TomL

Due to the success of the #Objectvist channel over the past few weeks, I think it is time to get the channel registered so that we can maintain control of it and keep it away from those who would deny us a place of our own. Recent events in the Undernet IRC network have brought this to the forefront and made it urgent. (Bearster has lost control of his channel, #aynrand. I do not condone or sanction in anyway the theft of his channel, and am looking for help in preventing the same thing from happening to me). What I need in order to register the channel for channel service with the IRC network is to have 10 people electronically "register" their support for my IRC channel during a specific 3-day period that begins when I ask for the registration, and additionally log into the channel service and join the channel during the same period. So, I'm looking for anyone willing to help. I will help anyone willing set up IRC software, register for the channel service, and show them how to support my application for registration, so knowledge of all of these steps is not necessary. All that is necessary is a willingness to help and a few minutes of your time during a 3-day period yet to be determined. An overview of the steps involved are: 1) Install IRC software on your computer if you don't have it 2) Go to http://cservice.undernet.org/live/ and click on Register!, and create an account 3) During the 3-day period yet to be determined: a. use the IRC software to connect to Undernet b. use IRC commands to log into X (the channel service) before joining the channel c. join the channel, #Objectivist That should do it. If anyone is willing to help, please go to the website http://cservice.undernet.org/live/ and create an account. PM me with your chosen username for that account so I can list it on my application. I'll then give you whatever help you need to set up the software and teach you how to log in correctly so your support will be counted. Thanks!

I think Ayn Rand used the media willing to talk to her to present the right ideas, just as Dr. Brook will go on whatever TV show will have him, as long as he has an opportunity to state what is right, if not fully explain why. Ayn Rand was no more sanctioning Playboy that Dr. Brook sanctions the O'Reilly Factor. I think you answered your own question best when you said "Rand and editor Hugh Hefner were each in her/his own way enemies of sexual prudery, and of the religious forces that fostered it." There are some very relevant Q&A from that interview to the current discussion, also. To quote from that very interview (emphasis mine): Playboy interview of Ayn Rand, 1964. This last Q&A, in particular, applies directly to sex and hence also to masturbation.

Do you not see the contradiction inherent in these two statements? If sex has its own spirutuality, then that means its spirituality has nothing to do with anything else other than sex. How then, is sex integrated with self-esteem?

I agree completely with your statement. But if you mean to imply that biological life qua life depends on evolution, then I'll say: which came first? Life, or evolution? How can something non-living evolve? While it is true that evolution improves life, it does not create it. The biomechanical processes of an organism do that on their own. It is only a living organism which can evolve; thus, something must be alive first -- only then can evolution take place. What you said before which I disgree with is "Life is the product of evolution." Did you really mean to say "Living organisms are improved by evolution"? The organisms which evolve are not the same concept as the life they possess, and they cannot evolve if they are not first alive.

Not "my" definition, the objective definition. It is at this point all I can say is "look and see". I can no more prove to you the mental components of "sex" anymore than I can prove to you that you are conscious. I have no idea what that means. Do you mean "sex for physical sex itself, apart from any notion of one's self-esteem?" If so, they you are trying to steal the concept of "sex" and replace it with "hedonism". I guarantee you that sex should not be defined this way. It is and has been defined this way in our current culture--so unless you will argue that the current culture must be right for whatever reason you might imagine, then you'll have to give way on this definition. If you want me to believe that sex for man is objectively nothing more than a physical act involving physical pleasure, you'll have to show me how it should not contain any reference to self-esteem at all. I'm sorry, I don't see the analogy. Communication is a means of exchanging ideas, sex is a celebration of self-esteem. Where is the similarity? Also, how is it that "communication" should have a "range of spirituality"? Do you mean that communcation has a range of effectiveness? Do think that it should, ideally?

Here again, the same old error of what sex can be (especially in our current culture) without regard for what sex should be. Since the ideal definition -- the objective definition is the only one Objectivists ought to be concerned with, then all of these various definitions of "sex" that are not consistent with the Objectivist definition are heretofore ignored by me completely. -- Lexicon pg 457, original source The Objectivist Oct. 1968 "Of Living Death". Francisco d'Aconia (and thus, Ayn Rand) said in his speech about sex to Hank Rearden that "an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy". The emotional pleasure of achievement, the self-esteem one gains from one's efficacy, should be expressed, physically. It should be celebrated -- there should be physical pleasure associated with it, or there is no point. One who does not celebrate one's achievements physically becomes an overstressed, overworked burn-out who sees no point in accomplishing anything. Where is the reward? What is "happiness" in one's mind only, without a little song and dance to express it? Does your partner understand your emotional pleasure and its reasons? Does she grasp them first-handedly? Do you know that she does? Does she know that is what you are making love to her for? Do you know that she knows it? Sex is a physical celebration of the emotional sum of all one's accomplishments, of which the thesis paper is only one small element. This requires a broad-spectrum grasp of one's overall efficacy to achieve, and that can only be arrived at through introspection. How do you feel about yourself? What reaction does your body have to your mental estimate of yourself? Anything else that can be called "rational happiness" is only one small part of what sex celebrates.

The error that leads to this is in thinking that "consciousness is a biomechanical process". It is not. Consciousness is caused by a biomechanical process, but it is not the biomechanical process itself. Check on the thread on Consciousness, there's a great deal of overlap here.

If prokaryotes are the first life form, what is the first non-life form referenced here?

One more thing about this: Assuming that the alien actually could exist, just for illustrative purposes, and he could not actually feel pain because he has no equivalent biomechanical mechanism -- he would still be able to grasp the concept of pain. He would be able to know what pain is -- he would not be able to know what pain feels like. Just as many young Objectivists know the definition of romantic love, they can grasp its component cognitive elements and perform the abstraction. Until they actually live life as an adult, however, and meet someone who shares their values and reflects their character, they will not know what it feels like.

Concepts of consciousness cannot use science to provide evidence for or against them. They are observable only through introspection. It is not apparent to you, in which case I would contend you aren't doing it right -- yet. But don't you have a desire to connect that pleasure physically to existence? To experience it through direct sensory perception rather than just emotion? By what means can you do so? Of course I should have qualified my statement to read "for truly rational people." But I hate making such qualifications and I understand why Ayn Rand had a disdain for having to do so. Only if one allows sex to take on different definitions at the range of the moment. If one develops its objective definition for man qua man (not merely man qua animal) and holds true to it, then it has only one place to fit.

While running my dog I realized I made an error myself in my last post here. The definition of pain does not include the biomechanical process which causes it. "Pain" is simply "a physiological response to stimuli that informs the individual of incorrect action". There is no need to grasp the biomechanical process in order to grasp "pain" -- certainly everyone (except for a few genetic defects) before 20th century medicine grasped the concept, but had not means to gain the requisite knowledge for understanding it causes.

Error: If metaphysics and epistemology are "lacking", then it follows that ethics must be also -- since ethics is built hierarchically on metaphysics and epistemology. You can't possibly have perfect ethics if the foundation of those ethics is flawed. Error: If you did not understand the above, then you could not have possibly ever been an Objectivist in any sense of the word. It is a fundamental part of grasping the philosophy. Error: There is no such thing as "learning" a language without understanding the concepts represented by the words. Without the conceptual grasp, the words are just a jumble of symbols with no meaning. Error: As soon as the alien set his own eyes on this world, he starts learning about it, and nothing could stop that in a being capable of traveling here in the first place. Error: The definition of "pain" includes both the biomechanical process which causes it and the qualitative effect. Error: Such aliens do not exist in the universe, and to suppose that they might has nothing to do with philosophy. Philosophy deals with life and the universe at it is, not fantasy worlds that never exist. We don't care what might happen in such places because we live in this universe. Philosophy is not concerned with the epistemology of fictional space aliens. It is only concerned with the espitemology of man.

Robert Heinlein was not right about everything, fortunately -- or we should all have sex with our mothers (Read Time Enough for Love if the joke eludes you). Masturbation is still sex. A man who masturbates fantasizing about his partner who may be physically inaccesible to him for some reason (work travel, perhaps?) is significantly morally different than a man who sneaks in a porn movie while his wife isn't around. What is most important is what is in the mind of the person masturbating; why are they doing it? What thoughts led to their arousal? How do they feel while they are doing it? Ayn Rand said that sex is an "integrated response of mind & body". This means that the body reacts to what the mind thinks -- the value-judgements of the person. Sexual arousal is thus an extension of the emotional mechanism, and is part of the subconscious and must be programmed just like any other part of the subconscious, if one is to have control over it.

But not of the same type as sex, unless you are a hedonist. Sex, as the utmost pleasure available to man, properly requires and should be reserved for the utmost in philosophic valuation that one can muster, not wasted and diminished in value itself by the whim of a range-of-the-moment indulgence. One can work off a bag of chips with a quick run or a treadmill. How will you burn the calories of guilt from your soul when you screw a face and ask for its name later (or not even bother)? Or is your emotional mechanism too inverted now to even feel the guilt? Regardless of whether or not you feel the guilt, I will assert that you could be a happier person if you reserve your sex for the love of your life. It will mean that much more to you when you have it! Ayep. I don't mean that the physical orgasm itself is fake, but the emotional payoff definitely is. So, its OK to be a hedonist as long as you're honest about it? The respect of a porn star is only properly the cause for sex with a porn star if one is also in that line of work. In order for it to be a proper basis for sex, it must be first-handed. You must be able to look your partner in the eyes and say "I know; we are the same!" Further, it really needs to be a productive value you are sharing first-handedly, not a destructive one, or you invert sex and self-esteem in their cause & effect relationship.

If he has in fact pulled a knife on you, then he's already done that. Doing it again will mean nothing to him. Humor that is non-sequitor, i.e. mocking his dress or his hair style because he dislikes capitalism. Almost everyone implicitly understands this kind of fallacy. But more than that: in general, making light of something that's important is to say "this isn't really that important, so lets just mock it instead" -- UNLESS you are certain that all parties to the joke already know what is important and what the truth is. Why do you think sometimes people don't "get" jokes? What is the most common cause of people getting the intent of a joke, but not thinking its funny?

I don't think Frito Lay is to blame either, but we aren't talking about food. We're talking about sex. Sex is properly emotional in nature, while food is physical nourishment. If you will now say that sex is nothing more than physical nourishment and contains no emotional or spiritual considerations in the same way that a bag of chips does not, then I'll agree with you. What's the difference between that and simply not bothering to pretend to have any shared values, respect, or admiration for each other intellectually? It is, in the end, just a pretense -- the same as the sexual arousal gained from pornography is a pretense. Either way, there is no actual shared value, respect or admiration. And then with a simple substition we can say: If a man were to pay a woman to watch her having sex...

Being in opposition to something is not the same as using force. For example, I am opposed to the use of pornography for means of sexual gratification. But I firmly believe in every man's right to make that choice for himself, as long as he doesn't harm others. I would agree that prostitution ought to be legal. This is the most morally deplorable idea I have ever read on this board, not because it uses pornography, but because you are harming others in an area of great spiritual importance. I will fight for your right to use pornography for yourself anyway you like, but when you use it in this way to damage the minds of others, it is despicable. You have shown these women a false alternative: either sex is repressed and procreational only, or it is a mass of spiritualless hedonistic physical indulgence. You have allowed them to choose between "sex can be this, or it can be that" but you haven't showed them what sex should be. This is not the first time I have heard the "sex can be many things" argument. It comes from the angle of identifying what exists currently in our culture. But so does altruism, socialism, and "modern" art -- and no one is saying "morality can be altruistic, so its OK if it is". If you will then say that the ideal is not practical, I will refer you to Chapter 9 of OPAR, the section titled "Virtue as Practical".

I've been gathering my thoughts on this and waiting until I had them mostly in order before I posted. The definitions of pornography here which have included the purpose of it are wrong. Pornography's purpose is to make the creator of it money, but that is not essential to its definition. Pornography is the depiction of intellectually, and thus spiritually, valueless sexual intercourse. It purpose is not to arouse, but to act as a substitute for actual, proper sex. Several posters have already said they are using for that purpose (i.e. "if I had a romantic partner....") If this is not true, let's see a show of hands of people who would rather use pornography than a live body? No takers? While you've all been arguing about what pornography is and is not, you've been dancing around the real question. Since pornography is a subsitute for sex, you should be asking what sex is, and then comparing pornography's use as a substitute to the Real Thing[tm]. Lexicon pg. 457-458 ... which is exactly what one does when one "gets off" with porn, because the femininity a man sees in pornography-- the object of his sexual desire -- is disintegrated from the woman who could reflect his own highest values in himself. This is why the women in porn are just "pieces of meat".

They are also included; they are value-judgements. Much of the time, implicit ones starting from childhood. Unforutnately, in our culture this means much of this is done rather second-handedly

Philosophy includes the branch of aesthetics, it is not apart from philosophy. A woman who dresses smartly, wears her hair appropriately for her face, and applies her makeup in the most flattering way possible for herself is saying something about how she values herself. Conversely, a slob in a sweat suit with no makeup and her hair in a rubber band says something about how she values herself at well. For fitness: same thing. A woman who is fit, has curves where she should and none where she shouldn't, is that way because she made herself that way. A blob with rolls poking out here and there made herself that way (or allowed herself to be that way) as well. Yes: even women who have a lower metabolism can still diet and excercise properly if they choose to do it! There is no reason why anyone must remain overweight, even if they are genetically predisposed to be that way. That is why it is said to be predisposition and not a necessity. So men who are attracted to certain women are attracted to them because of value-judgements they have formed -- for most men these value-judgements are implicit, but they are value-judgements nonetheless. To summarize: there is no dichotomy between philosophic values and appearance, because one's appearance is a philosophic value (either positive or negative).

If you mean, that somehow context is relevant to whether a person has a right to the use & disposal of his own property, then I'll agree that context is not relevant. If you mean that somehow I would then throw context out the window in deciding what recourse to take about someone who did tresspass or steal from me, then I'll reject that conclusion out of hand, as I have made no statements at all with regard to punishment other than the cessation of service (as an injured ISP party). If you want to maintain a fair analogy, then coming off the sidewalk and approaching the front door is the same as ESSID discovery (browsing for available wireless networks). It is entirely reasonable for someone to be able to discover the contents and limits of their environment. Actually connecting to a wireless network is a dfferent matter; the equivalent in the house analogy is opening the front door, walking inside, and making yourself at home without the homeowner's permission. Are you now going to assert that people who leach off of open wireless connections without consent do so without knowing they are doing it? Killing someone can only be done if your life or the life of someone else is in jeopardy. I don't see how someone stepping off the sidewalk onto your front lawn, or stealing Internet access from your unsecured access point constitutes an imment threat of death.

Damn! She beat me to it

This is almost right, but not quite. The reason its wrong is that a wireless LAN is someone's private property -- they bought the router and set it up for their own use. They have the rights of use & disposal for that LAN, no one else. It is not up to you to try to figure out if they meant for it to be public or not. Unless there is an explicit declaration by the owner that is open to the public, then it is not -- even if you are certain that no one is being injured because (for the sake of example) you know their upstream Internet connection is free and no one is home to use the connection. They set the terms for use of their property, and if you don't know the terms you must assume that it is off limits. This goes for any kind of property and is the only way to maintain true property rights. It sends us all down a slippery slope to use the "who is injured?" standard as a basis for property rights.

He's going to think you're mocking him or his resolve, and then he'll want to prove you wrong or make an example of you in order to get what he's after. We're not talking about Joe Blow street walker here, you already know this is a very malevolent person from the fact that he pulled a knife on you. You can't treat him the same way you would a casual acquaintence at a party who mocks capitalism. But even in the latter case, I would state the correct ideas as a real defense -- trying to blow him off with a joke would only make me look like a dogmatist, or someone who doesn't care about capitalism.

This is pure fantasy. I never lived in a world where such a "tradition" existed. Is this on this planet somewhere? Do you mean "tradition amongst people who know how to easily tresspass and rationalize it"? Or you really think that "tradition" exists among the typical Joe Blow Internet user at large? Speaking from the position of a networking professional who owns an ISP, I can say you are sadly mistaken if you think the latter, and I'm almost certain that my contact with the general Internet user population is a much broader cross-section of the population than yours. Except that web sites are put up for the purpose of having others view them. Wireless networks are generally put up for the purpose of creating a personal wireless LAN with no intent of having others use it. Yes, they have to take responsbility, just as they should be responsible and lock the front door. That doesn't mean if they forget that its an open license for you to walk in and watch their TV.