Tenure

Oh yeah, the Trinity totally clears things up.

I mean in all the diagnostic sections. Back in the first and second season, they'd always get the white board out, run through symptoms, think about what the cause might be, narrow down the options. Now, he just makes a few comments, laughs at people's ideas, seemingly randomly accepts one person's suggestion over another -- there's nothing rational and considered about it anymore. Also, truth: Dr. Wilson: It's a simple question. Has your life sucked? Tell her the truth. Tell her you were shot, tell her -Dr. House: She doesn't want to hear the truth. She's looking for something. Looking to extrapolate some -Dr. Wilson: She's looking to connect with you. And that's what's scaring the hell out of you. Tell her the truth.Dr. House: There is no truth.

Yuh-huh... he's miserable because he's lonely. He has inner peace, certainty. Right. That's why he takes drugs, tries to kill himself, pushes away people he clearly likes. That's why the one woman he actually likes, he just terrorises, as Wilson (I think) puts it: 'Because we're not in kindergarten so he can't just pull her pigtails'. That would be why he became a doctor - because of a sincere love for doing something rational; not because he wanted to make everyone feel inferior by comparison to this lonely, powerful sage. Nope, doesn't sound second handed to me at all. Sounds like an upstanding lover of human existence.

Oh Jesus, someone questioned the holy ragamuffin of House, M.D! Now they're for it!

You know, I never get the impression that House is taking the rational approach in any situation. What we commonly see is him stabbing at a bunch of possible answers alongside his team, with no reason why anyone might be more right than another. He usually makes some inappropriate joke to shrug the whole thing off and then goes to bother Wilson. Eventually he figures it out through some flash of insight. There kind of used to be a rational method to the show back in the day, but now it's just like trying to pin the diagnosis on the incredibly obscure disease. As for other claims about his attitude being objective and rational - far from it. By the remarks of Cutty and Wilson, who almost always win the arguments over why House is doing something, especially with Season 5, it's made more and more explicit that he acts grumpy out of a second handed desire to reaffirm his own self-esteem. He denies there's any real truth, evades questions about his own motivation for anything, runs from his past, never faces up to the reason why he does anything - except for that one episode where he admits he only became a doctor because he wanted to be like this forgotten, obscure janitor, who suddenly 'stuck it to the man' by showing everyone how awesome he was. I remember reading some Objectivist's article a while back about House and I think it's the best analysis I've seen so far of him. The only thing I'd fault it for, is that it says that if he'd only apply the rationality he does as a doctor, he would be able to be happy in his own life. But the fact is, as good as he is at probing and shooting down ideas for being ridiculous or for finding out if someone is lying (more often than not these days, it just gets revealed 'deus ex machina' style), he has no rational method to anything, not even doctoring.

It's rampant rationalism true, but it does not make him a mystic (at least, in the meaning you're concerned with here - religious mysticism). If I go on and on about a headache that I've been experiencing, is there a flaw in considering what I say? What if a thousand people report the same symptom? What if you examine us all and find nothing physically wrong with us? What if it actually is proven we're suffering some kind of psychological disorder? Should we not consider as evidence that people do claim to be feeling something for which there is no, as yet, scientific explanation? Is it ridiculous for us to look for an explanation to such an experience?

Emphasis mine.

Ok, a lot of what they say is not an argument. They just claim something is ridiculous, laugh at, make a sarcastic comment, etc etc without providing any context, or if the context is given, just making some claim that the author of the quote is a ridiculous person. I don't know if there's a name for the argument, but I'd call it the 'Am-I-right-or-what?' Actually, I scoured their site for an hour for a good quote, but on doing so, discovered that there was not a single quote that was not a meaningless paraphrase, or taken-out-of-context*, or perfectly sensible but just mocked, had nothing to do with what they were trying to prove... *By this, I don't mean they tried to attribute to her something she didn't mean. For example, "Life is the standard of value", they might quote. And they make the point that she meant "Life is the standard of value" - however, they try to use either deductive logic to disprove it, or they just laugh at the idea that you have to understand it in an integrated context with everything else (because apparently, this amounts to a dogmatic acceptance of the whole system).

DO > Proof

Does anyone actually follow this blog at all? It come up on my Google Alerts pretty frequently and I've never honestly found anything that bad with them. I think they miss the point with a lot of their arguments, but I'm too ignorant of the subjects (often things like, "Things what Rand did" or Economics or Economic History, or the differences between Rand and other philosophers) to actually give any meaningful judgement. Have any of the mods here or more advanced students read this blog at all? What do you say in response to it?

So, this is rather a simple question to ask but a complex one too: 'If you don't like the smog, move out of California' is Peikoff's response to the 'Not In My Back Yard' group, who complain about pollution yet choose to live in the city. But what about actions which happen in the city, or in many cities, but effect the whole world? Can one even apply 'legality' to situations like that? I'm thinking, obviously, of the AGW claim, whatever it even means. For the purposes of argument, let's suppose, rather than the rather vague, 'Human actions will cause some kind of change to the environment creating some kind of negative effect for everyone', that it means, I dunno, that sea levels will rise or something. India will be flooded because we all drive SUVs. What can we say, legally or morally about this? Can we, first, apply legality to what a group of individuals do? And what about the fact that in India, they must produce pollution if they are to greatly industrialise too? But abstracting it more away from what India is or is not also doing - what can we say about the collective actions of a large group of people, that create environmental changes which are not necessarily bad but which still cause disruption to human lives. Now, mass flooding is no minor disruption, but if AGW were causing India to flood in ever greater amounts each year, could anyone be held responsible, or would it be right to say that they should just adapt and move, as the environment will change with time, whether we cause it to change or not?

If you take Powell's History for Adults course, you can hear Teller make comments every now and again on the recorded lectures, as well as read his stuff on the forum for the course (only accessible to members).

There have been quite a few good women in here, and of late, Amy Lee and Allyson Hannigan, both of whom I've had crushes on in some part of my life. My favourites: Summer Glau Jennifer Morrison (Cameron, from House MD):

I've not read Pekioff's article, "What if you're wrong?" but it seems to be right up this alley. He's talking about Descartes' issue with 'error' that since you've been wrong in the past, you might be wrong now - therefore, assume you're wrong. Essentially this is the same thing. Certain things have happened in the past; other things could have happened; different things could happen in the future; therefore, there are only possibilities of what might happen, no certainties. But, when you say something is probable, you are declaring certain evidence or knowledge by which you reached that guess. Also, to claim something is probable or possible, is to say that there are other things which are definite. 'Probability' is a statistical fraction of absolute (Objective, not omniscient) certainty and so you must know the absolute, or at least, how to attain it, before you can speak of a fraction of it and how to attain that. From Peikoff's article as presented on the Lexicon: "It is possible, the skeptic argument declares, for man to be in error; therefore, it is possible that every individual is in error on every question. This argument is a non sequitur; it is an equivocation on the term “possible.” What is possible to a species under some circumstances, is not necessarily possible to every individual member of that species under every set of circumstances. Thus, it is possible for a human being to run the mile in less than four minutes; and it is possible for a human being to be pregnant. I cannot, however, go over to a crippled gentleman in his wheelchair and say: “Perhaps you’ll give birth to a son next week, after you’ve run the mile to the hospital in 3.9 minutes—after all, you’re human, and it is possible for human beings to do these things.” The same principle applies to the possibility of error." Ignore the extra stuff about 'error' there, and just focus on possibility, and you'll find quite a succinct little excerpt on what you're looking for.

Parliament: You have two cows. The leading party accidentally kills one of the cows. The House of Commons goes for drinks before convening to discuss the matter. The House convenes. The Prime Minister tries to explain himself. RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! The Shadow Minister comes up with a funny quip. RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! The Prime Minister evades with a non-sequitor! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RAR RAR RAR!!

Thanks, both of you, for the info. I'm starting to get this general idea, that it was a conglomerate of government policies that led us to the present state of today, founding on trying to chase away the hangover with more booze, and doing it all for the sake of the poor or the American Dream Of Home Ownership (well the metaphor breaks down there). The investors that got involved did so because they were fed bad information about how good the economy was doing, thanks to the cocking around with the the Interest Rates and supply of money. Now, my only objection is the example of BB&T - they didn't get involved. Was that because, although being a big bank, they weren't big enough to need to get involved in that silliness? Or is it something else?

I think this is an equivocation between an 'art' or skill, and 'Art' as a stand-alone, end-in-itself. Cooking requires a lot of skill and its something you deeply appreciate, done well, but it does not exist to tell a story in and of itself. It's food and it's there to be eaten. Unless your goal is to make inedible food, which just looks good, in which case you're not a good chef, since the purpose of a chef is to make edible food. You might be making wax apples, and that's interior decoration, but even that is utilitarian and not Art. And no - if an alien sucked down the collected works of Shakespeare for lunch, that wouldn't make it any less Art, since its intended purpose was not to be food. Noone imagined this alien would ever appear, and even if he did, it wasn't created for him. It was created to exist for itself.

So, the investments were made because they didn't think about what they were doing? That's what I mean by shortsightedness - whether your perspective is 'conventional wisdom' or night. I mean, how did they make such bad decisions, how was conventional wisdom so wrong? Do the conditions in the regulated market somehow cause that, or is it something else? I understand that people can make bad decisions, not because their judgement is wrong, but because you can't be universally infallible, and there is always risk. But you wouldn't describe this situation as one merely of a little "Oops, I made a bad prediction". Of course the economy grows as 'optimism' grows, but that optimism has to grow in accordance with an actual creation of wealth, not the kind of false-wealth of the last 30 years. If it's all optimism without growing then it does come crashing down, 'One brick after another', but if it has a basis, then that basis won't be too far behind the optimism. Each investment carries a certain amount of risk, but the whole economy does not at once throw all its weight behind a big gamble, unless it knows someone will pick up the tab - in which case there is no 'risk'.

Allmenareislands: you rightly identify that there is no beginning to universe, or end to it. Afterall, time is a relation between two events in space, and if you're going to claim the universe 'began', then you're claiming that there was a temporal event in another part of space, outside the universe, that preceded it. But, you suffer from the same package deal I used to: that of equating 'infinity' with 'unbounded'. Infinity does NOT mean without beginning or end. It means possessing no identity whatsoever. It is a mathematical concept, denoting any number of things, whilst specifying no specific entity. It is refering to a hypothetical thing, with no actual identity. But we cannot apply such a concept to the universe and say it is 'infinite', because this means that everything in the universe possesses no actual identity, and there is no way we can quantify anything in any specific portion of it, without then making it 'finite'. An Unbounded-Universe simply means that the universe is the definition of all boundaries. If something is bounded, it is bounded between two things, and to be things, those things must be part of existence, part of the universe. But the universe itself cannot be bounded, because if it is, then it is part of a larger universe, inside of which it is bounded. If that clears things up for you, you can and should go ahead and re-read that essay.

Gags: You're saying that Fannie and Freddie Mae removed the risk in getting involved in mortgages - that is, because there was this government safety net there, more people were encouraged to get involved in making loans. That still doesn't fully explain why investors were short-sighted enough that they didn't think that this would very easily bite them in the ass if they took advantage of it. Although I guess you could argue the point is moot - the regulation existed, and it meant they could make stupid decisions. The matter of why they did isn't important. Regarding the CRA - although I understand it had a lot of impact in the 70s and 80s, and again in the 90s when one could no longer make mergers without having a good rating, I keep hearing again and again that it was a minority of these sub-prime loans that were made based on the CRA. Many companies made many loans they didn't need to. I can't provide a source for this, but if you've heard the same thing, I'd like to hear your response. Why were there only 3 rating agencies? Are they gov. controlled agencies? What is their role. I don't have a full grasp on the whole mess, so I'm still trying to get my head round things.

Oh of course, but 'malevolence' as a general rule of value, is the antithesis of Romanticism. Romanticism is about choosing, and your choice meaning something. And the point is, what Jack achieves doesn't mean anything. Leaving aside the fact that there is no value actually gained in a situation where involving force, only the prevention of loss - any value in saving the day is undermined by the fact that Jack ends up just being the pawn of some Terrorist's overall conspiracy, or some Politician's destructive aims. And he lives constantly with the guilt of what he has done. Whether or not one should feel guilt for the things Jack must do, the fact is that it is an unchallenged premise throughout the whole series that what Jack is doing is morally wrong, or at least very 'grey'. And so even if we couldn't call it entirely malevolent, it is far from 'Romantic', in that Jack's actions and choices are always 'wrong' or at least 'not the best' or 'not good'. So I guess, if you want to put it that way, Jack doesn't so much live in a malevolent universe, so much as an impotent one, which is roughly the same thing: namely that one's choices and actions ultimately have little meaning, no matter how much they might matter in the heat of the moment. It's the heat of the moment that keeps us watching, but it is that ultimate lack of meaning that leaves me unsatisfied in the end and unwilling to call this programme, 'Romantic'. That said, I do enjoy watching 24, and however much it wavered over the last few seasons, 'Redemption' was good. I loved how it played up a variation of the Prudent Predator - sure, you can keep running from these things you've done, and keep creating false worlds to inhabit, false identities, but then your life is nothing but constant flight. You are never living for something, but instead living to avoid something else. And I thought that Irish character, the owner of the school, portrayed quite well, by contrast that idea of turning that around, by finding something to live for (even if it was kinda altruistic, as if the only way he could live for something, was for it to be something beyond himself; unlike Jack, he doesn't have to run from anything, could put his life back together somewhere other than war-torn Africa).

I do not believe that one can achieve the TM claim of "Consciousness without thought" anymore than one can achieve pure Consciousness of Consciousness. It's entirely absurd. Consciousness is consciousness of something, even if it's a thought (which must be a thought eventually tied back to some thing) and I believe it is impossible to be just conscious without having a subject. But the topic is meditation in general and I believe there is a lot to it, namely, as Musenji says, on the subject of focus. In Wing Tsun, when we train a form, that training is in essence a form of meditation. The intention of practicing a form regularly is that you know precisely what the 'perfect' form of your body should feel like, so that when it is applied in real life, in a real fight, you are recalling something really good, as opposed to something really mediocre. But central to each form is a focus on breathing. In fact, throughout all our training, we are told to focus on our breathing. The reasoning being, obviously, it keeps you oxygenated, but even more, it keeps you calm and, well, this can only come from focus. Focus is about, regardless of everything else, being able to hone in on a single thing, like listening to a gnat's wings amongst a ton of traffic. And in a fight, well, the situation itself is surprising and scary enough, and the actual attacks themselves are frightening too, and the last thing you want to do is get so distracted that you freeze up and loose all focus. So, we meditate. We tie our actions into our breathing, and we learn to isolate these actions from all other concerns, until we are just focused on this one thing. I'd say, then, that the point about meditation, if it's going to have any rationale, is that one learns to focus on a single thing regardless of all others. A million things go through your mind, perceptually and conceptually, every day, and you really want to be able to learn to filter the important from the unimportant, and to be able to really think about those things undistracted. I think meditation can help in that aspect.

Apparently Corning Community College carries a copy, but I don't know if you're allowed to check out books from there. They probably wouldn't stop you walking on campus and having a quick read of the book to see what it's like. That's the best I can do for you.

When I use the 'View New Posts' button and click the little orange icon to show the 'Latest post since I visited the thread' display of the thread, it keeps sending me to some weird form of the thread, in which the first ever post in the thread is shown, followed by hyperlinks to each subsequent post below it, which is almost the opposite of what the little orange icon should be doing. Does anyone know how to fix this bad boy?