KindredAmy

It's best not to jump to conclusions about her behavior before you've even started training again, or seen her. If you see her again, be polite, formal and brief. If you ever find out that a bad rumor is spreading about you, remember that you already have a good reputation with your MMA group. If someone asks, then explain simply that she is your ex. In the meantime, stop awfulizing and remember that you have a dream to pursue, and no one, not even your ex, can stop you. I had a good friend who turned bad, and we kept mutual friends -- when I see him, I simply ignore him after I give him a polite nod. After a while, it's hard to remember that he even exists. Meanwhile, he is digging himself a hole with our mutual friends. If your ex is as horrible as you say, give credit to others that they will make the same evaluation in due course. Now go to the gym and find out what's what, and hold your evaluation.

Your post is so cute and eyebrow-raising and clever and fluffy. And gibberish. Individual people possess identity. And philosophy is a tool for living, not rationalism. Now be a good somebody and go read some Ayn Rand. Further:

You are on track with your thinking. My husband and I are/were very romantic -- because these gestures of "old-fashionedness" actually mean something. As real-life examples: Letters through the mail: expressions of thoughts framed in creative and beautiful ways, while having the actual piece of paper your love wrote on in your hands while you read. Creates a form of intimacy not achievable with email or even phone calls. Flowers: especially perfect red roses. If others don't understand what flowers represent, I suggest cultivating an imagination. Sensuality is key to creating an atmosphere of passion and vivaciousness. Those are just two, but more imaginative men will get it -- those who find women worthy of the effort. I have known men who have no clue and are cocky, as you describe. They most often lack genuine self-esteem, and are out to "impress" women (and others) by acting the life of the party and best at everything. This is second-handedness through and through. I've even known one who considers himself a victim if he must think of a woman's context. You are right to stay away from those types, Objectivist or not.

After listening to Dina Schein's "Ayn Rand's Home Atmosphere," I would have loved to be Ayn's fourth sister. This is an exceptional lecture, one that you should listen to if you want to understand that Ayn Rand was a real flesh/blood/mind person. And she was.

Uh, you do that!

I'll ignore your not-nice sarcasm, and do a simple compare and contrast regarding the believability of the existence of the Joker: Hitler - had entire state and military behind him as well as being elected due to bad, and culturally-entrenched philosophy, which developed over decades. Joker - had some thugs, and the mentally ill (who SOMEHOW overcame their illness to carryout well-organized evil-doing), no philosophical backing, just happens to show up and do evil things in a fairly rational culture. Let's remember: The only way evil wins in the real world is that good people do nothing about it. For Hitler, the anti-reason philosophy of the time made his destruction possible. It makes no sense how the Joker became THAT powerful. After all, "evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us." (AS) And... "The source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict 'It is.'" (AS) Bottom line: evil is the stupid and inefficient. Perhaps I could cite the billions of cases where real-life criminals are complete idiots, but I don't think I need to. To better understand this, I suggest Andy Bernstein's wonderful lecture, "Villainy and the Nature of Evil." Another comparison: Joker - purely nihilistic, action for no value at all, lacking any moral justification, insane yet intelligent and functional, which is an epistemological contradiction Hitler - working to eliminate a certain race of people whom he thought were evil, all his actions were built upon evil rationalizations, morally justified by philosophers, but had some hint of value-orientation, albiet twisted (Ayrian Race, etc.) To better understand this, I suggest reading "The Ominous Parallels" by Dr. Leonard Peikoff. A better comparison would be Charles Manson, but I don't think I need to elaborate on the comparisons. I've admired and loved the character of Batman, primarily because he was the most realistic super-hero ever -- one that might exist today. I cannot say the same for the characterizations in this movie, therefore the meaning was entirely empty for me. Hope that helps!

I agree with your sense of life sentiment. This movie was very malevolent. Not only did I think the reaction of society towards Batman, and his own wimpy resoluteness was depressing and completely uninspiring, but I remember the pivotal scene where Batman captures the Joker who was hanging from a building’s girders. At that moment I thought of one of two crucial outcomes – either Batman would kill the Joker (or simply drop him), or Batman would come full circle with his futile malevolency and spare the Joker and turn him into an incompetent police force that he knew was incompetent and, at the very least, ineffectual in handling such a powerfully evil villain. It portrayed the men of the mind, the heroes, as hopelessly weak, and portrayed the men of evil and destruction as unceasingly powerful. That’s what I call a malevolent universe! If Batman killed the Joker right then and there, I would have cheered. Since he didn’t, I found myself hoping that Batman would have slipped on a girder and get killed, because then this moldy vegetable of a movie would finally end. I also had a hard time actually believing that an evil villain could become so powerful, and effortlessly destroy anything he wished. That is totally against the metaphysics of Objectivism, and the accuracy of the Benevolent Universe Premise. By the way, I love Batman, especially in the Animated Series.

Where I live in Michigan, there are plenty of secular humanists, mainly secular Jews. Secular humanism is highly altruistic, however many humanists admire Ayn Rand. Perhaps the caller made this association and assumed Ayn Rand was a secular humanist, much in the same way people see libertarians admire her and assume she was a libertarian founder. I am so happy to hear this broadcast! It is getting the message across to so many people, and I really like they have a panel of Objectivists chiming in. I can't believe that they are using The Cult's "Sanctuary" song (which I love), with Ayn Rand's voice over it! Love both elements, but they really don't fit together.

This is a story of an Objectivist breaking it off with another, which is very sad. Maybe this should be on another thread, but here goes... What do you do when a long-time friend (best man at our wedding) and Objectivist stops growing intellectually with you AND becomes so negative over time, he constantly clashes with your sense of life? A person I ran a study group with decided that I was attacking him for giving him suggestions about our group. He didn't want to (or couldn't) explain why he was angry (or how my suggestions where wrong), or to explain why he complained about his life all the time, and decided not to communicate with me about it anymore because it was "too painful for him." Mind you, his lack of introspection and general unhappiness gradually occurred, and he was much nicer and more considerate when I first met him 13 years ago. I wanted to work through this, but realized that he wasn't open to developing any deeper understandings between us. The bottom line is, he wanted to be a victim. I realized that he was insecure, taking suggestions as personal insults, who wanted me as a friend (mainly because he was friends with my husband) but didn't want to work on our friendship. I had to make the heart-wrenching decision not to associate with him anymore, even if it would cost me some mutual (and wonderful) Objectivist friends (and it did cost me leaving behind a study group that I put most of the energy and thought and planning into over 8 years). Luckily, it all worked out for the best, and most people were very understanding. After a long while, I decided to start my own group, and we are flourishing. Anyway, that's the closest, most traumatic, example I can come to in comparison. It's still difficult for me, but I'm remembering to leave it behind every day and focus on what I can do instead of what I can't (changing his mind and sense of life and trying to make our old group work, which, by the way, he still runs, to my displeasure). Anyway... It sounds like your ex-friend is just awful. You spend so many years with him, enjoying each other, and admiring his judgment -- then he throws every insult at you that he can think of, trying to convince you that it's all your fault. Don't fall for it. He has treated you badly and it's time to find a better friend, and you will. Don't fall for the old "our friends hate you" trick. If you have no evidence for it, and you truly admire your mutual friends, hang out with them without the ex around. Don't think of your mutual friends as a group, but as individuals. If you feel comfortable, open up about the split to someone you trust. I doubt if your ex-friend's dislike for you has much to do with Objectivism, or any single political argument. It most likely has everything to do with how you are improving, psychologically and intellectually, and he is not. How secure you are with yourself and the world, and he is not. I'm sure there are plenty of indications besides talking Objectivism that show the world (and him) who you are, how you hold yourself, how careful you are with your words, and how much you take ideas seriously in general. It looks like he is threatened by that, he doesn't want to change, and the easiest way for him to squash that threat is to try to squash you. He doesn't want to face his own inefficacy. Remember that real friends will always encourage what will make you happy, and they want to see you happy for their own selfish inspiration. Good luck and keep your chin up!

For the others: Senate: the Republican running against Carl Levin (forget his name) House: Thaddeus McCotter for voting no twice on the bailout State Leg: Sandra Eggers or against Andy Dillon Voted to recall Andy Dillon, a dem who raised taxes to the sky Prop 1 medical marjuana - yes Prop 2 stem cell research - yes

I abstained and wrote in Ayn Rand just for benevolence. I cannot vote for McCain/Palin, especially Palin as she supports the coercion of women to stay pregnant after being raped or after learning the fetus has two heads, etc. If the pills don't work, I may be forced to put my body in danger in order to give birth to a baby I don't want or will need to give away to strangers, let alone having to pay the medical costs. Holy Bejesus, that would be a horrible nightmare!

About Uncle G's unprincipledness, the question, "What can you do when you have to deal with people?," alludes more to his behavior, rather than romanticizing him as a conscious destroyer of the economy with some undefined Objectivist goal in mind. I'm going with Occam's razor on this one. And I'd compare him more as the Stadler of economics rather than a Wynand. At least Wynand had a private enterprise, and was not a government leach. Greenspan's conviction that the government MUST tax people through force leads me to think he has a negative view of man philosophically. After all, people have free will, which, I guess, means that they are inherently bad or stupid, right. It's an embarrassment that G-man mentions free will at all -- how could he forget that having free will means possessing the facility of reason, which means that people can be persuaded to make rational decisions? If he found himself unable to convince anyone of free market ideas, he should have gotten out of there to become an educator or a John Allison instead -- rather than the spineless mediocrity he is now, living off his government pension. In fact, he had forgotten (or evaded) that he, himself, possesses free will. So I'm not surprised that he belittles others by using "free will" as an insult. If he didn't view others as too corrupt or stupid to voluntarily pay taxes, he would have to hold *himself* to a higher standard. And as for saying that a gold standard is morally superior, what do you suppose he would say about it being practically superior? My guess is that he has a major split between the moral and practical. Poor guy. Can't believe he wasted all of Ayn Rand's most powerful and moral ideas on squat. Blahk!

I am a fan of the animated series from the 90s -- especially the episode, "The Gray Ghost." Very hero-worshipping. If I were in charge of this franchise, I would introduce a villain from the animated series, Poison Ivy. She is a plant-loving, man-hating, eco-terrorist. You could do a lot with her character while promoting and defending technology and capitalism, and showing how the environmentalist movement has a hatred for people, regardless of how much they "go green." I would model Poison Ivy after Julia Butterfly Hill, the woman who lived in a sequoia tree for over 700 days. I will be seeing the "Dark Knight," but not too enthusiastically. I enjoy the character of Bruce Wayne, and from what I've gathered, it doesn't focus on his character development much, mainly the Joker's.

A clear distinction must be made between moral judgement and legal judgement. Paraphrasing Dr. Peikoff during his radio days, he made the important point that, if a women aborts in a late stage, it might be morally equivalent to killing a cat, depending on circumstances. The woman might be able to be condemned MORALLY in the right context. (This assumes that there was no good medical reason for her to abort, for instance.) [by the way, about 2% of all abortions occur in late stages.] So she's been condemned morally, perhaps shunned by her friends and family -- should she also be punished legally? Did she commit murder? Did her doctor commit murder? Should she be locked up, and for how long? Does she deserve the death penalty? Is she a danger to others? From what I understand, that's a "no" to all of these questions. She, as a person who possesses inalienable individual rights, should not have any legal charges against her. She either has a right to do whatever she wants with her body, or she doesn't. Even though the fetus was in its late stages, it was still a PART OF HER BODY. To illustrate -- putting aside what the potential might turn into later (after birth), and the context of "cute babyness," if someone has a parasite growing in him, over many weeks, feeding off the nutrition he consumes, making him sick many mornings, growing and giving him abdominal pains -- a thing so connected to his body that it may even put his life in danger -- he, in effect, OWNS this part of himself, as he does his elbows, liver and knees. It does not own itself -- it depends 100% on him. And if, for example, that part of him endangers the function of his organs, of course he has every right to surgically remove it. There are many dangers that can happen in pregnancy, and many, many other rational circumstances (besides medical) that would call for abortion. Now should it be the government's business to analyze the medical, psychological, existential, social and financial circumstances of each abortion? No. It should be left up to the woman to decide what she should do. And she has every legal right. (And so would HE, if male pregnancy were ever possible.)

I took the mini Keirsey Temperament Sorter personality test. Well, it tells me that I'm Rational. But I wasn't rationally able to purchase the report. I thought the test was saturated with the reason/emotion, introspection/extrospection, principles/experience dichotomies. For instance: 60. Do you prize in yourself a vivid imagination a strong hold on reality The author does not seem to understand that a person can hold both values equally, as I do. For instance, the only way I can keep a firm hold on reality is by identifying the facts of a situation as objectively (and contextually) as I am able, and in determining how to act, I must use my imagination to problem-solve. A vivid imagination really helps with this. What is most important is thinking contextually, and this test doesn't seem to recognize that. As was mostly the case for the questions, I'm both in certain contexts: 11. Is it your way to pick and choose at some length make up your mind quickly It depends on the situation -- how much time I have, how familiar I am with the choices, how important the outcome is, if there are a thousand right answers or only one, etc. There are plenty of times I choose quickly. It doesn't take but a second to know that I can justify my choice with good reasons. Now, as far as learning how to liven-up your personality, I would recommend a lecture from a man with TONS of personality -- Dr. Andrew Bernstein and his CD "How to Be an Impassioned Valuer." Also, personality is one subject where I find it helps to compare myself with others. For instance, does my personality resonate more with Andrew Bernstein or Harry Binswanger (both wonderful people, by the way)? With Dagny or Cheryl? And why? What kind of traits do each have? What traits do I have that match? Are these traits good or bad? And why? How to these traits relate to the Objectivist virtues? Etc.