Plasmatic

Nonsense! your initial point was directed at Peikoff/ARI directly: You are now switching your goal posts from baseless accusations against Peikoff/ARI to followers whom lack individuation.

Ughh, I rember those days. Eating was worse than the gym. "come on, one more bite!". I hope your spreading those calories out as much as possible. I recall the maximum one can really utilize at a single intake is like 40 grams of protein. Youll just be wasting the rest. Incidentally. Why the hell are you eating 300 grams. If one is eating 1 gram per pound of desired body weight a day your shooting for 300? I hope your tall! I was 225 at 6' with approx 10 percent body fat and I hated having to eat all day long. What the.... I just realized this thread is from 2005 lol ah well.

I want to make something clear here. I am in no way denying Rand thought Kant was the most evil man ,or that Peikoff has made similar statements. I am now in the process of figuring out how to reconcile/integrate this with his statements on there being no degrees of virtue. Full stop.

James its now clear to me you are talking complete nonsense and have little regard for the need for facts before you speak. Number one how about instead of repeating Kelly's statement about "groundedness"" you actually demonstrate what is missing in your own words. If you have a valid point Ill be the first to say so and then you wont be pointificating without given grounds. The second quote is demonstrably false and evasive: You are evading the fact that Rand and Peikoff have had personal reason to dissociate from Branden and Kelly etc. Also I heard Peikoff on a lecture yesterday state that he thinks its OK to read opposing philosophies but with the critical active position "whats wrong with this". You have no idea what your talking about. Thanks for the link .Ill look into it. I will say though It is clear that he did at least at some point say that it was not a matter of degree.

I dont understand why this "degrees" question is still being debated as relates to Peikoff. Ive already posted a citation that states explicitly that virtue is NOT a matter of degrees! Heres another from his induction lectures

In relation to virtue Peikoff said:

The problem is that most religious folks cannot even consider that the "book" is capable of being contradictory. Their default position is it is an undivided whole that needs to be followed to live successfuly "spiritually". Until this inviolable thesis is challenged,by them,the moment someone contradicts the "law" no further consideration is even thought relevent towards their position. The ones who find their way out of this are the ones who try to apply the "law" consistently. To do this one has to grasp the principles set forth by this code. When one begins to investigate on the level of principles one discovers contradiction and no clear method of application in ones actions becomes possible. So how does one please a god whos message is A= non A.How does one do only "what they hear the father saying" when he "speaks" contradiction through his "word"? The answer is "Check your premisies"! I was asked when I was struggling with theological integration [impossible] ,"have you considered the possibility that god does not exist?" This was a massive blow to me. Because I was intellectually honest with myself,I had to admit I did not even let the consideration into my mind! The same thing went for "is it possible the bible was written by men who where not writing in agreement with the other authors who are included?" As soon as one asks these questions they become outcast and dejected. Scribulus this is the most self defining moments one can encounter. The strength one developes within, from having the courage to be true to ones own evaluations is the most important element of the process of individuation. If theres any quote from the bible Id keep its this: "Let every man be persuaded in his own mind"

Scribulus, I am a former "minister" and Id be happy to discuss with you through PM.

Ive built the prototype myself but dont know who to trust with getting the right direction for patent and production. The time thing is my greatest concern indeed! I went to machinist school and i can pretty much figure anything mechanical out on my own in most fields.

I know exactly how you feel Jill. Ive invented something that works perfectly and nothing exist that does what it it does.The market for it would be huge and the results incontestable. But I have no idea how to get past the prototype phase without telling someone I dont know, what it is. I can say with all honesty that If I can get it produced and marketed properly Id be a millionaire easily. I truly believe that. But I simply do not know who to trust with going further into the patent process etc. Its very frustrating.

Realized I could use what I posted for something.... Deleted

I have been working specifically on the issue of shape and boundedness in relation to the concept entity. I think when I'm done I will be able to show from Oist epistemology that one cannot induce the concept entity without either. It is the essential characteristic that separates it from the concept existent.Ill add that this is not from "deduction" but rather verified by ubiquitous observation.

"I am therefore Ill think" Expresses in in one sentence the antidote to modern philosophies greatest errors. So powerful.....

I have every time the phrase was used in front of me and I am examining it . Ill get back soon

It wasnt a question. I was kinda thinking out loud. Im in the process of identifying those "implications". Ill get back to you.

I just thought of something if: Primacy in regards to relationships pertain to time measurements [epistemology]. The issue of what context of dynamic interaction [relationship]causes what attributes requires the identification time measurementshmmm ....Goes off to ponder this more. edit changed last sentence for intelligability..

I completely missed this in the subtitle..... Metaphysically this is an invalid question.

O.K. folks I think everyone is misunderstanding Jakes post. As I understand him he is simply restating this: That is to say that entities are causal "primaries" And then as a result defining "charge" and "force" as resulting directly from the nature of entities interacting as primaries. No "force" without entities interacting dynamically. No "charge" without entities possessing them etc. Jake i think the confusion may be over whether or not its epistemological. Jake Have you read Stolyyrov?

To the first read ITOE. To the second round-cube is a shape? You need to understand what essential characteristics are in relation to the law of identity. Ive been working on something that is related to this entire thread and will post it when I'm done...

Incorrect your confusing existent with entity. When one defines sphere he finds that "open" would contradict its essential charachteristic shape. Unbounded object is the same as saying a= non a

"What is an Entity? A Topological Definition" http://progressofliberty.today.com/2008/11...t-is-an-entity/

We can be sure that what ever we observe is a result of the law of identity. And that if we are observing ,we are conscious, and that for us to be conscious and observing anything means that we and those things exist.

There's a hat in that photo?????

This corresponds to my second post. I did misunderstand you then. I probably could have been more constructive by suggesting you read more of Rands works. My comment was about the law of non contradiction not tabula rasa. A philosophical concepts validity is not determined by consensus by the way. Melchior May I suggest you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Your comments all seem to bare on not understanding the relationship of concepts to percepts.One cannot grasp the concept "one" without the ubiquitous observation of concrete entities.