[On ''Thinking outside the box'']

Is this slogan actualy an attempt to remove conceptualisation from understanding?

I'd say it is, indirectly. It's an attempt to establish unconventional thinking as such as a value, and, by implication, standard methods of thinking as valueless. As far as its attempt to remove conceptualization from understanding goes, the mindset seems to be, "Don't worry about how effective an idea is, just worry about how novel it is." All in all, a worthless expression.

[Is Greenspan really Francisco D'Anconia?]

You're right. They are totally different.

I appreciate that, and your posts really are very good. Another thing I thought of in the meantime: late in life, he married leftist journalist Andrea Mitchell. For Francisco, that would be like marrying the equivalent of Lillian Rearden, after giving Hank the "sex speech", and while destroying industry to save the strikers. Imagine the self-imposed torment of Greenspan in marrying such a malevolent hag, if ostensibly to provide cover for his ruining the economy. Just no freaking way. Take note, Greenspan rationalists.

[Is Greenspan really Francisco D'Anconia?]

Regardless of whether or not he purposefully did so, Greenspan actually performed the role of Francisco and he's brought down the entire fiat system (temporarily at least).

The rest of your posts on economics are great, but I must emphatically disagree with this. Francisco did not merely bring down the copper industry. He brought it down in order to render the looters impotent and to clear the way for what would replace it, a world for producers. He also steered the men of the mind toward Galt, so that they might be spared his ruin. He was not merely a wrecking ball out to wreck civilization.

Where is this element of good in Greenspan's actions or words? What could lead one to believe that he is a key figure in attempting to destroy the looters today to create a new, rational world? Nothing. He is a pragmatist and power-luster, pure and simple.

[2081: Everyone Will Be Equal]

I agree....I wonder if they will pull it off successfully. I can't think of one time where someone has actually managed to successfully bring satire to screen.

This is Spinal Tap?

[What kind of music do you enjoy?]

Yeah KurtColville, King Crimson fan here. Pre- or post-Belew? (Doesnt' matter, I like em both).

Nice! I like both, too, but have a strong preference for pre-Belew Crimson. Much better melodic and compositional quality and much more interesting lyrics (God, I get sick of Belew's whining about how much the world sucks). Although there is plenty to like with "Discipline" and even their more recent work, for me, "Red", "Larks' Tongues in Aspic", "Starless and Bible Black", and "Lizard" stand head and shoulders above the rest. I wish people had more appreciation for Fripp's musicianship. Few people merit the title "genius", but his is one.

Have you ever seen them in concert? Fantastic to see that music created live!

[The Mystics of Muscle]

That is how "Atheists" turn out to be true believers. Only not in a bearded God, but in a "Universe", not in fate but in randomness. Luck controls their life so they don't have to. That takes a lot of faith.

That's a good identification. Yep, they're in love with randomness, with purposelessness. No wonder they're so nihilistic.

[The spell of Ayn Rand ruins the creator of Spider-Man]

Surely there are some Objectivist fans of Lord of the Rings.

I sure am -- the books, not the movies.

[New Bill Maher documentary...Religulous]

And his answer to religion is to soak the rich, subordinate man to "the environment", appease our enemies, and smoke pot. Fuck Bill Maher.

[GOD! Save Me From Your People!]

A great deal on Moral is on Rush's song, "Lock and Key":

I've always interpreted these in a negative light. It sounds like Neil is saying that we all have this fatal flaw of a killer instinct, but some of us manage to suppress it by keeping it "under lock and key". He doesn't want to face his own killer instinct, so he hides it away. That's a horribly malevolent view of man and just plain wrong. His lyrics, however, have definitely gone in that direction since "Grace Under Pressure" and especially since the tragic loss of his wife and daughter. It's too bad, because they're great.

[GOD! Save Me From Your People!]

I'm talking about war, not fighting an insurgency. Besides all of those things you listed as your lack of proof of a kill em all doctrine are contained in the Law of armed combat.

Soldiers fighting soldiers there is very little thought that has to be put into whom to kill and whom not to. It's done that way on purpose, that is why we have rules about wearing uniforms, not posing as civilians, not setting up camps in churches, occupied schools, hospitals etc. You know, all those inconvenient rules the Terrorists dispose of which make ROE's necessary.

Even comportment to the Geneva Convention and crazy ROE's that turn our soldiers into mindless, sacrificial robots do not obviate the fact that soldiers do judge whom to kill or not. They are not without formal guidelines, but those guidelines do not cover every situation, nor do they replace the soldier's own mind. Wars involve an endless array of complex situations that are beyond even the top Pentagon official's ability to plan. Is this person an enemy informant? The ROE's say to call HQ to get approval to return fire, but these guys just wiped out half my squad and we don't have time! Every time a soldier pulls the trigger or relaxes his aim, he is making a judgment about whether or not to kill. Before he can follow ROE's, or just orders, he makes the judgment that they are right, or not, to follow.

[Have Some Salt]

As if his own words aren't enough to discredit him.

[McCain: America Established as a Christian Nation]

I say that often, so I don't understand what the big deal is with this. Tell me you didn't say this when you read the Kelo opinion.

Do you say it for the same reasons that Wright and Obama's leftist drones do? That matters. And I don't think Wright or Obama hate America because the Supreme Court expanded eminent domain. C'mon.

[McCain/Obama Forum 8/16]

That doesn't sound clear at all. It sounds almost Bushian in it's vagueness - like he has a few buzz phrases memorized, and just keeps saying them over and over again, trying to force himself and the rest of the audience to believe what he's saying without any deep examination. All that's missing is Bush's trademark "do I get a cookie?" look everytime he says something that sounds smart.

You're the first person I've heard express annoyance with Bush's idiotic facial expressions. They've annoyed me from the get-go. The look you're describing makes me think of, "Does anyone understand what I'm saying, 'cause I sure don't" or "Did I get that right?" He furrows his brow a little, stammers, and tightens his mouth, showing frustration. His other one is where he'll state something, like "The Iraqi people want democracy," punctuated by this chuckle that says, "It's so obvious, I can't believe I have to explain it." But this is his reflexive defense mechanism to an unchecked, invalid premise ("I'll condition my subconscious to treat certain ideas as laughably obvious, so I don't have to think about them.").

You can see a lot of frustration in his facial expressions, going all the way back to 2001. The man is an idiot, doesn't understand his own ideas, can't speak to save his life, and can't hide these facts in his mannerisms. His epistemology is so tortuously misintegrated, it's not even funny. I'm not looking forward to 4-8 years of either of these two monsters, but I can't wait until I don't have to listen to this total fucking moron anymore.

[McCain/Obama Forum 8/16]

Bob Barr? He shouldn't even be invited to an ice cream social, he's a bigger nutcase than Obama and McCain.

In what way is he nuts? Policy? Philosophy? Something else?

[GOD! Save Me From Your People!]

Murder is justifiable to some people. Not the general public, but what of serial murderers or sociopaths? Obviously, if they innately thought what they were doing was wrong, they wouldn't do it. No, they murder because they enjoy it and have defined their own sense of moral code.

Murderers hold a number of different views of murder. Most, I would imagine, simply avoid evaluating it and act on the range of the moment, murdering because it meets some immediate need of theirs. Others regard it as "wrong" (immoral), but treat immorality as a floating abstraction, as a principle to intellectually identify, but to cut off entirely from reality, because "it doesn't work in real life." Along those lines, they'll regard murder as wrong "in some cases", but rationalize its justifiability in other cases built on a jumble of non-essentials ("he dissed me" / "he deserves it" / etc.) that they are all too willing to use as a basis for their ethics.

I believe murder is wrong because I don't think any human being is equipped with the decision to decide who should live or die.

Is that the reason that murder is wrong? Is it true that no human being can judge who should live or die? For starters, each individual determines whether he should live or die. We also pass such judgment on others in death penalty cases. Is it wrong or impossible to judge that a bloodthirsty killer should die for his crimes? What about war? Soldiers in war judge all the time who should live or die. Is this wrong in all cases or are there justifiable reasons to kill others in war? What about someone who attacks you on the street, intending to kill you, and the only way you can stop him is to kill him?

There is definitely a reason why murder is wrong, but I think if you look more closely, you'll see that it isn't because man can't make judgments about who should live or die.

[To live for myself.]

I feel like a matyr for objectivism (even though I know how morally wrong a matyr can be), sometimes I will try and try to make some of my classmates understand. Sometimes it clicks, but they never truly grasp it. Some just listen because I can speak well, but never grasp the concepts. The majority think I'm the idiot.

I feel like I'm morally degrading myself by trying to make objectivism available to them, but at the same time I feel like its extremely important to at least give these kids the chance to see where I'm coming from and try to give them some sense of philosophy.

In keeping with the subject of this thread, the more you focus on making a success of your life, the less you'll feel like a martyr. It's a tremendous feeling to know that other people are turning on to Objectivism, or even just rationality, but that feeling pales in comparison to what you feel by putting Objectivism into action in your own life.

A good way to prevent feeling morally degraded is to make a practice of discussing Objectivism only with those who are intellectually honest. For the dishonest ones, the ones who don't care to think, you'll just be beating your head against a wall, as you've probably experienced.

To offer a little moral ammunition, I've found that many intellectually dishonest people are not so at war with reality that they deny a successful life. When they see that someone lives the right way, that they're happy and able to deal with the problems that life throws at them, that everyday living just appears easier for them, they pick up on this and on some level they wonder how it is that you did this. They'll make a superficial concession to the efficacy of your values, even though they irrationally regard them as immoral or impractical. At that point, they are often willing to give the ideas you live by more credence. The moral of the story is, just living your own life the right way often pays dividends in the philosophy of others.

[Need some advice for an argument (about Environmentalism)]

Exactly what market trend are we talking about? It's not like rising gas prices...it's air quality. Does the government have the right to protect its citizens from pollution or not?

The government has no role manipulating any market. The government has the right to protect its citizens from pollution that violates individuals' rights, not just any old pollution whatever.

[Need some advice for an argument (about Environmentalism)]

-- Manufacturing industries, the oft-accused source of pollution, is the real source of wealth in this country. Most other businesses indirectly rely on manufacturing. If all manufacturing is driven out of the country, the rest of the economy will go with it. We should be relaxing rules for manufacturers, encouraging them to grow, not the reverse.

Really, we should just get out of manufacturers' way and protect their rights just like anybody else. Part of the reason why people are so conflicted about what should be done is that pollution laws have always been so arbitrary that real polluters sometimes got away with it. We need objective laws, period.

-- A more productive way to apply legislation would be to require industries to fully and accurately disclose the pollution that they cause. That could then give concerned consumers enough information to make an informed choice for alternatives.

Again, government should not require businesses to do anything where the violation of rights isn't established. Federal regulations already do require companies to disclose pollution -- that's the problem, and because it assumes guilt and imposes totally crippling pollution standards set up by the environmentalist racket. Companies already have an incentive, apart from the government's gun, to disclose their emissions to the public: the potential loss of business. Allow manufacturers the same assumption of innocence that we all enjoy, and establish objective laws to punish the actual polluters.

[Town Under 24-Hour Curfew]

The point is that keeping crime in check can trump individual rights in some instances. That's why it would be fine, under the right circumstances, to nuke Iran, for example.

The government would be absolutely failing in its most basic duty if it didn't take the steps necessary to stop violent crime.

Clearly you do not understand the nature of rights and that they are essential to man. Rights are not something to be traded for or trumped by crime prevention. Good grief -- the very reason to prevent crime is to protect rights. This is the old, false argument that rights conflict with crime prevention. They do not -- not with proper, just crime prevention. Even in a crime-ridden hellhole, a man needs to know that he won't be facing the law's initiation of force instead of the criminals'.

And the reason to nuke Iran is not to "trump rights in some instances", but to protect our rights from being further violated by Iranians who have no rights, by the fact that they have initiated force against us.

[Proving the limits of knowledge]

I don't--I leave it up to any potential claimant to give me reason to entertain or believe it. The point is that we have no proof that we understand anything other than our five-ish senses, logic, and emotions.

Well, you said "perhaps we can sense" infrared light or neutrinos, and "maybe we just have to" focus our minds in a certain way, and "I don't know." So you are entertaining the notion that the perception of such phenomena may be possible, when what you should be saying is, "Such perception is impossible to man, and I know exactly why it is impossible." I'm not trying to pick on you or use your words against you, but it is important to reject an attribute that contradicts a thing's nature, rather than to say, "maybe it could -- I don't know and I don't care."

No, that's just taking my grammar too literally. To be more metaphysically, grammatically precise, the sensations are sensed.

Ahh, fine, sensations are sensed, yes.

I would disagree. Just like a patch of red in your visual field is a source of information, I think the feeling of love is also information--if, vacuously, the information that is the unique feeling of love. For instance, you may encounter an alien race (or other being) that does not feel love, and so you have unique information about the feeling of love. Moreover, to feel love is a product of yourself and the object of your love, and so it is information about both. Suppose I am a new character in Atlas Shrugged and all that you know about me is that I love Dagny; the narrator tells you that I feel a tightening in my chest when I think of her accomplishments, an entirely self-serving desire to have her body and its peerless mind at my command; that it is all one specific, defined, and conscious feeling like a white-hot point in my mind. Certainly one can only feel that feeling if you first use your unfeeling, rational mind to understand who Dagny is and who I am. But from that isolated information about the feeling which I have, you can know something about both Dagny and me. It is in both of these senses that I mean feelings are information.

Notice how in all of your discussion of emotions, you always have to name the referents of those emotions to get your point across. You always have to refer to the sources of said emotions. That should tell you that emotions are not true sources of information. Were you to attempt to gain information from your emotions, the thoughts running through your mind would go like: Hate... Joy... Fear... Anger... Tranquility... Uncertainty... Bliss, etc. What kind of information is that? What is that train of impulses telling you? Information presupposes some entity identified by a consciousness. And yet, emotions are automated responses of the subconscious, and by that fact bypass any process of conscious identification. If this weren't the case, every time you experienced something that produced an emotion, you would consciously go, "Hmm, I wonder how I should feel about that," just like you treat ideas by going, "Hmm, I wonder what I should think about that." But you don't do that with feelings. You experience something and boom! -- you get a feeling, without any conscious thought.

[Town Under 24-Hour Curfew]

I don't have a problem with the situation... the proper government response to a super-crime-ridden area is to do whatever is necessary to apprehend criminals.

Really? The government can properly violate citizens' rights by imposing curfews in order to apprehend criminals? Do you actually understand what "the right to your life" means?

[Proving the limits of knowledge]

They may be automated response to information, but they are sensed directly, like the senses. There is no intermediary, and so in that way they are like information--even if the information is only a function of objective reality and one's self.

I don't understand what you mean by saying the senses are sensed. The senses (eyes, ears, nose, skin, mouth) sense, but there is no other instrument apart from the sensory organs that senses the sensory organs. It sounds like you think that the mind senses the senses, but it does not; the mind is incapable of sensing. The mind directs the senses and processes the senses' data.

You're right that emotions are sensed directly -- by the mind, and specifically by introspection. But that does not change the fact that emotions are not sources of information. What information can one elicit from an emotion itself, without reference to the source of that emotion? When something triggers anger in a person, the trigger is the source of information, not the emotional response. Keep in mind that without reality as the context for the source of all information, you wouldn't be able to identify your emotions. When you feel some emotional impulse, it's your grasp of reality that tells you what emotion you're feeling. It's the source of your recognition of what they are.

[Proving the limits of knowledge]

For instance, perhaps we can sense infrared or nutrinos, but we just have to focus our minds appropriately or maybe we need some kind of surgery to make the sense organs active. I don't know, I don't care. I have never sensed it or found reason to believe that anyone can understand anything beyond the five(ish) senses, logic, and emotions.

Why even entertain such a notion? Of course we can't see in the infrared or sense neutrinos, and we have the proof to back it up. On a self-evident level, we observe that in the presence of such phenomena, we cannot perceive them. We can go a step further and compare the perceptual limits of our senses to the physical qualities of infrared light and neutrinos, where we find that the two are totally out of our perceptual range.

For any other bizarre notions about other sources of knowledge or extensions of man's senses, you said the key words at the end: there's no reason to believe it.

[Proving the limits of knowledge]

Emotions aren't sources of information -- they are automated responses to information. The senses, likewise, aren't sources of information. Reality is the only source of information, and the senses perceive reality and pass those signals on to the mind which converts the signals into information.

[The “Sensitivity” Syndrome]

Good post. Thanks. I would add that at the heart of multiculturalism is a feeling of guilt for being superior to other cultures, hatred of American/Western culture, and outright hatred of the good. Every time I hear a policitian or military leader explain why we must "bring them democracy", and balk at annihilating the enemy and leaving the survivors to pick up the pieces, they scream an unspoken, unacknowledged premise: because we would be guilty of their suffering.