iouswuoibev

What do you think I've "projected"? I've asserted that there is a principle which covers how the mind relates to pysiological arousal. And you've said that there are exceptions where orgasm can occur without the mind, or that orgasm can occur without stimulus. But I'm only interested in normal, not exceptional, cases, that cover how man achieves sexual pleasure from the use of his mind. Until I've actually given specifics on this, you can't comment on it's validity. I've not spoken of "ideal sexual partners", that's a specific detail under the broad subject I'm intending to address. I didn't backtrack on any definition, I only used the word "visualisation" and then defined what I meant by it. I don't think you've uncovered anything special here. I took it for granted that people would know that I haven't ignored this fact, but that it is not an essential factor towards the matter I'm addressing.

In single player, it is very boring indeed.

So you're just speculating? This conversation isn't very useful unless you have some hard, proven facts to impart with. If you mean you can't reach an orgasm without a physical stimulus, you are right. I haven't disagreed with that.

That's fine. I'm not here for approval or to make friends, only to discover the truth. I sometimes state things as a screening test to see if I've overlooked any relevent factors. You haven't really said what you find objectionable about my ideas in that other thread. Suffice to say that at the time I had only just discovered some new aspects of humour and were testing them out. I'm still working to understand the fundamental nature of humour and its proper role/function, if any, in human interaction. And you can get an erection through no tactile stimulation whatsoever. It's the relationship between the mind and the sex organs that I am seeking to understand. Can you tell me how it would be relevent for me to take the reflexive aspects into account?

By an object, I meant: something, as opposed to nothing. It can be an integration, e.g. a personality and everything it entails; or disintegrated sensations, sounds, movements, images; along with that a certain way of regarding them. In other words, you can't become aroused on a zero. Do you dispute this? There are easier ways of getting your pants off, but good luck with that. Me too.

Dependant on what within the individual? How can you be aroused when there's no object to be aroused by?

That's just what Robert Stadler thought. And you're wrong. And I'll also add that the people who are "stupid", or just don't want to think, won't like the film regardless. It is a book based on a very different philosophy from the conventional, and thus it -must- be intellectual. Most people are going to be baffled by it just as they were with the novel - the kind of emotions and sense of life they are used to don't exist in Rand's world, and vice versa.

Erm, the above was meant to be an edit of my former post, but I clicked the quote button instead. Could a moderator rectify this please?

I do! And I appreciate the "philosophy lecture" I received from the novel. I don't see why the movie can't do something revolutionary, and include a 3 hour speech in it. Who wants to sit through a 3 hour speech you ask? I think anyone. People don't know that they could want it, because they can't imagine it being anything but their preconceived mental image of a 3 hour speech: that of a man talking in monotone about a dry, abstract subject that has nothing to do with the audiences life. But if you've heard lectures by Objectivist intellectuals, you will know how far from the case this can be. You will realise what a wonderful and rare thing it is to hear someone talking with certainty and clarity about philosophical ideas that are illuminating and practical and relevent to any listener willing to think, and how they can hold you to your seat and listen right through to the end. It would be a brave and incredible stunt if the film producers actually questioned the premise that "There's NO WAY you can have a 3 hour speech inside a movie" and actually went ahead and did it. It would certainly make the movie highly talked about. Imagine someone caught unwittingly, not knowing in advance the long speech in the middle of the movie, and so they sit down drinking it in. 5 minutes in they are expecting it to finish. 10 minutes in, still no sign of finishing... and then they find they've sat there for half an hour and since they've listened to so much of it, they may as well wait and hear the whole thing. And so you've caught them. Chances are, they'll be grateful you had. But of course, it would take an extraordinary group of people to pull this off: First convincing the producers to let them try it, then choosing an actor who can narrate the speech so that it is passionate and convincing and engaging. In short it's not going to happen - but I really wish it would. Here's a link to a page for the Atlas Shrugged movie on the production company's website.

I don't believe it was a lack of respect that caused Roark to make the Dean uncomfortable, but a lack of recognition. He had no grasp of the manner of a second-hand consciousness; he assumed they faced existence the same way he did. But since they are second-handers, they expect a psychological mirror: they believe they have certain qualities because others believe they have them. Roark is just; he does not grant the unearned in any sense whatever. If everyone you approached started bowing and scraping, you may - if you choose not to think - get a feeling of authority, a sense of importance. If so, you have invested your view of yourself in other people, rather than by an objective standard conceived by your own judgement. If, a few years later, you were to meet a person that absolutely does not recognise you as an authority, as automatically worthy of respect, and only responds positively when you do something worthy of it, you would realise then that to the extent that you built your self-esteem on the reactions of others, your actual ego is non-existent. Someone who, throughout their whole life, has built their whole self-concept on the reactions of others, needs people as psychological mirrors to give them the illusion of a self-respect (and a self-concept, and a self) they haven't got. The man who won't mirror, forces him to search within himself for a guide to action and thought: and what he finds is nothing. EDIT: Reworded sentences while retaining the original meaning, corrected some horrific grammatical errors.

One thing I've noticed about masturbation is that you can't do it (effectively) without envisioning an object of arousal. And you cannot envision that without assuming (implicitly) certain things about the qualities of that object. I use masturbation for two purposes: recreation and learning. I always introspect deeply when masturbating. I can choose exactly what to think about when I'm doing it, and I like to know exactly why I chose that particular thing to think of. I don't like to be ruled by my crotch, as it were; as if it were a force outside of my control that would respond inappropriately against my own rational convictions. You can use masturbation to analyse why you find a particular person, personality, act or idea to be sexually arousing. Done properly, masturbation can be a rewarding experience just like sex, and there's nothing inherently depraved about it (as you can see, I have no difficulty talking about it). I think the more intense an experience you can achieve when masturbating, is dictated primarily by how clearly you have defined your abstractions and understand precisely why and how an abstraction becomes associated with the operation of your sexual organs. I could go into this further but I intend to write a whole in-depth essay on the subject of sexual arousal and what causes it when I've studied it in more depth (this is not partial certainty, partial speculation: I believe I've reached a universal principle that covers all forms of arousal).

Faith of the Fallen is an exquisite book; what I call a real "sense of life" novel. Superficially, it looks naturalistic, but every single word goes to paint a bigger picture, both at a concrete and an abstract level. The characters are so rich they could reach out of the book and touch you. It works brilliantly as a stand-alone novel as well as part of a series. There are many things that might go unnoticed upon the first reading, so I strongly recommend that people read it multiple times. My two favourite parts of FOTF are: the trick Richard pulls to get Kahlan to face the world again, and the unveiling of the statue. FOTF is my favourite by far.

Manners are [EDIT: is] justice in the confines of respect. You can be "rude" (which just means disrespectful - it comes in many forms) while still maintaining irreproachable manners. As Egoists, we (Objectivists) don't observe any standard outside the judgement of our own minds. Consequently, stating our mind will often be considered as rude, or harsh, or cruel, or many another adjective. To be rude means to be unjustly disrespectful. The inverse, called supplicating, is to be unjustly respectful/polite. Politeness means to be (justly, by default) respectful. You can use your own judgement and err, and thus be rude: a rational man will correct his mistake by apologising. I hope that clears things up.

Whether it is morally right or not depends on your attitude towards your own beliefs. What you must NEVER do is accept their standards over your own. In other words, you should never feel guilty about what you've arrived at of your own independant judgement. I used to feel this way about any value I had. I have had uncommon interests throughout my life and was very unpopular at school. I begin to feel that my passions were something to be hidden - not merely as a way of diplomatically avoiding conflict and drawing unwanted attention, but because I actually started to genuinely believe that my values were bad - because other people didn't value them! And the inverse became true as well. Remember Wynand's "halo" around things he owned? Well, for me it was a pair of devil's horns. The things I valued became like a stain of [EDIT: condemnation] for me. This is a trap you really don't want to fall into. I think you should give serious question to just how much you value your family (individually). Ask why you value who they are and why (and if) they value who you are. You may be surprised to discover you had supressed feelings about them that you didn't want to acknowledge. That's for you to discover. What you must never do is [EDIT: place] any significance merely on the biological connection you share with them. I hope that helps.

You should have included an OTHER option. Your list barely scratches the surface of what there is.

Private charity is the only recourse. In a fully capitalist society, this should not be a problem.

I once participated in a Terry Goodkind chat where Terry answered questions by proxy. I asked whether he could explain who the "Fallen" were in the title of his book, and what they were to have "faith" in. His response was that I could find the answer in the book (not very helpful, since I wouldn't be asking if I had found the answer in the book). So does anyone have a good idea as to what the title "Faith of the Fallen" actually means?

Nay. I am a Goodkind fan, but I don't think that discussion on Goodkind's works warrants a whole forum to itself. There are already existing Goodkind threads that are gathering dust. Why not use these? I think if a seperate forum is made it too will gather dust.

Thought I'd post my comments on some of the more dubious questions in this test. You find it difficult to talk about your feelings: Is it asking: do I find it difficult when I attempt talk about my feelings, or is it asking: am I reluctant/afraid to make the attempt? You feel at ease in a crowd: Does the crowd have its attention on me, on each other, or on another individual? You are strongly touched by the stories about people's troubles: What is the nature of their trouble? Often you prefer to read a book than go to a party: False alternative. You tend to rely on your experience rather than on theoretical alternatives: False alternative. It's difficult to get you excited: About what? You rapidly get involved in social life at a new workplace: Depends on who is there. It is in your nature to assume responsibility: Responsibility for what? You frequently and easily express your feelings and emotions: Which emotions? You are a person somewhat reserved and distant in communication: With whom? You prefer to act immediately rather than speculate about various options: Act on what? You usually plan your actions in advance: What actions? Your actions are frequently influenced by emotions: What actions? You easily empathize with the concerns of other people: It depends on what they are concerned with. You prefer to isolate yourself from outside noises: When doing what? It's essential for you to try things with your own hands: Like what exactly? You usually place yourself nearer to the side than in the center of the room: What room? When? When solving a problem you would rather follow a familiar approach than seek a new one: That depends on what the problem is, what approaches I am currently familiar with and the adequacy of said approaches. It is easy for you to communicate in social situations: What is a "social situation" ? You are consistent in your habits: There's no such thing as an inconsistent habit. You consider the scientific approach to be the best: The best for what purpose? You are easily affected by strong emotions: Redundant. The emotion is the effect. If you experience a strong emotion, you are "affected". You are always looking for opportunities: Oppertunities to do what? Deadlines seem to you to be of relative, rather than absolute, importance: I don't know what this means. You tend to be unbiased even if this might endanger your good relations with people: I don't know how this is possible. You tend to sympathize with other people: Which people? About what? As you can plainly see, the test was written by an idiot.

That doesn't follow. I asked you to explain why this is and you've merely repeated your argument.

That's not necessary once you've settled on a conclusion. Until then, who wouldn't want to understand the reason behind their actions? It is not necessary to ask yourself why you're performing every action you perform (that's what principles are for); but if asked, you should be able to give the reason for it. The alternative is whim-worship.

Alcohol is a drug.

I like this explanation a lot. Exercise would be a bit like resting for me.

The point is, you exclude any other aspect, e.g. happiness, from the equation, because you specified pleasure as the sole defining characteristic. And by the definition you offered, engaging in recreational activities is hedonistic. That is intrinsicism, which is contrary to Objectivism. I am only interested in what Objectivists think.

I'm also wondering if the idea of "recreating" has anything to do with recreation. 1. Pleasure is a sensory faculty, and recreation as far as I am aware has nothing to do with being pleasing to the senses. 2. What do you mean by this? 4. If it does not enhance your productive life in any way, of what good is it?