KendallJ

Thanks Diana, I agree wholeheartedly with you. It was a good conference. On my list of favorites, along with C. Bradley Thompson's eye-opening lecture on neoconservatism was Lisa Van Damme's general lecture on Motivation in Education. For optionals I enjoyed Andrew Lewis' History of England II, and Ellen Kenner and Edwin Locke's Romance course. Picoult's Probability course left a little to be desired, as did Baer's Aristotle course.

But not the essential or final approach, right? The final, and essential approach is confirmation with one's own judgement and reason. The reason you have to ask yourself what would Jesus do is because one can't reason out the mixed bag of contradictions that is Christian ethics. Not true of Objectivism, and for sure, and Objectivist woudl NEVER stop at "John Galt would do this so I will too...". I'm with Rational Cop on this one. I think the question is second-handed.

You can see the clip here: http://www.foxnews.com/cavuto/index.html Click Taking Stock, Taking Stock.

Topic was Fed's interest rate policy. Salsman was on a panel of 4, including Ben Stein. Richard went 4th, after all three basically gave a pass to Fed policy. Salsman immediately disagreed with the whole panel, gave his basis which Stein rolled his eyes at and said somethign to the effect of, "that's preposterous, everyone knows that raising interest rates cools inflation...". It was a very interesting exchange, illustrating the need to succintly clear your point in about 15 seconds. Let's just say that Salsmans views have yet to reach mainstream economic thought.

1976, United States v. Miller. The Supreme Court found that bank customers had no legal right to privacy in financial information held by financial institutions. Seem, being that this was the first assertion, that the onus would be on you to back it up. This amounts to "I don't think the govt's logic makes sense." If you accept it as true, its entirely circumstantial unless you posit to me what logic does makes sense. By itself it is conspiracy theory, and doesn't deserve much response. uh huh... no conspiracy theory there...

Vladimir, I responded positively to your clothing of either subject. I am wondering if you can contrast how you use the clothing in masculine vs. feminine. I am still stewing on my premise that Masculine seems to be shown in context, while for most, Femine is more abstracted. Your selections seem to contradict that in some ways, although the Masculine is still more what I called "purposeful context". Anyway, can you elaborate? OK, that I agree with. In fact, I sense that what we'll find is that masculine/feminine are emphasize different aspects of humanity, neither of which can be said to be negative. I think many people emotionally (like my wife ) respond to "masculinity is strength...". "oh, and so feminity is weakness?" she might say.

Yeah. That thread is over here. Miseleigh, first you have my admiration for sticking to your guns. I think your reasoning is sound (to the extent of my qualifications in my last few posts - which were a while ago... whew). I thought I remembered one of the Q&A's in my taped lectures having raised just this question. I went back through all of them tonight and .... nada.... zip.... zilch.... I don't have any reference direct from Rand where she discussed it. If someone else out there does, sure love to hear it. Beyond that, building the inductive argument from psychology is the best you're left with....

Thanks, that is very helpful. I actually translated the kanji with help of Breen's very excellent online japanese dictionary, but then had it confirmed by the maki-e craftsmen who did the work (and also confirmed it by looking at some book jacket titles that translated the term directly, in context). However, understanding the "etymology" is very helpful. Thanks for taking the time to explain it!

While I definitely think there is some element of contrast required, I am not at all convinced of this statement. For instance I am not sure if you say X is the most important aspect of masculility, then it naturally follows that non-X is the most important aspect of feminity. This would be the polar opposite concept. While "Bask in my manly weakness" doesn't make any sense. Neither does "Bask in my womanly weakness..." I am unconvinced that if you strength in males is part of masculininty, then it follows that weakness in females is feminine. I think weak looking females are unattractive, and unfeminine. Plus, this sort of analysis limits you more cruder comparisions where quantitative levels make sense. It doesn't allow for comparisons of aspect. Here was Bold Standards essenses that he described... Men have more intelligence than women? Men are more adventurous than women? Women are more curious than men? You can certainly reject Bold Standards descriptors out of hand, but you might end up rejecting a lot of descriptors to keep fit with your comparitive hypothesis. The hypothesis is supposed to explain the data right?

Hunterrose observation about emotional response to the same thing in both pictures is the kind of stuff I'm interested in. Frankly, I'd like to keep the assertions about masculinity and feminity to a lower level and the observations about the data up, or we end up begging the question - and ultimately we're going to end up in those weird exchanges where everyone is asserting there side, but no one is looking at the data. I'm looking for data in reality that points to places one could experiment to find some basis for asserting masculinity is X, feminity is Y. Without that, we'll just keep ending up to agree to disagree. Differences in emotional responses to the same attributes indicate something fundamental I think. Sonia has said her Romantic wouldn't have the same response to her if female was kissing male. Hunterosse has pointed out that the same attributes in feminine garned exact emotional response as the same attributes in masculine.

No worries. I have to say that I reacted much the same way as everyone else seems to have to the "Kill Bill Bride", but at this point, it's just my opinion. Yeah, that's a good way of putting it. I have to say while I cannot generalize, the Objectivist viewpoint on gender clicks with me, at least on "my side of things". In fact, I was raised in a much more gender balanced viewpoint, but never felt correct to me.

Sorry, dude, tech difficulties.

And the cigarettes with the gold dollar on them that the strikers smoked?? Yeah, dude, way too literally I think.

I think rather than trying to state "fact" about another's submission, it might be more constructive to either post a counter example, or a question.

Hey, looks like a great choice. Had I gotten here in time, I would have recommended a Standard Poodle, but your choice looks perfect. Hopefully you had someone temprament test the dog so you know what you're getting. It's true that pound dogs can sometimes come with "baggage", but in most cases, it's not a huge issues. My wife heads the local animal rescue, and 80-90% of the dogs adopted out are great. I also agree that it is a myth that purebreeds are less healthy. The premise is called "hybrid vigor", and it is false. The fact is that all dogs have some genetic predisposition to disease and each breed's predispositions are slightly different. If you cross a poodle with a golden, you simply combine the predispostions. If, in a cross, you remove a trait it is purely luck. The fact that traits are better known for each breed means that breeders are aware and actively trying to breed these traits out, as opposed to mutts where there is little selection for or against these traits. Greyhound: world's fastest couch-potato. Very true. Very active in the open. Very docile inside. This is most heartwrenching experience. I'm so sorry. I had to put our Akita down after only a year due to temprament. No matter, it was the hardest thing to have to do. But now we have the poodle, and life is great. Hopefully your next dog will do the same for you!

Yikes! , just to prove that I still can't spell. The word should be "ethereal"

OK, here are all the feminine submissions so far. Someone give some suggestions on making thumbnails please! Here are the descriptions we have so far: -Graceful 1. Womanliness/softeness of features subtle Curious Composed -Refined 2. Fertility fluid Perceptive Erethral 3. Sensitive Adorned Any thoughts to my premise that a) the images are mostly out of the context of purpose, and generally not showing significant "active tense". They are shown contemplative, relaxing, posed, etc and b ) that this represents an essentialization that is essential and different than the masculine? It is interesting to note that this is true between females and males even though the female emotional response (single data point that it is) is opposite - i.e. I desire my feminine, but Sophia wants to project hers. Some people take feminine descriptors like "graceful, softness, erethral, fluid, etc" to imply weakness or frailty, but I wonder if it couldn't indicate other things.

I'm going to add my descriptions and then ask a few questions. Masculine Purposeful intensity - Driven I think for me 2 aspects of the sculpture essentialize this for me. First the motif of an archer - the idea of striving for a specific target or aim. the tension of a drawn bow. Second is the overall posture, musculature and facial intensity of the archer. It isn't just that he's purposeful, its that he has every muscle, all his focus, every faculty he has actively striving for the goal. Emotionally, this is when I feel most masculine; when I have all my faculties harnessed and I'm firing on all cylinders toward a goal. I'm with Bold Standard on this one. I want to show masculinity, in context, of purpose (i.e. with implements, or surroundings that give the purpose meaning). I think this is an interesting similarity in many - not all - of the masculine pieces. Feminine Composed Erethral Adorned I had to think about this one for a long time about what aspect to me was driving my emotions. Just as in-context purpose was important in masculinity, here the color pallette, soft focus, and lack of external context is part of the key. This woman could easily be the CEO of a company and strong as all get out, but for some reason that's not my emotional response to her feminity. Unlike the archer, that's not what she's doing right now. I think in a way, her composure is to the archer's purpose as a perfume is to a flower. It is a distilled essence. She is not "harnessed" and firing on all cylinders, but her pose, her gaze, reflect what makes such intensity possible. Her only context is her clothing, but here the clothing serves to me as an adornment, or a tribute. As if you have to treat that essense in a revered and holy manner. I can't even tell you the emotional response I get from this one... Romantic Aspiration, Striving Passion Surrender The tense musculature and position of the two dancers to me shows an incredible effort, both to be what they are as individuals, and then to attain this combined pose. To me, this piece requires assymetric relationship between the man and woman, in the way that purpose and essence of purpose are complementary. The man strives to be worthy, to be true to the essence (the woman), and in so doing obtains it. The woman is responding to the actualization, the concreteness of the essence (worshipping it, in a way). hmmm you worship the concrete, and strive to be true to the essence. Is this the hero-worship / heroine possession duality?

well said. I concur!

Just a quick google found articles like this. It's a long way from such things as predisposition to eye contact to "male-worship", and certainly biochemical explanations will inherently lead to a spread of possible feminine types, but some of the answers will be found there. Maybe not in our lifetimes (which means we'll have to settle on the fact that we are both - as was Rand - hypothesizing), but someday. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls...ces&btnG=Search http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-2832.html http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/med...on_sex_diff.pdf http://www.psychologymatters.org/nodifference.html Popped over to 4AynRandFans to see if there were any threads over there that might have people asking the same questions. Haven't read through all of this, but the same "why must it be so?" came up at some point. http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=2496&st=0

I'm not sure how you mean this. Do you mean that looking at relationships, is no place to start? If so, I'm not sure I agree. If a majority of relationships have commonality, it is certainly not a place from which to generalize, but it is certainly a place to start asking, why is it like this, and then to hypothesize and design experimentation to start to draw cause and effect. Looking at reality is hte place to begin the inductive work to prove or disprove the premise.This is why I suggested going to the psychological literature to see what has been done in the field. If Rand's premise is true, then cultural norms won't explain everything, and I think ultimately the why will be biochemical. Again, I'm not arguing it is true simply the how one might go about investigating it. So then, I wonder, how might you begin designing some experiments that would prove or disprove the premise?

Well, miseleigh, I apologize. It seems I led us off in an incorrect direction. If the premise is your true concern then I'll go back to my original statement on teh Amazon experiment. If you mean why as in why did Rand come to this conclusion, I don't know the answer. She probably checked her own psychology, and then drew conclusions from others she observed. She never claimed to be a professional psychologist. I know that some of her epistemology was developed by introspection on her own mental processes. If the why is "Why must it be so" then that is to be found (if it is true) in reality.

describe the sculptures and we might be able to find them or know of them. All ideas welcome.

I am not a lawyer, but initial scan would seem to indicate that he is indicating that Executive branch will not execute takings like those that have been ruled constitutional by USSC. He has no juristiction in the states, so their governments could still execute such takings. How could he be forced to reverse this policy at the executive level? a. by any Federal legislation that requires it? b. by some sort of legal challenge? What would that suit look like? ("you have to exercise takings and you didn't???") Seems like he's just staking out a limited policy position that would require some odd or unpopular challenges to overturn.

Let's see. If I start with the knowledge that "One has to know what it means to be alone, what it is to meditate, what it is to die; and the implications of solitude, of meditation, of death, can be known only by seeking them out.", which is provided to me by Krishnamurthi, the authority, and then I proceed to the "state of inquiry" where I rid my mind of suppression of "previous knowledge, or by the authority and experience of another".... uh... what was it I was supposed to do again? This state of mind consists of rejection of reason, and is wholly incompatible with Objectivism. What is it you wish to understand?