Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

intellectualammo

Patron
  • Posts

    1874
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by intellectualammo

  1. You are right, in so far as Galts primary concern was the best, not the rest: From Rands journal: In a note AR wrote to her publisher (of We the Living) Feb.2,1936: I didn't say or mean to imply what Akston did was wrong, just wondering as to why.
  2. No, just sharing personal experience. I shared personal experience in the other thread as well. I have been looking at what Peikoff talks about with the subconscious in OPAR and its relation to value-judgments. "Ones value judgments, like one's past knowledge, are present in the subconscious - meaning by this term a store of the mental contents one has acquired by conscious means, but which are not in conscious awareness at a given time. Under the appropriate conditions, the mind applies such contents to a new object automatically and instantaneously, without the need of further conscious consideration. To many people, as a result, it seems a if men perceive and then feel, with no intervening factor. The truth is that a chain of ideas and value-judgments intervened." Said "value-judgments do not exist in a vacuum. Value-judgments are formed ultimately on the basis of a philosophic view of man and of life - of oneself of others, of the universe; such a view, therefore, conditions one's emotions" "The fact that a man has a certain feeling means merely that, through some kind of process, he earlier reached a certain idea, which is now stored in his subconscious; this leaves completely open the question of the ideas relationship to reality" So just how does it apply to human sexuality?
  3. I admittedly have had my dick up two women's poop chutes before, and the best sex I ever had was with a married female from Myanmar (who I was having sex with over a period of weeks) because of how sweet and petite her sexy little body was and had a pretty face and best kisser I have ever had the pleasure of being with, she'd latch on, and... anyways, that was in my 20's and it didn't have much to do with her as a person, just her body. One can be in romantic love and not have good sex. It's an integration of mind and body. But it makes sense that the best sex I had body wise could have been even more pleasurable if I would have taken The Selfish Path to Romance with her, instead of the path that led to it initially. I guess that would mean it was disintegrated then. No wonder it didn't work. Mdegges: Peikoff said in a podcast on homosexuality that he thinks sexuality was formed subconsciously during early childhood. Not sure of just how much of a choice then he thinks a person has in the matter.
  4. Eiul wrote: " I also thought of IA's post suggesting non-vaginal sex isn't "really" sex." Only men and women are sexually compatible. Their sex organs, their gender were biologically made for one another, not for same-sex. Just because you can put a mouth around a penis, or cram it up a poop chute, or use one's tongue on clit/vulva, etc does not mean that that is sex. It should not be considered that. I think it would be a stolen concept. A mouth, a tongue, hand, ass, etc are not technically sexually compatible. Only a penis and vagina are. Sex is short for sexual intercourse. Calling anything else that is fallacy of the stolen concept. Stimulating a penis by hand, mouth, ass is not sex. Peikoff regards masturbation as sex. I think we need to look at that more closely epistemologically, define terms correctly.
  5. Rand: "Intellectually and morally, I.e, as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity" "Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity itself" His gender, his maleness, his masculinity, his manhood - a man! Not another woman, not womanness, not femininity, not womanhood - a man! Not another species' male- not big thick horse cock, not dog dick, but a man's dick! To a female a woman qua woman whose essence is femininity, a male a man qua man, him being a male his masculinity, is of such value significance to her it's indispensable in romantic love and of course sex. Female with male, woman qua woman with man qua man - is normal, natural, and proper for Man. Same-sex together and different species together are both psychologically improper, immoral. And if its hedonism, it's immoral. Human sexuality has a biological basis as evidenced by the gender specific sex organs and their purpose and function in human sexual reproduction, copulation. This does not change on the conceptual level. Masculinity is "male" writ large and femininity is "female" writ large. Male should want female, a man qua man should want a woman qua woman. Gender/Sex/sexual identity of a human does not "disappear" on the conceptual level, it's writ large, it's a higher view of the biologically given the metaphysically given, not a disposing of it altogether. But even more demanding of it. Never losing awareness of one's sex and the sex of others. Rands novels all had such human sexuality in them. Man and woman, male and female. Leo:
  6. Rand: " Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values." Or divorced from gender, may I add. Only a man and a woman are capable of experiencing this together, not same-sex.
  7. Nicky wrote: "homosexuality can in fact be a rational, moral choice" What is so rational and moral about it? How is one able to have sexual desire towards someone they cannot even physically have sex with? Sexual desire, sexual attraction, sexual orientation, romantic love, are only possible between opposite genders. All the rest are hedonism, psychological issues. If one shares common interest and core values with same-sex that is a great basis for a friendship, not a trip to the bedroom together.
  8. I don't regard oral stimulation of a penis as sex. Using one's own anal cavity to stimulate a penis, I do not regard as sex. I do not regard such oral or anal activity as sex, regardless if its occurring between same-sex or opposite gender. Human sex only can take place between a man and a woman. Human sexuality is heterosexual in nature, human biology evidences this. Just because same-sex partners can stimulate their partners sex organs various ways, does not mean it's normal and natural. Sex is bringing love into physical reality, as OPAR says. How can same-sex bring that into physical reality, when they cannot physically have sex to begin with? Homosexuality, bisexuality are not sexual orientations. They are hedonism, they are psychological issues, etc.
  9. Indeed. I have noted that very thing in my thread on Rand editing We The Living. http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24819
  10. Same-sex are biologically sexually incompatible because they have the same sex organs, etc. So they improvise. Nature be damned. Just how "normal and natural" is that? Just how moral is that? Just how much like sexual hedonism does it sound like? I don't care if we are biologically sexually incompatible, I have feelings for same-sex, or I have feelings for different species. Nature be damned. I'll fellate same-sex, or fellate different species (horse, dog) because I have feelings for them.
  11. When I look at reality, only men and women can have sexual intercourse. Same-sex "sex" is merely stimulating same sex partners sexual organs. Being that only men and women can have sexual intercourse, sexual attraction would then be towards opposite sex, not towards same sex, so that's why we are normally and naturally heterosexual. But I will have to explore that more. As I said I'm trying to look at the facts of reality and go from there, that what Rand did to discover Mans Nature, so I'm trying to do that in regards to male and females.<br /><br />On this site:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_and_homosexuality<br /><br />Binswanger says that Rand when in an especially good mood would adopt a modified view on homosexuality. This strikes me as odd, her judgment is pronounced according to mood?
  12. While I have been looking around on the web some, I found a comment by someone that says: " You should be happy to know that near the end of her life, Harry Binswanger asked AR if she still believed that homosexuality was immoral. She said, "No." This is the reason that Robert Mayhew did not include AR's earlier condemnation of homosexuality. It was a position she no longer held. I learned both of these facts directly from asking HB and RM." http://www.atlassociety.org/homosexuality-moral This also has a reference to Binswanger asking Rand and what he say she said: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q5.2.6 " Reports of private conversations held before and after these answers were given indicate that she sometimes expressed a more qualified position, stating that because the psychological origins of homosexuality were not clearly understood, blanket moral condemnation would be inappropriate. For example, Harry Binswanger described her attitude thusly: I asked her privately (circa 1980) specifically whether she thought it was immoral. She said that we didn't know enough about the development of homosexuality in a person's psychology to say that it would have to involve immorality. Because she did not speak at length on the subject in public and no essays about it were published by her or her associates during her lifetime, any further details of her positions are not known, although her personal disapproval and distaste for homosexuality are clear." Peikoff in a pod cast I linked to in the other thread, says there are parallels between homosexual and heterosexual, and just like there are moral or immoral heterosexual sex, there are moral or immoral in homosexuality. I look to the facts of reality and go from there.
  13. Has anyone read his novels? Executive Suite? Cash McCall? I have a quote from one of them that's worth looking more at his works: "We maintain that the very foundation of our way of life is what we call free enterprise - the profit motive" But, if someone does earn even a small profit "we do our best to make him feel that he ought to be shamed."
  14. I am a human being, is the biologically given. My feelings do not change that. I am a man, not a woman- is the biologically given. My feelings do not change that. I am a man, and so I have a certain biological role in human sexual reproduction. My feelings do not change that role. A man and a woman have certain biological roles in human sexual reproduction. That is the biologically given. My feelings do not change that. Both are heterosexual is the biologically given. Same-sex "sex", or even with different species (as evidenced by zootube365 site if you don't believe it occurs), is going against their biologically given roles. Feelings don't change that. But, one can have feelings such as "I'm really a woman" while clearly a man. Or I have feelings or an attraction to same-sex. Those feelings don't change the biologically given. Is man able to have sex with a man? I don't think they can, but they can fellate and one can use ones own rectum to stimulate the other guys penis or allow him to, masturbate the other guy with one's own hand, etc. Their biological role in sex, is sex with a woman. The sex organs evidence that. Human sexual intercourse, copulation, cannot take place between same-sex. Only between penis and vag. What if they are two consenting males that want to partake in such acts? Legally no one can stop it, because no force is being initiated.
  15. OPAR: "There is no dichotomy between existence and reality. To be, for a man, is to be a man" Right. I think this is applicable to gender, as well. I am a man. She is a woman. These are facts of reality, the metaphysically biologically given. Man has a certain nature and should act accordingly, men and women have a certain nature specifically to them, too, one example is gender specific parts.
  16. Do you not recognize it? every "is" implies and "ought". Rand said it. She applied it to Man. My point, is that male and female, each implies an ought, too. Look at her view on femininity, masculinity, and hero worship. She also said it this way: "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." Btw, you have a thread with the former quote in the title: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=10399
  17. The standard is Man qua man. Man is, and every is implies an ought. This is applicable to females and males, too.
  18. High end sex dolls can be a rational alternative, can be treated like "masturbating in style" as Stacy Leigh once described it, etc. Nothing wrong with a guy like me who is not only working on his own moral character, but the moral character of those around him are not enough to warrant having sex with and choose dolls. They are not the same gender as I am, btw. I talk more about them in my thread on Kira kissing statues thread: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25134
  19. OPAR: "To respect sex means to approach it objectively" "Sex is the preeminent form of bringing love into physical reality" "This excludes....any form of....faking" I would think this is applicable to gender, biological roles of the two sexes qua man, qua woman. Homosexual acts fake/evade reality, gender, biological roles, even gender specific sex organs. For example: Females strapped on a strap-on - faking the role of a man has as penetrator, etc Male poop chute is faking the role of a vag and a man has become the penetrated, etc. This is not normal or natural. Human biology, human sexual reproduction evidences that. Man qua man is heterosexual and it's a concern for psychology to deal with primarily if there is a deviation from that, or for philosophy as in hedonism/subjectivism, or them being "broken units", etc. It indicates something is not normal, not natural, something is wrong somewhere.
  20. In Stotts blog entry here, he goes to show why he sees that Rand views homosexuality the way she does: http://jasonstotts.com/2010/07/objectivism-masculinity-femininity-and-homosexuality-initial-thoughts/ To me, her views on masculinity and femininity are a part of Objectivism. STOTTS disagrees with Rands view. Even goes so far as to claim homosexuality is "normal and natural" here: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25156&hl=
  21. This is an old post, there are more books out there now. Ethics: Tara Smith wrote two excellent books, Craig Biddle wrote one(Loving Life)and is working on another. Peikoff just published The DIM Hypothesis, there is also Understanding Objectivism book Yaron Brook and Don Watkins Free Market Revolution Andrew Berstein wrote a few, like The Capitalist Manifesto And new estore: https://estore.aynrand.org/
  22. The best specific example I can find of just how architecture can combine art with utilitarian purpose is Monadnock Valley summer resort homes and in a general example TF itself. This does not contradict her view on art, and it is "in a class by itself" to her. That then is an epistemological thing to work out as to what that could mean, and still not be a contradiction, just a classification thing. As far as the photography as art goes, I will have to look more critically at what I have already said and what you said to try to sharpen my dull points if I can. Art Is a branch of Oist philosophy I have studied the least over the years. Your points I think warrant that I look critically at this area. One thing, the artistic elements brought to it, how much would it take to make it a work of art? Digital manipulation of it, like photo editing and the like too is something to take into consideration, which I never have before. Could one have mixed media and it be mixed art? Like a digital photo and manipulating it with photo editing? Can a photo be artistic, but not art?
  23. J wrote: " Well, if the rumor of the statement about Rand's changing her mind on the status of architecture turns out to be true, then Rand must have seen the contradiction, even if you can't." I don't agree on two points. That even if she did say that, that that means a change in her view. I don't think it necessarily does, because of the word "primarily" as I noted before. The other point of disagreement I have there is that you claim the Rand must have seen a contradiction in what she said before in order to say what Binswanger claims she said later. I don't see any evidence that she said that because of her thinking that she saw a contradiction in something she had said earlier. If she did change her view or saw a contradiction, which I see no evidence that she did, wouldn't she have corrected it? Doesn't that suggest that what she supposedly said later to Binswanger, that it did not contradict what she said before? Architecture combines art with utilitarian purpose. That does not specify as to how much. Later to Binswanger you get an idea of just how much by the "primarily". And I still do not see how her view on architecture, contradicts her view on art. As for photography, you are taking pictures of things metaphysical thingsalreadyin existence. Lighting, reflecting, effects all are metaphysical things. You aren't recreating reality, just playing around in it, not making it into a new concrete, just taking a picture of concerted, or effect of lights, angles,lenses, colors, etc on concretes already in existence. If you see a man smoking and take his picture, you did not create a new concrete, paint him, that is a new concrete, a recreation of reality. The other is a picture of reality. Any effects included during the taking of the picture. I'll have to give it all more thought and certainly more study. I should reread the Romantic Manefesto.
  24. It does not say it cannot be combined. Art, as such, is only purpose is contemplation. Architecture combines art with a utilitarian purpose, that does not make the art aspect of it utilitarian. I don't see a contradiction there. It doesn't say art, as such can be utilitarian or art, as such is utilitarian. However it doesn't say art can't be combined with a utilitarian purpose, as you claim. I have seen the quote some are trying to use as contradicting her, and do not see a contradiction with that quote, and the other one, or the Binswanger alleged one. The boy in TF evidences this. Also Toohey wrote that architecture is a great art, as its beauty (art) and utility. Both can be combined in architecture without contradiction. The high end sex dolls I would evidence as being that as well. The art aspect of them, their beauty, them being sculptures of silicone and steel, and can be used for sex, if one wants to, which would be combining art with a utilitarian purpose, and that would not contradict the purpose of art, as such, or that aspect of them, to me at least.
  25. Even if she said that, she said "primarily" utilitarian, which still to me does not contradict (or necessarily changes) what she actually said before that architecture combines art with utilitarian purpose. She also said architecture is in a class by itself. Maybe an example from The Foutainhead would be the boy contemplating the Monadnock Valley (hhich one might argue it as being an art value aspect) which combines with its utilitarian purpose. Art with a utilitarian purpose, to me a great example would be high end sex dolls, like 4Woods (http://aidoll.4woods.jp/en/) Sinthetics, RealDoll, etc al. While I am a huge fan of doll photographer Stacy Leigh, I wouldn't consider her work art. I think Sinthetics referred to theirs as "functional art" or something of the like was on their site, but I haven't been on it in a while. http://sinthetics.com/ Art you can have sex with... One of them said it, it maybe RealDoll, can't remember. The dolls can be art (think poseable sculpture that sort of thing), for many though primarily for sex, etc. So a combination.
×
×
  • Create New...