aristotlejones

Then I'll reiterate what I previously asked: Does anyone in this discussion own the TEW book and can they tell me if the theoretical ideas such as the vecton are grounded in [any] observational evidence? ... if LL has used TEW to successfully predict new observations as EU theory has repeatedly done, then I'd be willing to order the book. >A vecton is a (somewhat speculative) theoretical model of the particle photons responsible for electric and magnetic forces. Boy I have been away for a long time. Photons responsible for EM forces? Maybe visa versa, (or in solar panels) but I always thought that em was ionized matter in aggregate having specific properties beyond that of its individual constituents, i.e. field interactions. (what causes those interactions is another question... what causes gravity?) >Most of the principle effects described by classical electromagnetism, including the transformations of electric and magnetic "fields" into one another as an observer changes his frame of reference, are captured with a simple picture in which the vectons carry a single "push vector"--hence the name "vecton." huh? Doesn't a vector denote a force in a specified direction, so the push is already implied? Einstein said that one should be able to explain their field (sic) of study in simple enough terms that a 12 year old school girl can understand it. Thanks for being a conduit prodos, <Φ>aj

I fail to see where Branden confuses reasonable with reason or objectivity in your selected quotations. In fact, he distinguishes the two correctly in order to illustrate a fallacy. You seem to have misread what he says, then blamed him for what he did not say. You will have to come up with better evidence that Branden neither understands nor practices objectivity, especially in the face of all his works, before and beyond his association with Ayn Rand. Branden made a distinction here that allows the reader to understand the social metaphysical roots of "reasonable" for any society or time, and just because he highlights a common error, does not mean he endorses it, nor abandons true objectivity. I suggest you first reread OPAR, and make sure you understand the fallacy of rationalism before you erect strawmen to attack or inflict cut & paste philosophizing on a great person. Stay Focused, <Φ>aj

Mo hinline quots: A competent and self-confident person is incapable of jealousy in anything. Jealousy is invariably a symptom of neurotic insecurity. "Love" is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own... Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy. The more you love, the more you can love — and the more intensely you love. Nor is there any limit on how many you can love. If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just. “The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.” “The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful.” <Φ>aj Take not lightly liberty To have it you must live it And like love, don't you see To keep it you must give it Meplat <Φ>aj

Trademarks are partly about the nature of the mark itself, and partly the products or services to which it is associated. In this case, it would only matter if one of the objectivist organizations would want to protect it so that they could use it on their merchandise. But like the dollar symbol, if we start spreading the meme, it enters the public domain eventually. See Kleenex & Xerox. And I suppose we could start a text based trend of significant icons to denote our personal values. I use <*>, a jumpgate symbol, to show my affiliation and love of anything to do with Babylon 5, the scifi series. Be seeing you, <Φ>aj

I'm with Steve on this. What better symbolic representation of the only philosophy worthy of the name than to use a symbol already connected with the field. Wiki says: The upper-case letter Φ is used as a symbol for: The golden ratio conjugate 0.618... in mathematics. The magnetic flux and electric flux in physics, with subscripts distinguishing the two. The cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution in mathematics and statistics. Philosophy. The number of phases in a power system in electrical engineering, for example 1Φ for single phase, 3Φ for three phase. The symbol of the voiceless bilabial fricative in the international phonetic alphabet. And the symbology is congruent with the values of objectivism: the "i" standing for the independent mind, the individual, the entity vs the non-entity and as the joining of two halves of a flattened oval which can represent either the earth or the universe, but also both half-truths of philosophy, i.e. rationalism & empiricism bound together into objectivism. (ok, it's not perfect, but you get my drift...) <*>aj

How about this? Looks like an "A" which given that the law of identity is redundant for the slower folks, A=A can be shortened to just A. A looks like a mountain, which can represent the hierarchichal nature of knowledge, science, and objective philosophy. The "A" looks like an arrow pointing upwards, to the sky, to the top, to the best within us... The oval again bounds the aspirations by the limits of reality, or this earth. And the obverse, with the arrow pointing down, for the statists, the closed minded, the sinkholes of despair... your mileage may vary... <*>aj

I beg to differ. A small dash breaking the top of a circle is not the same as a large "I" spanning a horizontally flattened ellipse. And I don't think Objectivists would be advertizing their philosophy on electronic devices. At least not on the power buttons. But you spawned another idea... <*>aj

To elaborate: An "I" standing for self, the individual, holding up the insides of the universe or a sphere or a ball, has connotations of Atlas. An "eye" is our primary means of observation or perception, and is the foundation of our epistemology. I agree that the symbol should be as simple as possible so that it may be reproduced by hand or spraypaint or needlework. An oval can sometimes represent our planet. For the caffinated, sometimes staying focused requires the equivalent of a toothpick holding open the eyelids, which this symbol also denotes. So, in summary, a thick I supporting the walls of a horizontal oval can represent: Atlas, focus, perception, the invidual inside the universe, opening one's eyes requires effort, the eye of objectivity, objectivity requires observation, the individual is the integration of incomplete dichotomies, etc... your mileage may vary... <*>aj

I guess I've been privileged to have good examples. I used to do electronics testing work that once I got things sorted out, was mind numbingly repetitive. I got a walkman and used to listen to books on tape. Because I listened to a lot of different readers, I had at that time at least thirteen library cards. Some of the best readers were: Edward Woodward Julie Christie (I think, whoever read West with the Night) John LeCarre reading his own works has, to quote one of his characters, "the minah bird's ear". Captain Picard (darned if I can remember his real name right now) Basically anyone with a background in stagework and even better if shakespearean... <*>aj

Same reason that the Italian Fascists allowed We the Living to be made as a movie. Until someone pointed out the obvious flaw in their ignorance. Then it was banned. Cheaper kindling? I know for a fact that there is at least one copy of Atlas in the Ukraine, formerly a Soviet satellite state. Back during the cold war, our local scifi club was trading books with one in the Ukraine. I mailed them a care package of a collection of scifi books, but took the cover off one of the appropriate thickness and glued it onto Atlas. It got through customs because they sent a puzzled note wondering if we'd made a mistake. I'm sure someone read it, cuz not soon after the wall actually did fall down and the Ukraine has been struggling for true independence ever since... <*>aj

I searched the Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology site for any enlightenment on or comparisons of EU with TEW. As I said, I don't really have the right to ask LL to spill the beans if he's selling a book, but in this case, and given my limited understanding of the issues, a thumbnail is not enough to understand or support the proposed concept. Does anyone in this discussion own the TEW book and can they tell me if the theoretical ideas such as the vecton are grounded in observational evidence? I am still struggling with the various ideas in the EU literature such as Electric Sky by Don Scott, but it would be confirmatory if LL's theory had overlap with EU proponents. For that reason, if I can be convinced that there is sufficient observational support for the theoretical claims made, and if LL has used TEW to successfully predict new observations as EU theory has repeatedly done, then I'd be willing to order the book. Stay Focused, (astronomical/epistemological pun) <*>aj

Has anyone other than softwarenerd and pokarrin read this book? Anyone got beyond the first chapter? I read and enjoyed the book, but had to return it to the library. I intend to buy a copy next time I'm in the city. What I remember from the book is that our present industry and inventive dissatisfaction was born in the Scottish culture as a response to having their claymores taken away, and that that problem solving optimism became the backbone of the British Empire, and then the better part of english epistemology travelled to north america. As a canadian living in british columbia, it is easier to see the scottish antecedents at most street corners, and i was startled and pleased to notice that about 4/5ths of my inventive clients have scottish names. I know a lot of you have other commitments, but if anyone read the book and has more general comments, I would like to hear them. Stay Focused, <*>aj Dwell on the solutions, not the problems. (Terry Goodkind - paraphrased)

I do like your design, and it reminds me of the RIC symbol that was sold years ago. Reason, Individualism, Capitalism wrapped around two people holding a shared dollar sign. However, I was assuming that any symbol should be fairly simple in design so that it would be recognizable at a distance, and simple to reproduce. (as with the christian fish) The problem with creating an iconic graphical symbol is that there are already so many out there. I like the idea of a single line inside an O, as it does speak to the individual, but I was trying to stay closer to the metaphysical - epistemological levels of the philosophy than the political. >>A valid philosophy cleaves the universe at its epistemological joints, >I disagree, a valid philosophy is as noncontradictory and unified as the universe which it is about. Then a philosophy would be a practical impossibility as it would not show us how to distinguish one concept from another by the use of a rational epistemology. Yes, the universe is whole and without joints, but it is not obvious. We create a philosophy, and more specifically, an epistemology, to teach us the aspects of the whole, and when we grasp everything that is knowable, only then is the universe unified in our mind. Are you saying that everything you know and say is noncontradictory and unified, or maybe you still have something to learn about the universe? I sure do. And for that reason, I need a means to separate and categorize and classify and simplify and finally integrate. >The 2 crosses are visually busy, and look like an asterisk. Overall, inside a circle it looks like a wheel with spokes. I was going to go with only three lines, but it it looked funny, and it was easier to make two crosses. And I don't really think it looks like a wheel, as long as the spokes are not too close to the edge of the circle. Your mileage may vary...

I'm sorry, but I've seen Yarron speak years ago, and just watched some of his more recent youtube vids, and in neither case did he talk like Daffy Duck. Anyone know if he's had a minor stroke, or has developed a speech impediment? Maybe he was having a heat stroke from the bright lights? Although Yarron is justifiably a solid intellectual spokesperson for the movment, aesthetically even a good looking robot-girl in isn't as offputting as was his presentation. For me it was just too distracting to continue to watch. I recently emailed Dr. Peikoff about his side profile on his new transitioning web banner, as he looks like Alexander the Great on the side of a coin. I suggested that he use the format already established, and create a graphic showing him giving a passionate lecture, or in various historical scenes with Ayn Rand or others. I said that might be less offputting than the side of his head. (He has admitted several times in the past that the camera doesn't do him justice) Of course I've not received any reply so far, but I'm not current on the podcasts. If the movement is to be taken seriously, then its organizers need to take the basic elements of presentation seriously. I learned this in business school, and working in visual communications, and doing most of my own PR & marketing work. Ayn had a fantastic sense of aesthetically gripping presentation, and if the current torchbearers had even half her ability... <*>aj

Here's another attempt. At least it's symmetrical now. A valid philosophy cleaves the universe at its epistemological joints, hence the sectors of a objectivistic "O". Without a means to separate once existent from another and one concept from another, one is left with an empty "O", or the oft-maligned zero. The symbol also starts from the center, the individual, the self, and spreads from there. As a free country starts from the protection of the rights of the individual, and thereby freedom spreads throughout that country. And this symbol is something that anyone can write, just like the christian fish symbol. Two crosses and an "O". Thots anyone? <*>aj

Sorry, you can't use my trademark. (eyes left) But I do think the lightbulb is iconic of 20th century that Rand loved. But does a lightbulb encompass the gravity of a universal philosophy? Howabout a circle with an equals sign inside? The circle could stand for "O" meaning Objectivism, as well as the universe or the whole of existence. And the equals sign could stand for identity, which is what a conscious being must grasp and use to live in the universe successfully. Note: Well that didn't look like I expected. Anyone know how to remove the border? Also: anyone know a vector graphic file type that I'm allowed to upload? I made this in illustrator, then had to dumb it down to a jpeg because I wasn't allowed to upload a tif. <*>aj

I believe I used the 35th anniversary paperback edition because it gave more favorable stats. You are correct that amazon's numbers seem to be for each edition, and if taken in aggregate would improve the percentages. Then what about foreign language editions...? I'd be curious about the percentages for say, Russia, China, and especially India.

Also in response to the original query: Caveat: repetition of the same error begets insanity. We need to repeat the right methods, including the right method of focusing. The challenge is to stay focused. Some of the things that distract us from remaining focused on the actualization of one's values can be: living in a society at odds with one's values, dealing with people consciously or unconsciously hostile to your values, limitations placed on our acheivements because of the irrational fears or jealousies of others, lack of access to the full resources an open society would afford the most productive, etc. But these are external factors, and only partly beyond our control. An internal limitation is the self image and self prospects one allows one to believe. Do we on some level agree with our attackers? At weak moments do we allow ourselves to give in to their assaults because it is just easier to let them believe what they do so we can have some momentary surcease? This is a hard road to maintain when people who we trust disappoint us so much and render our honest work as fodder for their irrational campaigns. I take aikido. I have learned that it is better to slow down and learn a few things properly instead of rushing around and learning nothing well. Often people repeat the same flawed techniques for decades, even achieving rank beyond their abilities. Psychological retraining is a lot like aikido. Aikido teaches you to move into an attack to the place where you can be safe again, and where you can control the opponent without damaging them. It is only achieved by relaxing and moving into an attack. This is a frightening thing for most people, and something that takes many years of training to master. Learning and then defending a rational philosophy, not only to others, but daily to yourself, is also a hard thing to do, and takes many years of deprogramming and retraining. I posit that the best way to learn to stay focused, as I've had to do while writing patents and doing patent searches for a living, is to examine slowly each distraction, disturbance, and attack, and see it for what it is, and decide if you can do something about it, or if you can just choose to ignore it as the kettledrums of savages. This is not easy, but it gets easier the more you do it. There are more solutions than you might imagine when you clear your mind of justified anger at these distractions, and see what tools you have to combat or neutralize them. Eventually attacks do not make you tense up, or get defensive, and the control is back in your hands. You can choose what you want to do because you can see that you actually have choices. This was a bit rambling because I'm playing hooky from work to do it, and I admit that I have a long way to go learning to focus in the moment consistently. But if one is aware of the pattern, and the solution, eventually one learns to discard the distracting false values, and to embrace and reinforce the rejuvinating true values, and one gets better at it if they work at the appropriate pace. Just like retraining the mind-body in aikido to accept an attack as the only way to neutralize it. "If you cannot control & trust yourself, if you cannot see yourself clearly. You will never have any knowledge or trust of others, and you certainly will not be able to control them." Saotome Sensei Focus on the solutions, not the problems. (Terry Goodkind) <*>aj BTW, I find that keeping a personal journal helps one work through daily issues of living up to one's values, and helps one learn to focus one what is most important, and to not buy into the rest.

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #41,279 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books) Popular in these categories: #16 in Books > Literature & Fiction > Authors, A-Z > ( R ) > Rand, Ayn #19 in Books > Literature & Fiction > Classics > United States > Rand, Ayn

So let me understand this... You claim to be open to questions about this policy, and its supposed alternatives: yet only answer those you deem worthy of an answer. After two emails stating the opposite, you decide that I'm asking to post my business on this forum. Never happened, straw man. You claim my business is not "appropriate" for the link directory, yet you offer no standard for that evaluation, and still have not supplied a location of this fabled directory, preventing me from finding out who else has been deemed worthy enough to be permitted post their links there. John Galt = Inventor of a novel motor design Hank Rearden = designer of a new method of steel manufacture & composition Ayn Rand = creator of a universally integrative rational philosophical system Howard Roark = designer of novel architecture Equality 7-2521 = Re-inventor of the incandescent light bulb The previous examples are indicative of the interests that OO.net subscribers already hold. My site provides information and services of interest to inventors and the invention curious. I am a certified US Patent paralegal operating a legitimate business helping inventors and companies. I am not a fly-by-night, invention marketing scammer, lying to people to steal their money. I simply provide patent searches and documentation, and am trusted by the local legal community. You claim my site is not "appropriate" for your members or readers of the "main site", and I submit that your evaluation is in error, and contradicts the obvious interests of the OO.net membership. You claim that you don't have a listing (location unspecified) for links to businesses run by Objectivists, yet. So I ask that you please outline specifically why this seems to be so anathema to the adminstrators of this site? I mean, how hard can it be to set up and oversee? BTW, prodos is promoting Lewis Little's book on this site. (TEW discussion) How is posting a reference to the TEW site which links to the amazon page for Little's book any different than asking to post a link to one's business? Who is John Galt? I thank you for your objective consideration, <*>aj BTW, I wouldn't be pursuing this if there were any alternative. The Objectivist Businesspeople site has been inactive for a long time. I would think that members of either site would welcome a subforum or listing of objectivist run businesses. Why don't you ask the membership what they want?

Since prodos emailed me privately, and I see nothing posted on this matter (sic), a clarification is in order. Apparently there is a Vecton Theory of Magnetism in the corpus of LL's treatise. It is not a typo. I asked for a thumbnail sketch of this concept, and was promised one, but it is possibly unfair to ask for something out of context, or for free. Stay Focused, <*>aj

Well, I've been patient. I asked previously where on the "main site" one may add their website, and you've given no reply. I see that you've not been answering other posts recently, so I waited for your return. Now I see that you have been answered posts & queries from other OO participants, but have ignored or overlooked mine. Your statements lead me to infer that the administrators of this website are hostile to advertizing of honest businesses that likely are of interest to some objectivists? Yet, you offered a place where they might be welcome but won't give them accurate information as to how to find that place? I am not asking for an exception, just more specificity to your statement above. Where on the "main site" may one add their commercial but objectivistically relevant website. Stay Focused, <*>aj

Someone want to tell Lewis' publisher that there is no >Vecton< Theory of Magnetism, ch 10.3 or 10.4? (amazon preview) These things leap out at me: I write patents for a living, so sue me. And no I don't want to register to the prodos & lewis show just to correct a spelling error. stay focused, aj

The thing about Tesla was that he was more a true inductive scientist than an engineer. He used to poke fun at his contemporary, Edison, who claimed that new ideas were 90% perspiration and only 10% inspiration. Tesla compared it to using a scalpel to tease back the layers to reveal the truth hidden within the universe, unlike Edison's shotgun approach. I mean really, 3000 different materials were tested to find the right carbon filament for the light bulb. One would think there might be a better way to get the answer, like, oh say, the scientific method?

Hi Greedy, I may be misunderstanding what the rules are, but I was hoping to post a link and a small ad for my commercial website on the "main site" you referred to below, but I can't find any appropriate place to post this information. Can you tell me where and if I can post it? Also, are there any other objectivist business related sites where I might post my shingle? I provide affordable patent and research services for inventors. I'm a certified US patent paralegal and you may check out my site at www.inventive-solutions.ca. One would think that objectivists being rational people, that some would also be inventive. Thanx ahead, Brian