Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

dream_weaver

Admin
  • Content count

    3931
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dream_weaver

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender Male

Previous Fields

  • Country United States
  • State (US/Canadian) Michigan
  • Chat Nick Greg
  • Relationship status No Answer
  • Sexual orientation No Answer
  • Real Name Greg
  • Copyright Copyrighted
  • Experience with Objectivism Diverse.
  • Occupation Designer

Recent Profile Visitors

34989 profile views
  1. But any type of organization predicates a permanent base. It must have fixed locality for its structure. This is true even of mechanisms expressly designed for mobility; an airplane requires a base no less than an old-fashioned grist-mill. The landing-field is the base of the plane; but in a larger view, the plane is part of the transmission line of a very long circuit energy system which rests on the base of private property as an institution. It has to be individual private property; neither group property nor state communism can generate such a high potential of energy. The collectivist nations of today (Russia, Italy, Germany, Japan) are operating airplanes on energy taken off at the end of a long-circuit of energy generated in free economies in the recent past. — The God of the Machine, Isabel Patterson, pg 103-104 The amount of energy generated in today's world is mind boggling. Patterson's observation that the transmission lines emanate from the free economies is very astute and highly abstract. In the concrete case of the airline industry, the landing-fields serve as one aspect of the power distribution. The planes also play a role. Private property and individualism, are yet others. Her implication being that the collectivist nations of the day, are operating airplanes on energy produced in the freer economies. What is it about individual private property that makes for the capacity of the generation of such a high potential of energy? Here it is instructive to include another passage from Isabel Patterson's work from page 179. Property is ownership. Things which nobody owns are not property; they are merely objects in nature. Perhaps the most senseless phrase ever coined even by a collectivist is that of Proudhon: "All property is theft." It is indeed remarkable in its own way, for the variety of errors compressed into such brief utterance; in four words it confuses objects, acts, attributes, moral values, and relations, as if they were interchangeable. Theft presupposes rightful ownership. An object must be property before it can be stolen. Micheal Faraday discovered in 1831 that rotating a magnet with-in a copper winding produced electricity. It wasn't until 1881-1882 that electricity was provided on a commercially viable basis (50 years later). While Faraday discovered the principle, it was not commercially applied until 50 years thereafter. Faraday had passed away in 1867 (36 years after his discovery, 14 years before his discovery's commercialization). From the standpoint of intellectual property rights, Faraday is the attributed discoverer, while Hammond and Edison were among the first to make the principle available commercially. Faraday discovered the object in nature, while Hammond and Edison identified it as a commercially viable source of energy. The commercialization aspect is is either an important intellectual discovery in its own right, or merely an obfuscation blurred by a Proudhon fog of obfuscation.
  2. Point taken. He did make a bit of noise pushing for it. The result, at this time, has boiled down to the media asking if the republicans are capable of running a government if they cannot keep as simple a promise as the promise to repeal. Their error is the media painting it as and republicans claiming to not having something to replace "Obama'sCare" with. If anything, his pressuring congress gave the media a talking point. Yet, all along, he has thumbed his nose at the media. It has culminated in garnishing support from those who are adversarial to the media. In this case, a backfire.
  3. He may know what he is doing to sway folk, and put the pressure on congress, but when it comes to the correct course to set the ship of state on, I suspect that neither he, nor those supporting him, are in the know.
  4. A recent visit to the office supply cabinet revealed the fact that various refills to the paper-based Franklin Planner still exists in the corporate world. After being somewhat chided about carrying 4 different colored pens and a notepad of paper to a recent product meeting to a roomful of individuals, mostly sporting laptops, highlighted the fact that differing approaches to processing information where afoot. Electronic vs. hard-copy. As a hard-copy advocate, it is astonishing to me how I can advocate such an antiquated approach, and still be the individual that puts together an Excel file that "automates" an electronic, integrated approach to identifying quantitative differences along a stack path that distinguishes between three industry standards of tolerance comparisons. Equally impressive, to me, is the ability to automate in VBA, a systematic approach to automating various functionality to generating and modifying routine tasks that most immediate users take for granted due to having it. Where is the world going to be in another decade? Will the successors to my generation be equipped with the epistemological know-how needed to persist?
  5. In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. Translated into English, this means, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” This phrase (often wrongly attributed to Augustine) comes from an otherwise obscure German Lutheran theologian of the early seventeenth century named Rupertus Meldenius. Rand offered her own summary of philosophical essentials being: in metaphysics, the Law of Identity—in epistemology, the supremacy of reason—in ethics, rational egoism—in politics, individual rights (i.e., capitalism)—in esthetics, metaphysical values. In the Voice of Reason, Leonard Piekoff offered this excerpt in the epilogue: For Ayn Rand, thinking in essentials was not restricted to the issue of definitions. It was a method of understanding any complex situation by deliberately setting aside irrelevancies—such as insignificant details, superficial similarities, unimportant differences—and going instead to the heart of the matter, to the aspects which, as we may say, constitute the distinctive core or being of the situation. He cites this after giving pointing out that she never entirely comprehend that the described approach which was second nature to her, was not practiced by all other people, often leaving her baffled or indignant. For those who did, however, she found comradery. I can only wonder how she might have addressed the opening Latin phrase, or what she might have proffered as a more rational alternative. The world is chock full of essentials and non-essentials. Thanks to an implicit sense of life that still embraces rational egoism and individual rights, the markets are full of goods that, thanks to capitalism, folk are free to decide for themselves what is essential, providing those who may disagree about the essential nature do not undermine the liberty of leaving the choice to the minds of the rationale of the individual actors. One of my past-times involves watching many of the "latest release" movies. Moonlight made the headlines recently. What a disappointment. Fences both featured and was directed by Denzel Washington, who has been featured in many movies I've enjoyed. Again, the naturalism outweighed any redeeming qualities that were not self-evident from a first viewing. The movie American Violence, was more of a romanticist film, despite the overt deterministic overtones superimposed upon it, albeit the notion of putting the death penalty in the hands of our current state has frightening implications. The last plug I am offering in this post is for WRCJ—90.9 FM (Detroit Classical and Jazz Music), which can be streamed via http://www.wrcjfm.org/ following the "listen live" link feature on the home page. While some of the music is repeated periodically, the range and scope of the diversity offered has kept me tuned in for over a decade. Somewhat ironically, both of these modes of art invoke the most controversial aspects of Objectivism when it comes down to identifying the issues in terms of their essentials versus their non-essentials. Charity may not be the most quintessential term to discuss them under, but a willingness to identify what constitutes as essential and why has to be paramount. (Pun, not intended.)
  6. Why collectivists grow rice and individualists grow wheat “Growing rice requires far greater cooperation: it is labour-intensive and requires complex irrigation systems spanning many different farms. Wheat farming, by contrast, takes about half the workforce and depends on rainfall rather than irrigation, meaning that farmers don’t need to collaborate with their neighbours and can focus on tending their own crops. My gut reaction is this is a red-herring. The automotive industry, as well, the fairly well documented "I, Pencil" shows that many industries are interconnected in the specialization of specific functions and tasks required to bring together the "simple" writing implement, or the more complex assembly of an individual transportation unit. From the standpoint of farming, one aspect disregarded is the implementations of the protection of property rights that make possible the reaping of the harvest after the other safeguards have been implemented to protect the crops from wildebeests that do not recognize the concept of individual rights. While it is interesting that rice developed as an eastern crop while wheat thrived to the west, the interactivity between those growing rice is still a form of voluntary mutual consent. In the case of pencils and automotive parts, the reliance on the particular suppliers is less prone to the 'accidental' geographic provision of irrigation. If this is the case and point of the more "collectivized" approach in growing rice, I can willingly cede it. The fact that the activity of irrigation for such a crop requires long-range planning bodes well for the need of thinkers to orchestrate it. The fact that where rice has been demonstrated to be reared in areas where a more individualistic approach has been found t be conducive to profitable farming of the commodity and that collectivized communities have restricted its importation on this basis is telling. It is here that the genealogy of rice-growing reaches an impasse. Where the conditions required for growing rice were not naturally occurring, the reward for the effort of understanding the causal relationships to a bountiful harvest was amply rewarded. Where the conditions required for growing rice occurred naturally, the more efficient method of production is viewed as an affront to the tribal traditions.
  7. Eioul, consider the original question: Add to this Rand's theory of concepts, especially taking into consideration that a word/concept had to be generated at some point by somebody. Add to this two further inquiries: Genealogy doesn't dictate values, as you seem to be importing here, albeit the handing down of traditional beliefs and customs—to the degree they are adopted, via folklore. To the degree it might be accepted without questioning, this would become essentially a philosophy one has accepted without questioning the source of such importation. To transmute genealogy into a form of tribalism is to drop the context of genealogy in favor of a package deal of tribalism (IMHO/IMNSHO).
  8. Rand put at least six partial genealogies in Atlas Shrugged. Consider the insights derived from providing genealogical tidbits about the Starnes heirs and the quite detailed background of Wesley Mouch provided on page 498. Ragnar had a briefly summarized past, as did Cherryl Brooks-Taggart. John Galt was even identified as the son of a gas-station mechanic. These are coming from someone who stated in The Art of Fiction: I can give the reason for every word and every punctuation mark in Atlas Shrugged—and there are 645,000 words in it by the printer's count. I did not have to calculate it all consciously when I was writing. But what I did was follow a conscious intention in relation to the novel's theme and to every element involved in that theme. I was conscious of my purpose throughout the job—the general purpose of the novel and the particular purpose of every chapter, paragraph, and sentence.
  9. Are readers to presume that the DOI is intended to reference the Declaration of Independence?
  10. Visual proof Although not a formal proof, a visual demonstration of a mathematical theorem is sometimes called a "proof without words". The left-hand picture below is an example of a historic visual proof of the Pythagorean theorem in the case of the (3,4,5) triangle. Admittedly, what I have painstakingly put together so far sets up a visual way of mapping the Collatz (rearranging the entire number line) into the matrix used throughout that originally led me down this path. Admittedly the approach has been rather unconventional.
  11. Or, more concisely, it would be evidence of a contradiction, demonstrating conclusively that the Collatz Conjecture is false. To date, no such evidence has been forthcoming. Not to be offensive, then what, specifically, are you commenting on? I've redacted my "QED" for the time being. This is my breakdown of the various indications that show how a 4(n)+1 number can have the Collatz rules applied in reverse, using (2(nx)-1)/3 and (4(ny)-1)/3, until a 3(nz) permits no further exploitation of such a process (Trifurcate Collatz). Recursive Collatz shows how the odd root of a 3(n)+1 can be predicted with a "Fibonacci" variant. Vetting Collatz is exploring how the two approaches have some integrative qualities. Keep in mind the Objectivist )breakdown of possible, probable, certain. In those terms, Collatz is at least possible, and I would warrant even probable. In terms of constructive criticism, what is missing? (Not "Oh my—it's not a proof, in the conventional form of mathematics.) What additional evidence is required to move something from the realm of probable to the realm of certain? I've explored these formulas to the point where they look pretty much self-evident to me. The help needed are questions that lead to avenues that have not yet been explored. Am I wasting my time on something that is so self-evidentiary true that no further proof is required, or is there some merit in providing something beyond this currant analysis (aside from the obvious fact that 3(1)+1=4=(1)22)) that might prove beneficial to the fence riding skeptics that enjoy the ride over deciding on which side of the fence to step off? (Everything else is 3(n)+1=(n1)2x).
  12. That reminded me of A Guide to Effective Study, also written by Locke, but it appears to be out of print. Echoing softwareNerd's point, "integration", i.e., relating what you are studying to what you already know, is the theme of this this volume. Taking the book I am currently reading, "The God of the Machine", by Isabelle Patterson, it is remarkable the number of parallels I've noticed can be drawn to "Atlas Shrugged". From John Galt's motor, the idea of converting atmospheric energy to kinetic energy, Patterson's theme of relating so many things to energy systems, loads, resistances, etc, albeit of the architecture built from a social blueprint. I've not had the chance to compare Patterson's chapter on "Why Real Money is Indispensable" to Francisco's money speech. The ideas of free trade are not new, but echo's of Rand's trader principle resonate from Patterson's work as well. Even Patterson's view on language is telling of aspects that helped esteem her so highly in Rand's view. Consider this passage from "Why Real Money is Indispensable": The verbal language of a high civilization is also a precision instrument. When words are used without exact definition, there can be no communication above the primitive level. If those who are supposed to express or influence "public opinion," the writers, economists, social theorists, and pedagogues, think in the concepts of savagery, what can be the outcome? or the start of another sentence in "The Function of Government": Persons unaccustomed to attach exact meanings to words will say . . . Blunt? Yes. Very condensed as well. Isabelle Patterson, Ayn Rand, the reference in ITOE to the conversation with a Jesuit in the 1940's. Contrast it with much of the wishy-washy use of language that sounds like it is coming from the "Board of Directors" meeting that murdered John Galt prevalent today.
  13. I see why the variation on the Fibonacci Series works now. It is another form of expressing the "condensed recap".
  14. 13-5, or 21-13, or 29-21. It was done to create the set consisting of every 4th term grayed out, and what to do in order to extend it.
  15. That is the result of column C + column D, where column C pulls consecutively from column E. The Fibonacci Series is a series of numbers in which each number ( Fibonacci number ) is the sum of the two preceding numbers. The simplest is the series 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, etc. That's why I consider it a variation. If this particular variation has been done before, I don't know what to look for it as. I also show it in the Vetting spreadsheet, but only to reference which column to look for the result in. It is not used in any of the formulas driving the table between column H and column Z.