Felix

"... but some are more equal than others."

If I understood you correctly, psychological independence is largely emotional independence. But it seems that you add a bit of intellectual independence to the picture. This said, emotional independence, as all independence is based on intellectual or mental independence. Now what does emotional independence specifically look like? First of all it means that your emotional life is not dependent on what other people think about what you do. What, then is it dependent on? It's dependent on your own judgement. Basically emotional independence means that you live your life on your own terms and don't back down just because someone doesn't like it. So 'social anxiety' is a sign of a lack of emotional independence. I think Roark is a good example of emotional independence and Keating is a perfect example of the opposite. Emotional independence is achieved by taking your own thoughts serious. And especially by taking them more serious than other people's thoughts. There is an old Zen saying: Never put another head above your own. I think that sums it up quite well. You can support your therapy by putting any thought/belief that your emotional well-being depends on what other people think of you to question and to debate it in writing. Doing this regularly (Picking one or two beliefs and tearing them down with reason 15 minutes in the morning and in the evening should be sufficient) will diminish their effect on your thinking. Your post suggests that you judge emotional dependence as irrational. So this exercise may help you live this. I can recommend watching "The Shawnshank Redemption". I don't know if the book is as good. But movies also have a strong effect on your emotions. Good Premises, Felix.

Hey, someone got the joke.

Hey! Homeless-Newspapers. We have that in Germany, too. I learned about this in a strange fashion. There was a guy in the streets openly shouting "Homeless-Newspaper" over and over again. He suddenly approached me directly. He didn't spreak German even remotely well, so I didn't understand him, even though I really tried. What I understood was that he was trying to sell me his newspaper. I then repeatedly told him that I had no interest in this. He somehow didn't understand that, because he consistently tried to push me to buy that. Being all puzzled, I just left him standing there and went away. A friend of mine then tried to explained this to me: F: "He wants you to buy his newspaper." Me: "Yes, I understood that. But I don't want to buy his newspaper. It looks rather boring." F: "That's not why you should buy it." Me: "Why else should I buy it? If he just wants charity money he can just ask." To me this seemed just like a way to make charity look like business and I didn't like it. I wasn't an Objectivist back then. In fact I was more of a socialist. Still, this seemed like fraud to me. I once bought one of these newspapers out of charity from a woman who really looked bad and I truly felt sorry for her and by then I was curious enough to have a look at one of these newspapers. It wasn't really worth the money. Even though it was just a curiosity-buy. What makes me wonder is: They go through all these efforts to create that newspaper and in the end they have something nobody really wants to buy. Why don't they just sell successful magazines or newspapers on a commission basis? They will sell more and make more money and the money will be truly earned instead of begged for. But that's not allowed, I guess, since it would be exploitation.

I found it on a German site. The article sounded reasonable. It was about artificial learning systems going berserk. It also said that an automatic videorecorder (I forgot its name) only recorded homosexual stuff for one guy, who then tried to "re-establish his manlihood" by only programming war and action movies which resulted in the system to only record Nazi documentations from then on. I didn't reach the end of the article, because my computer broke down before I could scroll down to the end of the page. They also said that Amazon had taken that link out directly after finding it - naturally. So I don't think it's a spoof to discredit Pat Robertson. I think this actually happened. And I think it's funny.

I just had to laugh when I read this, even though I don't know Pat Robertson. All I know is that he is a TV-priest of some sort. Amazon usually then recommends books that most other buyers also bought. Interesting what it shows about the sexual orientation of fundamentalist Christians.

Well, if this is the case, then I'll have a wonderful new year. I made thirty dollars with my small website while I was out partying. I woke up without even having a hangover today and found 40$ in my Adsense account with only 10 bucks spent on advertising. Talk about a good start into the year.

I like that one: "I found him. I have Jesus in the trunk."

... and good premises.

Here's the Southpark treatment of Scientology. It is nothing short of hilarious. The "This is what scientologists actually believe"-banner made me laugh real hard. If there is anything like this on Kwaanza (I have never heard of it before, actually), please let me know. These guys deserve it.

I understand your point. If there is no free will, then there is no real thinking possible, then there can be no knowledge. That's a strong one. If there is no free will, then everything is pointless including this discussion. But: What do we do with physics then? And what is the nature of the mind, if it is not physical, that means: if it can't be measured? And how does the mind interact with the body? Can it exist without the body? After all, it's not physical. If the statement that there is free will is actually true, that means that there is something wrong with the laws of physics as far as we understand it now. And this would throw us directly into the debate of whether our mind can influence matter somehow, because it has to influence us somehow. Somehow I manage to conciously wiggle my toe. How do I do that if my mind is not physical? This is nothing but a complete mind-body split. I really try to fully understand this position. But so far it just still seems to contradict other objectivist principles (like the primacy of existence), which is why I still struggle with this.

I can only agree. The best way to learn it is to hear it. I don't know what the Pimsleur method is, however. I recommend trying to get movies, audio and books in that language about stuff that interests you. Read new books you wanted to read in English in that language (preferrably with subtitles). It will take you a lot of time to get through the books at first, but your natural interest in the subject will keep you going and your retention rate will be brilliant. Besides, you do things you would just do anyway and learn a language while doing it. So this way you don't have to spend extra time. I learned English at school for years, but I only got good at it once I started watching English movies on DVD, watching Dilbert and listening to George Carlin. It was hilarious and I learned more with that method and I learned it better than I ever did at school. And I was a very good student. Then, once you know the basics, find some places online to talk to people in that language, again preferrably about topics of your interest. This is crucial. It will not seem like learning a language to you. It is something natural, you just talk about your topic of interest. This will also allow you very early to 'think' in that language. And starting with that frame of mind alone boosts your learning speed tremendously. Which language do you want to learn?

I love this part: I need this book.

Ravane, I think there is a lot of stuff mixed up in your initial post. Here are my two cents about it: About living a life all by yourself and having little contact with other people: There are basically two approaches to this: (1) Having, basically, given up on people and shying away from any social life. (2) Really having better things to do. Your approach seems to be number 2. But there is something of number 1 in it. Something like "Why do I live on the planet of the apes?". It is something I felt myself for a long long time. There was a time when I got sick (really physically sick) when I went to the mall to buy stuff because I had to look at all the people and thought about how meaningless they spend their lives. My solution to this was a simple thought: Why care? Let them be stupid. Their stupidity should not reign my mind. If I get all mad and upset about this, then this is something I do. I give their stupid behavior more relevance than it deserves. After having that thought initially, I was immediately cured. They may be irrational. But my anger at them is, too. So I gave it up and minded my own business. You said that the one thing that makes you angry is taxation. Well, that's something you can't change that easily and you have every right to be angry here. But unless you take action to change this, all your anger will be in vain. You spend your time being angry, even, rightfully, about something you don't change. I'd say that you waste your emotions there. I understand your anger, but I want you to understand that unless you put it to use, either to motivate you to fight against this or to channel this into your work, then you ruin your emotional life without results. Now the question is: Do you hand over the world to evil by using this almost stoicistic approach? Well, you always have the opportunity to use your lifetime to fight this stupidity by finding a way to reach people. But this, too, won't work by being angry and shouting at people who just don't understand or simply don't even want to understand. This will even work against your intentions. And the question is also whether saving the world from stupidity is your job. And why? I have found my peace in this issue by minding my own business and politely but clearly tearing down every stupid argument I hear (with the intent of teaching). For all the rest, I have no time.

Wow. Seems like my hopes were justified. I have to get that book.

Thanks. Seeing it written in capital letters made me think it was a special term.

There's a nice article, partly about the value of the SETI project, on Michael Crichton's website. Here's the link and a short excerpt: By the way, the speech is called: Aliens Cause Global Warming.

Thanks for the links. I always wanted to know what "tiddlywink"-music sounds like. It deserves its name.

It was intended as a joke. Sorry for the mistake. What is the Pale of Intellectual Concord?

Now what! Either LFC has a built-in defense or it hasn't! Inspector says no, Fear No Evil says yes. Inspector, I have never said that LFC should make everyone happy. I just said that it could end if given no right protection and wondered what that protection could look like. But now the issue is settled for me.

1 Well, I can't say everything in one sentence. It however doesn't matter whether it's 28000, 29000something, or even 1000.000 days. My point relies on the fact that your time on earth is finite. If you would not die one day, there would be no hurry for sex or money. I wanted to say that the reason we seek values at all is because we only have a limited time on earth to do so. Otherwise, why all the hassle? If I had all the time in the world, I could just wait. But in reality, I can't. 2 Yup, but the reason for this is that your life will end some day.

What make you think that it has to stay that way just by means of definition? I understand that the definition of laissez-faire capitalism doesn't allow this and I also see it as the most moral system. My doubt was, however, raised by the idea that this political ideal may not last. The era of laissez-faire could end. Simply because the law is open for correction. And laissez-faire is always under attack. Everyone who wrongly assumes to be done wrong will blame it on laissez-faire, same as today. And then the law makes a small correction, and then another one ... and all of a sudden, oh wonder, it's obviously no longer laissez-faire. This could happen by a mass of "poor people" or a small group of "rich people". The one has votes, the other money. Both are very tempting to politicians. I answered it right in my post. This is less likely to happen in LFC than in any other system. But that doesn't mean that it can't happen there at all. Currently I think that LFC needs a strong legal self-protection mechanism. With that one given, everything will be fine, I guess. But only if it is impossible to change the law in a way that politics is allowed to interfere with economics. Given that clause, I think, it will turn out fine. I was just some doubt I hoped to lose. And I did. Thanks to all of you for your help.

I understand that. But using techniques is different from being dishonest. You can pretend with these techniques, yes. But you don't have to. My point is: You have to communicate somehow. And if you currently don't get your point accross, then this doesn't have to find its cause in bad intentions but can also be based on a wrong way of expressing yourself. I think these techniques help, but I agree that they don't replace basic honesty and caring. But they can help communicating it. [Edit: Great, now I answered a deleted post. ]

Thanks for the link to the book. And thanks for explaining my point better than I did.