the board's track record of success and professionalism. While I am sure that the board can benefit from Dr. Peikoff's experience and philosophical expertise, his forcing a decision on the McCaskey issue by threatening to leave the ARI called into question the board's integrity. His behavior has led many to question whether Dr. Peikoff has de facto control and veto power over board decisions. I believe that it is primarily this aspect of the affair, along with Dr. Peikoff's harsh tone in his written responses, that has caused such an uproar in the Objectivist community. 3. The explosion of publicity of Ayn Rand's ideas, along with rapid technological advances in communication (Facebook, blogs, Twitter, etc.) has significantly decentralized the dissemination of Objectivist ideology. While the ARI is still HQ for the Objectivist movement, it is no longer the sole voice of rationality in today's culture. This, too, is a positive trend. For a number of reasons, I would encourage those interested in intellectual activism to strongly consider forming their own non-profit organizations without a strongly dependent relationship with the ARI. There are certainly benefits to associating one's organization with the ARI, but this is not the ideal set-up for every activist venture under the sun. --Dan Edge

Russ says: "Craig Biddle has no business adding more flames to this issue, nor does anyone else." Speak for yourself, brother. I've given money to the ARI, started a University club in their name and with their support, bought stuff from them, gone to their school, attended dozens of their functions, made friends of their employees, and other things besides. If I decide that I don't like the way they do business, then it impacts the decision whether or not to participate in all of the above. If you offer your unqualified support to ARI without ever questioning business practices you are concerned about, then you're not doing your job. And if this situation did not at all lead you to question their business practices, then see point A: Speak for yourself. --Dan Edge

Brian, I'm glad you posted that comment from Mr.Sefcik. I hadn't thought about that. --Dan Edge

Swig, If you write a thorough and respectful analysis, I doubt you would get banned for speaking your mind. I encourage you to do so because what you've presented here is not at all convincing. Too much reaching, too little engaging the facts of the case. --Dan Edge

By [email protected] (Dan Edge) from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog On my last trip to New York City, I had the pleasure of meeting fellow blogger Kendall J for lunch as I was passing through Philadelphia. Kendall and I used to kick around ideas quite a bit over at Objectivism Online Forum, and I’ve been a fan of his blog for several years. I was very much looking forward to meeting him, and he did not disappoint. The greater part of our enjoyable lunch was consumed by a discussion of an upcoming post he was planning on relationships. He wrote that very interesting post soon thereafter, and I’m finally getting around to responding to it, as promised. Kendall’s post, titled How I’ve Changed – Part 1, Personal Relationships, reads at first like a public journal entry. He takes a bird’s eye view of how his perspective on relationships has changed over the years, and attempts to analyze the data of his experiences. The best summary of Kendall’s conclusions can be found at the end of the post, in his effort to “operationalize the principles” he’s learned about relationships. Here are his shorthand “operationlized principles”: 1. Find people of the highest character you can. 2. Know why you like them. 3. Seek to understand them. 4. Act to express your admiration, respect, and love. This essentialized advice is accurate and powerful in more ways than Kendall covers in his post. I want to focus on one of Kendall’s points that particularly hits home with me: that a great relationship, whether a friendship or romance, is a value that one must act to gain and sustain. (I found it very cool that Kendall and I raised this same point in different contexts in two different articles that were posted around the same time.) Kendall’s operationalized principles are in fact principles of action. To put Kendall’s principles into my own words: 1) People of high character do not just appear in your life – you must seek them out. 2) For those individuals with whom you already have an emotional connection, work to understand the nature and cause of that emotional connection. 3) Continually evaluate your relationships to more fully understand the nature of the values you have gained. 4) Using this greater understanding of your relationships, creatively express the admiration and love that naturally grows from a properly valued friend/lover. Not only are these principles of action true, they are interrelated and reciprocal. In order to find people of high character, it is necessary actively to evaluate new people that you meet. When meeting new people, one evaluates both the potential value of the new person (are they of high moral character?), and he evaluates his own psychology (what aspects of this new person are my emotions responding to, and why?). If one actively and continually evaluates his relationships, then he will find many attributes of his friend/lover that are worthy of praise and admiration, which he then can express in a variety of ways. Expressing praise to a friend/lover concretizes that person’s value in your life, which can further cement your emotional connection to another. The relationship grows stronger, both emotionally and in terms of explicitly shared values. All this takes work! And that is exactly Kendall’s point. I very much agree. ------------------------- On an entirely different note, I’d like to issue a challenge to Kendall for any follow-up to his article: to concretize his operational principle regarding chemistry. (I preliminarily define good chemistry as “the existence of complimentary differences and complementary similarities in optional value judgments between two people, and the positive emotional response generated from these factors.”) In his article, Kendall argues that, “Where chemistry is concerned, it’s ok to seek more optional factors, but seek out those that ultimately stem from character…” I challenge Kendall to explain, by means of examples, what exactly it means for an optional factor to “ultimately stem from character?” It’s not that I disagree with Kendall on this point, in fact I generally agree with him. But this issue remains the biggest gap in his article. Kendall is writing here about optional value judgments -- individual choices regarding career, hobbies, humor, artistic tastes, etc. He uses the example of meeting a woman who loves the Philadelphia Phillies. Assuming that one is also a huge Phillies fan, how much weight ought that shared optional value have in evaluating the potential of a relationship? I’m assuming that Kendall uses the Phillies fan as an example of an optional attribute that does not “ultimately stem from character.” But why, Kendall? Why is being a Phillies fan not an expression of philosophical values? And what would qualify as an attribute stemming from character? Being an avid chess player? Loving Bach over Beethoven? Choosing a career as a chef over a career as a painter? In my view, any legitimate optional value judgment ultimately stems from character. By definition, an optional value judgment is an individual choice one makes which is fully moral within a range. For instance, when choosing a career, one may ethically choose to be a banker, a chemist, a teacher, etc., but not a bank-robber, terrorist bomb maker, or televangelist. This includes one’s choice of hobbies, favorite baseball team, taste in jokes, etc. Morally optional choices that individuate elements of one’s character have value by virtue of the fact that they make one unique. (I argue this point more extensively in Part II of my essay The Psycho-epistemology of Sexuality). For this reason, I would place a higher emphasis on the importance of chemistry. Kendall and I agree on the importance of finding individuals of high moral character, but I don’t think that this diminishes the importance of having good chemistry with people in one’s life, especially with lovers. ------------------------- Kendall and I hit it off from the beginning when we met in Philly. Honestly, I expected him to be a little dorkier based on his online writing. But in person, Kendall is actually a very cool dude. I mean: he’s not only cool, he’s a dude. He’s friendly, funny, and intelligent, but it wasn’t foregone conclusion that I could quickly wrestle him to the ground using only my left hand (a very positive characteristic in male friends and Spanish swordsmen). I look forward to Kendall’s next post in this series, and I hope to meet him again the next time I travel to Yankee-ville. --Dan Edge Cross-posted from Metablog