Jam Man

It helps to keep in mind that consciousness is a biological function of certain organs in living beings, and that living beings evolved from non-living organic matter.

The answer doesn't lie in using the gov't to force manufacturers to advertise a certain way, the answer lies in making the consumers aware of such techniques. Are you the only one who has asked "What good are these diamonds in my shampoo?" If you cared enough to lobby the gov't for regulation, wouldn't you (in a laissez-faire society) care enough to organize a group for the purpose of enlightening the consumer to such practices? Aren't you in essence saying that the people aren't smart enough to decide for themselves which product they like best? Of course, outright fraud is illegal. If you wish to involve gov't, you must prove how subliminal advertising violates one's rights. Ideally, one would expect the best product with the highest quality, etc., to win out in the free market. But if the consumers aren't aware enough to recognize "the best", it's one's perogotive to teach them to recognize it, not force them to.

She's said often enough that continuing down a morally altruistic path, as a nation of inviduals who elect legislators according to such, will lead to a ruinous outcome. It is only in this sense -- very, very generally -- that one can say she predicted disaster, and only then if one believes that the attacks were brought about as a result of foreign policy based on altruistic morals, principles and methods. More specifically she shows why nations which hold an altruistic-collective morality eventually descend into statism.

The state of his car after his death has no effect whatsoever on his life. The anticipated state of his car after his death can have a variety of effects, from anxiety to apathy: he may worry a great deal, or not care at all. Rationally, he knows he won't exist to see the ultimate fate of his car, whether it's to be preserved and admired for centuries, or sold for scrap before he's even cold. Does this mean he should not care what happens to it? That's up to him: it's his property. He is free to concern himself with its fate, or not be concerned at all, depending upon which option permits him the most satisfaction in life. But is it irrational, then, for him to care? Is there a good reason why he should? I say, his own contentment at the anticipated state of his property is reason enough. A spiteful old rich aunt may delight in leaving her fortune to her cat, instead of her actual family. The operative motive isn't the state of her cat or the state of her family after her death, but the delight she takes, in life, in anticipating the results. The motive is the same if she left her fortune to her family, or to her bridge club: her own satisfaction. Peace-of-mind is, in itself, a value, regardless of what it's about. Whatever circumstances are before you, to have peace-of-mind about them is to know that things are under a certain amount of control, or you that have a certain amount of understanding about them: they are known and identified and the outcome ought to be roughly what you expect it to be (be it good or bad). Peace-of-mind is the absence of worry, a "stillness" or "quietness" of things which cause you stress (due to their being beyond your control or understanding); it's almost like a soft, thick mattress thrown over a bed of nails, leaving you free to lie down and concern yourself not with bothersome things, but with things concerning your own happiness. So. I worry that my death will cause financial hardship to my family, who I love: I buy life insurance and gain peace-of-mind. I worry that upon my death, no one will work to prevent the decay of this fine automotive machine, which I cherish and wish would last forever: I see to it, by arranging the transfer of ownership, upon my death, to someone I trust to cherish this machine as much as I did, and I gain peace-of-mind. The worry may or not be rational; but, you've been a lifelong member of the West Jybip Tree Squirrel Admiration Society, and you worry that they won't have the funding they need in the future to....

Interesting topic. Consider this. Your children exist now, when you are alive. It's not for the peace-of-mind of your corpse that you bequeath your inheritance to them. It's for your peace-of-mind now, while you are alive, that you make such arrangements. To the one who dies, no values are possible to him after death. If he attempts to arrange things to operate a certain way after his demise, it's only for his benefit now, in life. If he wants his classic car given to a museum, or his mechanic, it's not because he's worried about watching what's going to happen to it from above, when he's a ghost and his no-good son has ownership of it. It's because he values this thing in life that he takes the trouble to secure it after his death. It's for his peace-of-mind and well-being now.

If a contradiction DID exist, how would you identify it as such? You would observe an entity, and it would be what it is. It would not be what it is not. If an entity is observed existing, for example, as solid matter and liquid matter at the same time, then we are not observing a contradiction. We are observing something unidentified. We attempt to apply what we already know about matter (that it exists in certain states) to this thing, and find that what we know is not sufficient. Perhaps we have observed an undiscovered 5th state of matter. We don't know what it is, but we know that it is something. That it is, means it exists as a thing with a specific nature that we can identify. Maybe we don't know enough to identify it properly, as our anscestors failed to identify fire as plasma; or failed to identify that whales are mammals and not fish. But whatever this thing is, it does not contradict reality, because there it is, existing as a part of it, perhaps doing a thing (or being a thing) we thought was impossible.... We can rest assured that this new thing exists, if we have observed it. Whatever its "impossible" nature, it is specific and identifiable. Does this mean all of our knowledge must be discarded, that we discovered a new fact we thought was impossible? Or is this merely an oppurtunity to refine and perfect it? If an entity existed in this 5th state, solid and liquid, does that mean the nature of my solid desk or liquid coffee has changed? A is A, always. A is not Non-A; A is A and Non-A is Non-A. A is not B; A is A and B is B. Etc..

I think it's amazing. Besides being able to win its owners piles of money on Jeopardy, imagine the benefit of having a computer to which you can simply ask a question, and then get an answer to it. Get a Watson in your basement (easier said than done, I know), rig up speakers and mics throughout the house (or office) and you have answers on command, any answer, almost as fast as if you thought of it yourself. Whether or not the humans win the match is not the standard to measure human success and achievement; the fact that a machine was built that could engage in such a contest is. Btw, has Watson answered any questions incorrectly?

Intense? Absolutely. But in the novel, Wyatt "won" in that scene not because he out-shouted Dagny, but because of the intensity of the words he spoke: intense, not because he was angry, but intense because they were weighted with truth and reason. Indeed, characters restraining intense emotions is a mini-motif played throughout the novel. What does it tell about the movie if they change Ellis Wyatt from the measured producer who refuses to live on "their" terms into the (seemingly) hot-headed oil field blower-upper? Will they change the scene where Rearden hits Francisco in Dagny's apartment into a fist fight? Or will they instead zoom in on his hand on the table and have Dagny say "Wow Francisco I can see how hard it is for you to keep yourself from hitting him back, it must be because you know he's falling for your playboy act and according to that setup he had every right to hit you...." I hate to knock an entire 6-hour production based on a two-minute trailer, but those fake mash-up trailers that are out there seem to hit the artistic target with much more accuracy and skill, while this one seems to... well, de-rail.

In general, my view on movie adaptations of novels is this: the script and dialogue is already written, it's the job of the directors and actors to realize it. I understand the need to add some supporting dialogue or lines, if a lengthy or particularly abstract narrative cannot be tanslated otherwise. Consider the scene when Rearden walks home one night, contemplating his life in general (when he imagines "Rearden Life"). Not a word was spoken by him in the novel. And I understand that a movie can't just have a man walking alone at night, appearing to be thoughtful. So how to translate that scene into a movie? I'm no director, but I can picture a sort of hazy-around-the-edges memory montage, with the audience hearing Rearden narrate his own thoughts; or even less explicitly, perhaps just showing us visually his thoughts via his neon signs (amongst other visual clues, as well as sounds/music), ending with "Rearden Life" and implying their meaning to the audience. I'm sure there are better ways than what I've just mentioned. But I can imagine in this movie an entire replacement scene, where Rearden and Dagny perhaps have dinner (or are met elsewhere for whatever reason) and Rearden merely shares his thoughts out loud to Dagny, as a device to reveal to the audience what was revealed in the novel. That's the same level of obviousness (as well as the level of artistic laziness, imho) I see in the "We've got to get him from the inside" scene from the trailer. Jesus Christ, what a piece to work with! Based on this trailer, I feel like watching this movie would be like expecting the Stoddard Temple, but instead getting his Home for Sub-normal Children. I am almost afraid to see it. Nonetheless, I do hope that the complete production surpases my expectations.

I understand that a novel doesn't translate onto film without some adaptations. Even so, I'm dissapointed that I didn't recognize much dialogue. "If we want to take down Rearden we've got to do it from the inside." Is this to let us know who Mouch is? Or a set up for the Unification Plan? Isn't there a less obvious way to accomplish this? I would rather have seen movie with a truer script (not that I've seen anything more than the trailer) -- this lets the force of Rand's own words, not just her ideas, impact the viewer. Mouch can be shown to be an inside man, or the "bad guys" can be shown to be out for Rearden, without having to add such an unconvincing line. In the novel I don't recall Ellis Wyatt yelling at Dagny when they first meet. The full force of his emotion was conveyed in his words, even more so I'd say by his CONTROL of emotion coupled with those steady words. I don't know if this was a failure of the director of the actor, but the Wyatt I've seen so far is a FAR CRY from the Wyatt I've read about... and I fear that's how I'll feel about this movie, in general, if I decide to see it.

All that follows after this paragraph is extraneous, for the real debate is not about the minutia, but about the premises on which the minutia are stacked. Firstly, it's apparent that you two are using a different "left to right" scale. You judge by the scale Marc described in his post. Notice that your friend's scale doesn't even include "Freedom", but only swings from "the collective" on the left to "the State" on the right. He opperates on such a collectivist mindset that the Individual is never even considered, unless as seen as part of some group or class. Secondly, consider why he picks this out from your reply, and goes through the lengthy trouble of making a (superficial) distinction between socialism and fascism. He is trying to distance his peaceful and benevolent version of socialism from the actual horrors committed by socialists. All that was rambled by him to make that distiction apparent to you, was what he uses to convince himself. The true alternative isn't socialist vs. fascist, it's the Individual vs. the Collective. You "lumped them together" because, indeed, they are all collectivist, differing only in the names of which collective the Individual is to submit to.

Well, it just doesn't make any sense to feel ashamed of what a bunch of other people the same age as you are doing, saying, or thinking. Your premise is "I belong to this generation, and they misrepresent me." But you belong to yourself, and that's it. Adopt a more individualistic platform on which to build. Don't let the twisted mazes of others' minds concern you. Associate freely with whomever you choose, and you'll find that, while your number of aquaintences (and even true friends) may shrink, their quality will most definitely increase. It is frustrating when you quite plainly make your case -- whatever it might be -- and your opponent, rather than refute or disprove your logic, offers all the contradictory mung of his emotions and feelings, not as an argument against your facts, but as proof of his position in spite of your facts, etc., etc.... You want to grab his shoulders and give him a vigorous rattle, if not scream at the top of your lungs for witnessing the horror of the living dead. But your opponent chooses his own way, and, whether it's a conscious choice or not, he will pay his own price. It's not your duty to save, convince, or transform him... or to even give ear to his madness.

One is aware of physical beauty at the perceptual level. When one first spies a "beautiful" (by whatever standard of beauty the seer judges) woman (or man), isn't there an immediate biological response? The pupils widen, the nostrils flare, the heart quickens (skips a beat), pheremones start pumping out of the sweat glands, and endorphines are squeezed into the brain that make one feel good about "getting a good eye-full"... but all this happens even if one has no defined concept of "beauty" or of "value" or of "love". To my observation, that is where love ends with a lot of people. But to one who knows how and what to value, he will understand that he will be in love with his wife even into the shriveled, physically-degenerated, and generally unhealthy final years of life. He will love his wife because of the virtues of her character, long after the sensory stimulation of her beauty has faded. A man may choose to engage in a conversation after noticing a beautiful woman, then, over time, judge for himself how well the "inside" matches the "outside". Or a man may encounter a woman on a daily basis, over time befriend her, then realize the inside is actually greater than the outside. But in each case, the inside is always considered and, for those with integrated values, always carries more weight. Can a rational man love a beautiful woman with a vile spirit? It is certainly possible for him to feel he were in love, but he would be the type of man to fall out of love with her after she's disfigured horribly in an accident.

1. Stargate -- the movie, not the TV show. 2. Snatch 3. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Guess I should get a pic with my guitar on here too, eh? Just to swim with the current for a change...

More from Rush... imagine that! And from the song I want played at my funeral:

I'm going to bypass your four main questions in order to narrowly focus on one fundamental point that you made in your explaination: The word that struck me is sacrifice. Sacrifice is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. In your statement, you imply that using one's aquired goods for the raising, nuturing and caring of an infant is a lesser value than what one could use his aquired goods for in other ways. If one values a vacation higher than one would value a well-nourished, well-cared for infant, then it is indeed a sacrifice. However, a rational individual will see that the value in raising an infant from a helpless larva into a productive, self-sustaining, rational man (capable of ensuring the survival of his line of DNA) is a much higher value than a vacation, or any other means of disposal for his aquired goods. Moreover, a parent who raises an infant into a productive, rational being actually gains value: pride and admiration, the two chief values which allow one to feel oneself worthy of existence, and that others exist who are worthy of one's love. I know all this is far from answering your questions on farming and what will be done with the handicapped and infirm in a purely capitalist society, but I believe it's fundamental (when dealing with altruism, in particular) to use the word "sacrifice" only in it's proper connotation.

Although it's been a VERY long time since I've picked it up, I remember H.G. Wells' History of the World as being enjoyable, thorough and an easy read.

Why "act" like you're having fun? For whose benefit would you be acting? Certainly not for your own: it's bad enough being somewhere where you're not having fun, and it's even worse having to act like you are. So why bother? If you're not having fun with them (or at least enjoying yourself in some redeemable way), then go on and search further. Another point: think of why you equate being alone with feeling desparate. In my own experience, I used to feel the need every Friday night to call up everyone I knew and surround myself with people who adore me. I needed others to accept me because I got my confidence and sense of worth from them. Now that I have SELF-confidence and SELF-worth, I choose my friends, not try and "b.s." a bunch of people to be chosen by them. I'm fairly new to Objectivism, and I too find myself limiting the number of people that I do call "friends." It's a good thing: those that I have decided "to keep" are the truest people I know, and though we may not share the same philosophy, we all share honesty, integrity and independence as common values. Think of it as Quality vs Quantity.

Indeed... have you listened to Maurice Ravel's "Bolero"? The same melody is relentlessly repeated, over and over, with harmonics and orchestration providing variety and color. It opens with a (barely audible) snare drum and flute, and finishes with the entire orchestra a blazin' away full-bore-- all under perfect control by the tempo and the still-repeating snare drum. A masterfully constructed piece. And a few favorites: Beethoven's 9th (in no other art or endevor has any man come so close to representing true, exalted Joy) Dvorak's "New World" and "Serenade for Strings" Holst's "The Planets," esp. Mars and Neptune Saint-Saens' "Danse Bacchanale"