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.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dream_weaver

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. Are readers to presume that the DOI is intended to reference the Declaration of Independence?
  5. 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.
  6. 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).
  7. 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.
  8. I see why the variation on the Fibonacci Series works now. It is another form of expressing the "condensed recap".
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. An absurdly large counterexample would be considered as evidence to the contraire, so mere evidence one way or the other either counts for something or it counts for nothing in mathematics. If you want to check my math, please do. If you have questions pertaining to grasping something you do not understand within it, please ask. I am confident what I have presented is based on sound mathematical principles, although I could use some help understanding why the variation on the Fibonacci sequence works as used.
  12. There is a variation on the Fibonacci sequence present that revealed several different analytic approaches. This is used extensively in the Recursive and Vetting spreadsheets. The read only format provided by google does not make the pulldown list tied to the odd number column to manipulate the exponents and show the successive layering. You know, from beam analysis and Newton's calculus, that often many calculations are required to determine a precise answer for a specific instance. Trifurcate uses an approach that examines the series of all numbers that 3n+1 requires 3 or more subsequent divisions by two to become odd into three categories while simultaneously working the problem in reverse, one level deeper every time. At each level, 1/3 indicate that it can be reversed no farther. 1/3 show the next step that requires only 1 division to make a 3n+1 become odd again, and 1/3 where 2 divisions are required to do the same. The same process is applied to the two separate solutions resulting in six groups that are 1 term longer than the preceding, with two stopping, while four groups move to the next stage. Lather, rinse and repeat. The Fibonacci sequence can be extended indefinitely. It correlates with the odd numbers, which can be extended indefinitely, in such a way as to denote the power of 2 that will reduce the even result of any particular 3n+1 to an odd number again. (n)2x where n is odd allows x to be a variable starting from 0, incrementing by 1 indefinitely. The process working with just the (n)21 and (n)22 in the Trifurcate section can be extended indefinitely. The hardest part to put into words is how the Trifurcate works backwards from a 4n+1 (5, 13, 21, . . . ) to its 3n1 (3, 9, 15, . . . ) counterpart, before being passed off to another 4n+1/3n1 counterpart, without being able to enter at any specific 3nx. This is the same solution I've seen since September 2013. Now it has been imported into Excel format, and simplified to take advantage of the more limited scope that Google offers online. The variation on the Fibonacci sequence is new. It simplifies the explanation of Recursive Aspect. 1. Recursive Collatz Aspect 2. Trifurcate Collatz 3. Vetting Collatz A refinement of:
  13. Nearly two years later, I find that I created a document on November 24, 2014 and finally made it public on February 18, 2017. Since then I made two more public on February 28, 2017. These three google spreadsheets have condensed the range and scope of an excel spreadsheet immensely. It is too soon to expect any serious comment on these works, and I've decided to bypass the "gatekeepers" in the ongoing effort to continue to examine the facts, as I understand them, for myself. For anyone interested in the conjecture that are not following the limited (but presumably interested) audience I've submitted this to so far, there they are: 1. Recursive Collatz Aspect 2. Trifurcate Collatz 3. Vetting Collatz 1 and 2 isolate two very distinctive natures I've observed in my examinations, so far, as identified. 3 puts the two approaches together as I currently understand it. I'm not so much looking to examine other approaches to the Collatz, but rather I am interested in where there may be shortcomings in the approach provided. Or to put it in Objectivist terminology: with each formula, is it True or False?—Right or Wrong? with the same questions being applied to each consecutive page. The underlying premise contained is operating from the standpoint that all of the evidence points to the Conjecture being true, with absolutely no evidence available to the contraire. The onus of proof lies on he who asserts the positive. A claim or assertion that there may be an unidentified, unsubstantiated exception only holds traction with skeptics seeking a foothold in the realm of unmitigated doubt. The positive, in this case, is laid out in "spades", to the best of my knowledge.
  14. Seeing "why the choice is morally obligatory" brings to mind "The moral is the chosen, not the forced, the understood, not the obeyed." A question that might be drawn from this: Does Rand state that the moral is the chosen, implying all the way down, and extending to all choices? If so, what grounds does Peikoff have for stating that the choice to live is exempt? Clearly to me, the context is set from earlier positing that at each step of reasoning is subject to "the constant choice in answer to the question: True or False?—Right or Wrong?" Clearly she holds that the morality of reason is right and proper for man. In fact, she argued for it extensively. Until a child reaches an "age of accountability" (and I'm not advocating Mormonism, but often myths are built around kernels of truth) is acting in a way to please mommy and daddy by not doing things they disapprove of and doing things they approve of the same as the discovery of right and wrong as it applies to human behavior? Even with the initial discovery that X is right and Y is wrong, does such a discovery firmly plant "life as the standard" of morality? What happens when you reach the stage where you view which "theory of concepts" you embrace as a moral issue? It is. Again, it is the chosen. Rising to the political level, the principle of individual rights protects those in the wrong to be wrong . . . provided . . . they do not infringe on your rights. In an Objectivist society, does "morally obligatory" extend to passing legislation barring anything other than "life as the standard of morality"? Or as Harry Binswanger reiterates often in his lectures "as opposed to what?" Choosing 'life" as a standard of value—as opposed to what? Rand took great strides to indicate what the alternative to "life" amounted to.
  15. I've watched you wax eloquent on the subject for some time, but this sticks (one must choose to live, before one embraces morality) in my craw. We eat, yes. as babies, we cry when we are hungry. But volition begins with the first syllogism. We learn language, starting with first level concepts, moving toward being able to coalesce our thoughts cogently. Mom/Dad put food on the table, we eat—because we are hungry. At 2 . . . have we learned what something as abstract as "life" is?, much less recognizing that a code of morality extends from the recognition that existence exists—and in a single choice: to live? I respect the fact that to you, life is a value. Haven't you, then, already made the choice to live (explicitly or implicitly)? There may be many compelling reasons to offer someone else for living. Conceptually, the question boils down to what does the concept of morality presuppose? If it presupposes the choice to live, then how does that choice qualify as moral?
  16. If this means stepping in front of the juggernaut, prudence dictates otherwise. As was indicated earlier, not paying taxes, or more specifically, individuals or even a small community actively seeking to secede are used as examples to put on the 10:00 news, keeping the silent machine rolling seemingly relentlessly forward.
  17. I'm not so sure. Referencing "The God of the Machine" (Pg. 27): Men made the statutes; and it was understood that a statute might be inequitable or ill-advised, but a bad law reflected on the legislators; statutes were open to change, without impairing the majesty of the law in principle. The means of repeal or alteration were provided, without recourse to violence. Thus the idea of law answered to reason though it was superior to expediency. Not speaking for Don Athos and simultaneously addressing part of Eioul's point, it seems that descriptive law versus prescriptive law again rears with regard to taxation.
  18. According to the link you provided epistemologue: E. TAX & MILITARY OBLIGATIONS /NO ESCAPE FROM PROSECUTION Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect on their U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed in the United States, or escape the repayment of financial obligations, including child support payments, previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad. Continuing to work in the US after renunciation of citizenship may be more difficult, but I doubt it can be used as a dodge of future taxes if pursued here.
  19. From Rand's notes: [Toohey] is the great Nihilist of the spirit. Toohey understands human greatness and the motive-power of human greatness better than any other man in the story. Roark is great, but too unself-conscious to analyze or understand it—for a long time. Keating and Wynand seek greatness blindly. Toohey knows its roots. One other passage I found that comes across as relevant to myself is from OPAR Pg. 170 Of all the variants of emotionalism, nihilism is the ugliest. Working off your title question accordingly: All power-lusters are emotionalists. Some emotionalists are nihilists.
  20. Except that it isn't. If life is what you want, you must pay for it, by accepting and practicing a code of rational behavior. Morality, too, is a must—if; it is the price of the choice to live. That choice itself, therefore, is not a moral choice; it precedes morality; it is the decision of consciousness that underlies the need of morality. OPAR Pg. 245 Miss Rand addresses this with the exchange between Dagny Taggart and Hugh Akston in the valley: So long as men desire to live, I cannot lose my battle." "Do they?" said Hugh Akston softly. "Do they desire it?
  21. Living along in a small, detached home may save less money than living with roommates, but why does it necessitate attaching it to an ideal, or even right or wrong? I like strawberry rhubarb pie. You may not. Strawberry rhubarb pie may be a little more expensive than apple. Does this make the preference less than ideal, or right or wrong? In a world where prescriptive law (moral or otherwise) seems preferential to descriptive law, maybe the price differential holds more weight. I'm of the mindset that my taste buds set the objectivity of my preferences with regard to what I eat (obviously setting nutrition and other health related issues aside). In so far as preference goes, I'm willing to concede that you, objectively, may like apple pie more or value your pocketbook more than your taste-bud input, but in so far as matters of personal preference goes, this moves the matter out of of the realm of prescriptive morality at that point.
  22. Where would you draw the line between objective legal engineering and intrusive micromanaging? From what I can gather, the "invisible hand" relies on the virtue of the pawns.
  23. The God of the Machine, by Isabel Patterson I thumbed through this back in the 90's. It has been a more interesting read after re-immersing myself in Ayn Rand's literature over the past several years. Here's a couple of highlights that stood out in the first third of the book. Informed and thoughtful Americans remained aware that the savage in his original condition did obey a moral code although he had no government. Being acquainted at first hand with the limitations of a primitive culture, such men of intellect had no desire to revert to savagery in quest of a sentimental illusion; what interested them was the reasonable question: if government did not prevent crime and enforce virtue, what did it do? If in certain conditions government could be dispensed with altogether, why and to what extent was it actually necessary in any condition? Pg. 65 Essentially, this boils down to the question: What is the purpose of Government? By this view, men are neither wholly "noble" nor incorrigibly bad, but rather imperfect creatures gifted with the divine spark and so capable of improvement, perhaps in the long run of "perfectibility." This is essentially a secular application of the Christian doctrine of the individual soul, born to immortality, with the faculty of free-will, which includes the possibility of sin or error, yet equally enabled to strive toward salvation, its heritage. Let anyone who does not recognize the connection of these principles try to rewrite the Declaration of Independence without reference to a divine source of human rights. It cannot be done; the axiom is missing. A philosophy of materialism can admit no rights whatever; hence the most grinding despotism ever known resulted at once from the "experiment" of Marxist communism, which could posit nothing but a mechanistic process for its validation. The Christian idea was necessary to the concept of freedom. The Roman idea was indispensable for the form—a government of laws and not of men. The question posed by the absence of government in savage society had to be dropped for the time being, because nobody recognized it as a matter of engineering; and it cannot be expressed otherwise. It is of course a moral problem, since it concerns the relation of human beings; but the specific relations involved are those which include time and space. The organization of actions over time and space constitutes the science of engineering. Pg. 69-70 Written in 1943, 14 years prior to the publication of the 12 year effort to write Atlas Shrugged, along with numerous mentions in her letters and journal notes about "The God of the Machine", I can't help but wonder if Isabel threw down the gauntlet, so to speak, with regard to my bolded passages. Government by force is a contradiction in terms and an impossibility in physics. Force is what is governed. Government originates in the moral faculty. Pg. 72 In a hyperbole that I am fond of asking at times: If the right questions lead to the right answers, where do the wrong questions lead? — I can't help but wonder how much influence Isabel Patterson may have held given the numerous references that Ayn Rand attributed to her in letters, journal entrees and subsequent articles (The Objectivism Research CD-Rom.)
  24. I used a particular protest, elements of which reminded me of Miss Rand's article. Both took place at Berkeley. Both were directed toward aspects disagreement with the policies of the administration. It would be quite the hasty generalization to go from two particulars being wrong to "violent resistances are always wrong." Patterson's consideration of old Seattle's speech characterized how an elder statesman of the Noble Savages viewed the young braves. I did not look for supporting documentation to find commentary about the recent Berkeley incident that might characterize the protesters in a similar vein. I'm enjoying re-reading Patterson's book. Seeing some of Miss Rand's comments in her review of the book points out Patterson's reliance on engineering terms creates the impression of a metaphorical discussion. And with metaphor in mind, some day Rand should reach the status of Pytheas, albeit without the loss of her books.
  25. I was using "children" as a pejorative. Since the age of reason, better reasoning has been available, just not availed to. In the case of the Indian braves, they were acting according to their traditions and upbringing. Patterson's passage on rights came later in the book, and the simple meaning, as she iterates, seems to have been forgotten or deliberately obscured. In this case it seems the "right" demanded by the protesters is veto power over the school's right to set the venue for a particular speaker.