StrictlyLogical

That is a straw man. Of course not all differences of preference constitutes an example of objective value being contextual. You think all objective value is universal? Independent of the individual? Is objective morality also universal? Independent of the identity of the individual? If you must be reminded of objective values being contextual look up Objective theory of values in the lexicon.

Objective values are contextual but not subjective. Part of the context is the particular nature of the valuer, his abilities, his situation, his potential etc. Such that one thing may be more valuable, objectively in furtherance of his life,than a different thing which may be more valuable objectively in furtherance of another person's life given his context. Here objective does not mean universal or contextless while contextual does not mean subjective.

Your conception of duplication of ideas is flawed. As applied to "stuff", one can duplicate something using materials and with use of the original. The result is where there was once one thing there are two things. [It is premature to make any statement about whether there is a "right" as such to duplicate.] With respect to ideas, you have been unable to come up with any coherent and rational description of the process of duplication or re-creation of ideas because such cannot be done. An idea once created, can be understood and used, and it can even form the basis or inspiration for other ideas. But an idea, once created, cannot be "re-created" from itself. You start with the idea, and any other idea you somehow come up with is a different idea, not a re-creation of the same idea. Imagine you set off to go into a room with the original idea promising your loved ones to return with a re-creation of the idea, implicitly claiming that somehow you will emerge from the room after having done something, that your entering the room and coming back will be different from your literally achieving nothing in regards to the idea, but behold moments later you emerge with EXACTLY only the same thing you went into the room with, namely the idea, having caused, created, i.e. having DONE EXACTLY NOTHING. The reason for 27 pages is that you were either unable or unwilling to accept this.

Do you hold that happiness or well-being or flourishing as an Objective value? Does it serve life by enabling one to better meet the challenges of survival in face of changing conditions, good and bad? Edit: Do you see any distinction between Rand's holding musical choices or preferences as subjective and a conclusion that music as such cannot be an Objective value contextually?

Do you hold that values are objective (contextually)? Can music be a value or a disvalue or is music only ever a subjective matter which never can affect one's life? EDIT: The above is not the same issue as whether or not music qualifies as Art according to Objectivism.

I have no problem with the term "duplication" in your assertion, not that I agree with the truth of your assertion. I'm not letting you off the hook. You maintain a right to duplication or re-creation of ideas exists. You don't get to evade thinking it though because you are afraid of the answer. Why wont you just tell me what you mean!!!!????? How CAN you duplicate an idea? You start with an original idea (and possibly something else), you do WHAT with it (them)? What do you end up with? The original idea? A different idea?

Why are you playing at being in my head in your attempt at thinking for yourself???? I have no problem with the term duplication. You've identified "the original idea" in 2A. In the assembly phase "what" are you assembling, and from "what" are you assembling it? Assuming "assembly" is complete in 2B, what do you mean by "realization" of an idea? The someone started with the original idea in 2A, assembled "something" in 2B, what constitutes "realization" of what in 2C? Is it realization of the original idea or are you saying it is realization of a different idea? Again your terms "assembly", and "realization" parrot meanings which may be valid in other contexts but until you define them here they are meaningless, and "re-creation or duplication of an idea" is a floating abstraction, an anti-concept, or gibberish.

Observe the questions are not meant to elicit your personal opinion even though they seem to be worded as such, they are meant to determine how well you understand what was taught. You could answer the questions objectively, giving the "right" answers at the same time as not stating your opinion. I can think of two ways of doing this (there are likely other ways as well): 1. State all of the premises (explicit or implicit and whether you believe them or not) as hypotheticals, as part of your answer. IF premise a, premise b, premise c, then X,Y,Z e.g. Answer: "If one defines social responsibility as the duty to ensure that the welfare of the general public is taken into account whenever a corporation embarks upon making a decision which potentially has consequences... blah blah blah.... and if the outcomes visited upon a local economy are the barometer of what we here define as important... blah blah blah THEN corporate social responsibility is important because... blah blah blah." 2. IF the professor has relied upon some authority, scholarship, or identifiable theory to inform the premises or define the terms, state them explicitly in the answer: e.g. Answer: "Dr. Shoenhippel defines social responsibility as X.... blah blah blah, the Scanlan Foundation for Change measure economic importance and social importance according to I, J. Based on the scholarship so noted, corporate responsibility as defined is important because.... blah blah blah. Combining 1 and 2 and not offering your personal analysis will mean you can both answer the questions truthfully and correctly. [Edit: I just read SpookyKitty's response... this is somewhat redundant now.]

There are in actuality a multitude of options, some of which are variants of, for now (and perhaps thinking long term is not possible yet...): Trying to live through the pain of the loss, keeping her memory alive, being true to her and what she saw and loved about him, honoring the gifts she gave to him by not throwing them all away, taking it day by day and waiting for the time when the fog of pain will start to lift. Give your friend a little time to be crazy, but if you believe he is doing something now which he will regret later, then your self-interest in his end-in-himself interests, requires that you not support him in doing something which is life defeating and possibly require your diplomatic attempts to dissuade him from doing them. You must be careful of course to keep in mind that people do generally know what is best for themselves... although in such a state this depends greatly on the context and the person. You should be careful also, that in addition to your nor supporting his life-diminishing actions that you also positively support him in ways which are life-affirming, (Since paradoxically withdrawal of support for life-diminishing acts may itself have life-diminishing effects if he feels you have abandoned him in his time of need etc.) Simply acknowledging his unprecedented level of pain and the greatness of his loss are of most importance for now.

For a thing to be incompatible with Objectivism I would guess it would either have to be: 1) explicitly or implicitly expressing ideas in contradiction with the tenets or ideas of Objectivism, or 2) actuality something which clashes with a person's ability to pursue life, i.e. it clashes with a person's exercise of the morality of Objectivism - self-interest. What people have called "music" include all kinds of "sounds" that people listen to. This includes noise. Rand had a specific definition of art which generally excludes noise from the definition of music. So in a sense the "idea" as such, that noise is music is incompatible with the ideas of Objectivism. Quite unrelated, insofar as noise may not be life-sustaining, or worse life-diminishing, listening to those types of noise are incompatible with executing the morality of Objectivism. Just because something is not Art does not mean it does not have any value. Noises as such which are life-sustaining (in context of a particular individual), like the sounds of the ocean, or rustling leaves, IF it creates mental harmony, serves as a relaxation or reward to rejuvenate a person's motivation to pursue life, leads to flourishing etc. then it is completely compatible with the exercise of the morality of Objectivism and in fact would be an objective value to be pursued, whether or not it was called music. This is independent of any analysis of the sounds not qualifying as Art or serving the specific purpose of Art. Note, Objectivism defines Art to include Art which points to "the negative" as something important metaphysically which deserves attention, but also defines music less as cognitive and more directly causative of emotion. So negative music might be Art in one sense but also might be harmful in another sense. Such music would require analysis to determine how, and the extent to which it is "incompatible". [The analysis of music would be more complex for pieces which combine directly emotive musicality with cognitive content of a song's lyrics (which may or may not conflict)... as a side note I am uncertain whether lyrics are technically "music" or whether they should be thought of as "narrative accompaniment" to the music... in the same way a poem on a painting of a scene would be a "narrative" for the visual art but not technically itself visual art. In any case listening to a "song" which has lyrics means a person will be subjected to both the music and the lyrics and both need to be taken into account.] So, some sounds called music are not, according to the Objectivist definition, "Art", and do not serve Objectivism's definition of the purpose of "Art", and the idea of it being Art is incompatible with Objectivism. Some sounds, called music, are life-diminishing and as such an individual's actions to seek out and listen to it are incompatible with the individual's self-interest i.e. the morality of Objectivism. Some sounds are neither Art nor of any value, and some are both.

1. Show me the link to the definition, however, the bit about imagination is not particularly relevant 2. Imagination is a specific kind of mental process which is tangential to our discussion of ideas. Imagination encompasses a broad range of mental processes including experiential and non-cognitive functioning: feelings, perception - ambience, nostalgia, colors, smells, fear, excitement, etc. It is in this area of experiential imagination that the term re-creation is applicable. One can "cause" a re-creation of a feeling in your mind with words which describe a feeling. Why is it re-creation? Because experiences are experienced in time, presumably you had the feeling before (it was created), the feeling then ceased, and the reading of words caused i.e. created the feeling again, i.e. a re-creation of the feeling. This is not what we are talking about and discussion of this is mostly useless. Any claim to a right of "re-creation" of ideas is invalid and meaningless unless it is based on a valid conception of what "re-creation" of an idea means. Like I said, we can do this or not. Come up with a 2B which you believe is rationally valid and I will comment, tweak, or agree. Alternatively, if you do NOT agree with 2A, feel free to come up with a rationally valid 2A, 2B, and 2C on your own. If you believe a division into 2A, 2B, or 2C are inapplicable to the process of re-creation, i.e. if you believe it cannot be summarized as "givens", "acts", "results", please feel free to make your case for "re-creation" being something different. Please just tell me in detail what re-creation of an idea actually means to you.

THIS is what we have yet to analyze. We can do it or not. Your choice.

I'm not attempting anything. There is a discussion to be had whether property can be in "tangible stuff" as well as in intangibles and ideas specifically (because they are essentially the subject of IP). You asserted something you deemed important, namely rights to "re-creation". In order to facilitate discussion I embarked on entertaining your idea of such rights and for sake of relevancy proposed and began discussing it in the two contexts : "stuff" and "ideas". Why are you "concerned" about investigating the issues, namely, identifying and defining what "re-creation" is in the two contexts? If you don't want to talk about re-creation I think I know why. But it matters not. As for "attempting" something... I am "attempting" to frankly and honestly analyze this without evasion or prejudgment. If you are willing to adopt the same approach I think it would be worth it to continue the discussion. If you cannot or will not do so I wish you well.

We are not talking about "things" or "products" in this context. That is, if we are having the same conversation... In any case: 2A) Start with: original idea The idea is what it is and assuming one has obtained it, then it could be said one "starts" with it. Agreed? You can move onto 2B.

You've parroted many words from the example in 1 but I cannot make sense of them. I asked for something in "as much" detail, not something which does not make sense. All that seems to make sense so far is "2A), Starting with: the original idea" If you start with the original idea, presumably you "have it" completely, not partially. There is no need to "observe" an idea... and I am not certain about what you mean by "observing an idea". Let's assume you understand it fully and entirely i.e. you have it somehow as your starting point. Perhaps you obtain the idea from a conversation, or a book... but once you have the idea in your mind... there is no act of "observation" needed.. such a purported act is contrived and superfluous. Also what are "materials or matter" similar to that of the original idea? This makes no sense. It looks like you want to parrot the language applicable to 1... unfortunately it is nonsensical. The context for 2 must not be ignored. So far we have 2A) Starting with: the original idea 2B) ?? 2C) ??

Ok. I suggest you take a first shot at 2. I will comment , suggest tweaks or agree. Try to be as detailed as what we agree on for 1.

DA asserts importance of recreation. So recreation is being analyzed in terms of both of the contexts.

Do we agree on 1?

Let's get this perfect: 1A) Starting with: the original object itself, or recorded observations (results of reverse engineering or memory) of the object, or a design known to correspond to the original object, and materials or matter similar to that of the original object 1B) Acts: Constructing, assembling, forming from the materials or matter similar to that of the original, according to the observations or design 1C) Result: A second object which is a replication or duplicate object which is substantially the same as the original object. Any tweaks to suggest? Edit: Post Script: Incidentally, I am not presupposing a right to "re-creation", only investigating what it is.

That's only the half of it.. in order to create or recreate a physical object you need to start with materials like those of the original, before you do the acts to make the thing. Without it you cant make a recreation.

1A - I see no matter or material in your "starting with" answer. 1B - No "act" of forming the object according to the design (you got that) from matter (still missing)? 1C - I assume you mean "a duplication of the object" or a second object having the same form. After all it IS a second object. Let's nail down the answers to 1 before discussing 2.

What is the meaning of actual recreation: A. starting from what? B. doing what C. to result in what? in the following contexts: 1. Recreating an observed "physical object" 2. Recreating an "idea in the form of an invention/design/book"

On the subject of Environmentalism, check out this story; talk about "man-haters" (ok... "anti-human" ): https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/08/environmentalists-war-people/

It is moot now, but you do see how narrow this is right? I'm not going to list everything, that would be tedious. Notice consume does not mean "use" which is broader than "use up". You can use a diamond necklace after you make it, but you do not consume it, or use it up. Also, note none of the alternative meanings of consume include "give away", or "modify", or "sell", or "rent", or "lend".... as such a right to consume X is much narrower than a proper bundle of rights to property. I'm detecting an intellectual tone in our recent exchanges. I have to think about what it signifies. Just to be clear this process MUST be collaborative if I am to participate. If that is not possible, then there is no point. I'll come back to this... sometime.

In English "consumption" is not a broad term and you cannot make it so. Maybe it is different in your native language. "Produces" also has a connotation but technically it can suffice, if we agree it means "creation or causation through some human agency, work, or effort". Both of your messages are concerning. I cannot know why you would want to shy away from abstract X1 and X2. So I propose we dispense at first entirely with anything which property rights could attach to, but instead the right to life and the right to action, which PRECEDES X1 and X2 and the differences between them. We should be able to directly formulate rights which "show up" as property rights to X1. Start with the right to life and why it implies a right to pursue and realize values?