Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Invictus2017

Regulars
  • Content Count

    260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Invictus2017 last won the day on July 11

Invictus2017 had the most liked content!

About Invictus2017

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://cityofenterprise.wordpress.com/
  • Other Public-visible Contact Info

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    I move a lot.
  • Interests
    computers, Objectivism, and starting an Objectivism-based society

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Chat Nick
    Invictus2017
  • Interested in meeting
    Yes, very.
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Extensive, since 1983. I've read most, maybe all, of the important books and periodicals published before the mid 90's.

Recent Profile Visitors

1364 profile views
  1. Invictus2017

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    I suppose I should have said Representationalist (I think that's the term, it's been awhile). This differs from Idealism in that, supposedly, the objects of consciousness have some (unknowable) relationship to reality, whereas Idealism supposes that the objects of consciousness are, in essence, illusions or hallucinations, unconnected to reality. In my view, there is no real difference between "there is an unknowable connection to reality" and "there is no connection to reality", so Representationalism is a species of Idealism and I tend to use the latter to refer to both. The notion that the objects of perception are mere constructs of the brain is Representationalist, in that it does not allow one to know how these constructs derive from reality -- any such knowledge would be just one more construct. "Brain" is just a construct, and there is no reason for believing that there is "brain" or anything else. (Which illustrates that Representationalism really is Idealism.)
  2. Invictus2017

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    Kant and Korzybski are Idealists; Rand is a Realist. You might want to check the meanings of those terms. Idealism is not inconsistent with Materialism; the quoted passage illustrates that Korzybski held both ideas.
  3. Invictus2017

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    Korzybski is old news to people of a certain age. Basically, the guy is an Idealist, who supposed on the one hand that we can have no real knowledge of reality and that we actually have the knowledge to prove it. Not worth any further analysis, as far as I'm concerned. For fun, you might want to read some A. E. Van Vogt, who incorporated some of Korzybski's ideas into his science fiction.
  4. Assuming the facts are as recounted, I too applaud Lewinsky for her action. We all need to set boundaries and to remove from our lives anyone who does not respect them.
  5. The questions you suggest are wildly inappropriate. A better idea: Presumably, you know something of the activities she likes. Research those activities to find one that you and she can do as a couple. Suggest an outing. (My ex was way into arts and crafts. Our first "date" was at a crafts fair. She had a blast; I merely tolerated it. But it showed, in action, my interest in her as a person.) Failing that, there's the old standby: "Would you like to do lunch (or dinner)?" It's as simple as that. How she responds will tell you all that you need to know.
  6. It's immoral to pointlessly prolong your own suffering. How she feels and who she is seeing is her business, not yours. You really have just two choices here, assuming you respect yourself and you respect her: Either you talk to her and explain your prior stupidity or you absolutely abandon any possibility of a relationship beyond friendship. Anything else is a self-destructive compromise. If you can do neither, you have doomed yourself (and maybe her, depending on how screwed up you let yourself become) to wholly unnecessary misery. If you do the former, the worst that'll happen, beyond the embarrassment of admitting your own foolishness, is that she'll tell you that you had your chance and blew it. But even then, you'll at least know where you stand. If you do the latter, you can then begin self-policing the part of you that insists on the impossible and thereby hasten your psychological recovery from your mistake. I'd recommend, in this case, staying away from her until you've managed that recovery, but I wouldn't say that it is essential to do so.
  7. She expressed interest. You played hard to get and then acted disinterested. Anyone would likely have dropped you under those circumstances. She then went looking for someone who was interested and not playing games. (Yes, I know that's not how you see it. But it is likely how she saw it.) What else would you expect? If you want her, stop playing games with yourself about being "not in her league" and get your ass onto the playing field. Otherwise, get out of the situation and stop making yourself miserable. Remember: You and you alone are responsible for your choices. And if you want a consequence, you and you alone are responsible for enacting the cause of your desired consequence.
  8. Invictus2017

    Link needs fixing?

    1) The index page has no links like that. 2) That person has no apparent reason to be on this site. 3) The bulk of the message is an ad for staysafe.org. 4) That person claims the link is relevant to this site, when anyone reading it would know better. 5) The two similar messages were sent almost two months apart. In short, this is pure spam. It's an old variety: "We're not really spamming, we're providing a public service, notifying of broken links!" (Or some other excuse.)
  9. Invictus2017

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    You are equivocating. Rand meant by this that one should not read into things that which is not there, that one should use the actual meanings of the words, not some approximation. That's a proper use of "literal". But you're looking for the "one true meaning" of a statement, which you want to exist independently of the context of the statement. That's not "literal", that's "arbitrary". Come back when you've learned the difference. For now, you're in my ignore list.
  10. Invictus2017

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    In my case, the issue is simple: Money. Or, rather, the lack of it.....
  11. Invictus2017

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    The literal interpretation you're asking for does not exist. Such could only exist if each word and each syntactic structure had exactly one meaning. Language does not work that way. Understanding any statement requires interpreting it within its context, rather than as an isolated statement. The operative principle is that of benevolence. One assumes, unless it is proven otherwise, that a writer (or speaker) has something meaningful to say. This requires, not literal interpretation, but contextual interpretation. The question is not, "what meaning is assigned to this statement by the dictionary and rules of grammar?" (a question that essentially never has a determinate answer) but "what meaning, among the possible legitimate meanings, will make this statement part of a coherent whole?". As a general rule, the demand for a literal interpretation (or the insistence on a particular interpretation as "the" literal interpretation) is an attempt to inject the arbitrary into a discussion. It should be rejected with whatever degree of firmness is necessary to preserve the integrity of the discussion forum.
  12. If a government says, "OK, now we let you do X", that does not in any way indicate a respect for the right to do X. And it says nothing about whether it will change its mind later. If a government does not respect rights in principle, nothing it does should be regarded as "respecting" rights, and to read current events as evidencing a growth in that nonexistent respect is to profoundly misunderstand those events and their likely consequences. (The same critique applies to hurrahs when America's government announces that it will no longer violate this or that right.)
  13. This is an age of moral panics, stirred up by government employees and agents, politicians, and other sociopaths who want attention and control. Almost all of this is based on willful deception by those who stand to gain from the panics; the evils they speak of either do not exist or are trivial in comparison to actual dangers -- dangers that get neglected because of the focus on the unreal.
  14. Invictus2017

    Reblogged:Rude and Concerned Are Not Synonyms

    If I was in a hurry, I'd tell such people to go fuck themselves. If not, I'd call the park police and complain about harassment. Such people do not deserve the courtesy of an etiquette citation, especially since they're likely to take any such response as "proof" of their righteousness. Someday, I might write a post on the virtue of incivility.
  15. Invictus2017

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    This remains true. I'm out of this discussion, since I can see no benefit to myself from further participation.
×