Kellymeg80

Thank you! Mozilla intalled easily and works perfectly! I have my Gmail back!

Thank you Bryan! I'm using a work computer, though. Does that pose a problem? Will installing Mozilla mess with what my company already has installed (IE 5.5)?

Hi all, My original problem is happening again and it seems like it's permanent this time. Any thoughts/suggestions? Help! Kelly

Nevermind. Must have been a glitch....after all that, google finally let me back on :-P

Hi all, I figured I'd post here since there are a lot of tech-oriented people who might be able to help. I've had no problem getting into my gmail account from work for the two months or so I've had the account. Then out of the blue, at 11 this morning (after having checked the account once today already), I was prompted for my username and password and redirected to a screen saying my cookies were disabled. I went to my IE settings (version 5.5 I think) and the cookies are enabled! I've tried several times since and received the same message and have been unable to access my account. I emailed their help team and was given a link to their help page, but the link didn't work. Could this be a problem with Gmail's systems or possibly something wrong with my computer or system? I'd appreciate any help you could give me! If you can help me get in, I'll gladly give you a gmail account or send you brownies or we can work something out :-D Kelly

I have to say, I agree with this wholeheartedly. I know Andy personally, and his the LAST person I know who would be dogmatic, repressed or rationalistic. Andy is the best that Objectivism has to offer.

I just have to say, in response to the last few posts, I am thrilled to see so many people (and so many men, at that) in an Objectivist forum who are not only not completely rationalistic, but not rationalistic about romance. It's really a breath of fresh air for me! Thanks!

I ADORE that quote! I have been waiting for the perfect time to actually use it on someone, but the opportunity has never presented itself. *rubs hands together* MWAHAHAHAHA

Yes, you should definately have standards. I don't know if I could even have an intimate relationship with someone I don't think very highly of. I just wouldn't be attracted to them. As far as a person being imperfect, or rather not totally up to standards, well, if the "imperfection" isn't that great, and the person is obviously growing, I could possibly see some kind of romantic relationship...However, as said previously, this is a hard thing to talk about since there are so many individual variables. As for perfect, that's a hard thing. A friend of mine belongs to the HBL, and said they've had a convo about that. Something to the effect of the perfect being that which works in reality. I'll have to ask her about that, or maybe one of you know about it. That's great! Who originally said it? It really expresses the problem with being rationalistic about relationships. Yay, Aristotle. He rocks hard core. :-D

Just my thoughts on the subject as a whole, after reading the last couple pages of posts. On the subject of a "perfect partner": My only worry with the use of this concept is that I've seen "perfect" misconstrued by so many Objectivists in romantic relationships. Especially when you're young, there is so much growth to be done. So if you're in your early 20's (for example), and are looking for a partner, looking for someone who's completely fully, integrated (and in your even remote age group) will probably only lead you to frustration. One should look for a partner that has the right sense of life, a strong attachment to reality, and who is growing (in addition to having optional values you find personally important). Remember, you're growing too. Perfect does not mean unchanging. Yes, you should only have sex with someone you consider to have a brilliant soul, but realize that that brilliant soul is always growing (if this is a truely good, heroic, person). Saying to someone " I can't love you if you're not perfect or X Y Z" or whatever is damaging to a relationship, and ultimately to your ability to find a partner. Look for someone who complements you, encourages your growth, and whose growth you encourage. I may be getting muddled down here. Betsy, what are your thoughts? I'd be interested to know.

Sorry, I'm new to this thread, but what the heck is a MUP? :-D

That's interesting. I had always identified Cheryl and Eddie as the same type of person. The first time I read AS, and Cheryl mentioned to Jim in on their later scenes that she liked Eddie because he was honest, I imagined the two of them becoming a couple. It tore me apart when Cheryl jumped of a peer just a few scenes later. Does anyone else see Cheryl and Eddie as very alike?

I consider myself to be much more "average" than "prime mover", but I can't say that in Eddie's position, I would have done what he did. Maybe that's because I have already read AS, but I have a lot more strength and foresight than to stay with a sinking ship. I love life way to much to not fight for it. I can't imagine I would ever "lose interest" in that way. Eddie's mistake is not that he lost interest in starting over, but that he still thought he was doing the right thing in holding on to the world. I don't see Eddie as being one to lose interest in living like that.

Hmmm, this brings up an interesting point for me. Objectivism identifies career as one of the most (if not the most) important part of a person's life. I agree with this. No matter what people/friends/lovers come into and out of my life, I will always have my art. However, I have seen this identification of the importance of career exploited by some Objectivists. They become incredibly attached to career at the expense of other values (romance, friendship, other interests that could deepen their life) and often end up basing their sense of self-worth solely on their career and often, on the company they work for. Instead of being Joe, Richard or Bill, they become Microsoft, Amazon or whatever company they work for. So, this is a tangential issue, but didn't Eddie make a mistake common among Objectivists? Does anyone else see this trend?

I haven't had the same experiences here. I've often found repressed Objectivists to have (or at least say they have) at least some personal values, and often demonstrate them. Their repression is seen in their emotional reactions to said values or to life in general. They may say "That's great", but with no inflection in their voice, no smile on their face, no animation whatsoever. They rarely say anything really superlative, and when they do, they lack gusto. These people often seem to be better after a couple drinks. The alcohol just melts their repression away. Seeing these people after a few drinks makes me know that the expression/passion is hidden deep within their soul. But how to get it out when they're completely sober? I've found it almost impossible. And *that* I have a lot of experience with. So in my experience, it's not having values, but the quality of a person's reaction to said values that is important.

I have to agree! Thank you, Betsy! I just a couple of weeks, you have really cleared a lot up for me. It's not often that I find someone so knowledgable of Objectivism, willing to share it and not a stick in the mud! Thanks!

What would you consider "cured"? As a friend once pointed out to me, most people rationalize once in a while. I appreciate what you say about weather a person is honestly trying to cope with the problem or refusting to give a damn about it. I have to say that most of the rationalists I've come in contact with are the latter. Then again, they're mostly my age, and I think a lot of the refusal is tied to self-esteem issues, ie; if they find out they're wrong about something, that would mean they're a bad person, so they'd rather stuff the worry down and continue on their current path. This is where I see the connection between rationalism and repression. Is this a common connection? I think I may have become confused by many people's definitions of rationalism over the years and have inadvertantly defined rationalism by non-essentials.

Yes, I had browsed over the movies thread and saw Betsy comment that Objectivists often disagree on movies. Disagreement is fine! People may like a movie for many different reasons, some of which may have very little to do wiht Objectivism (such as the movie reminding them of something special, loving a particular actor/actress or enjoying a certain kind of humor). It seems hard for Objectivists to understand that. I'm reminded of the time someone went to Rand and said they didn't think they could be an Objectivist. She asked why and promptly told her "because I like Beethoven". Oi! She told them that liking Beethoven had absolutely nothing to do with Objectivism and everything to do with her personal artistic preference. Objectivists need to understand that and stop defending their personal preferences as if they were metaphysical absolutes. As for Hugo, I love his work, but I can understand impatience with it. It's translated from French, has 30-50 page long commercials on barnacles or the historical architecture of french chrurches and certainly not light reading. If you don't love readin already, Hugo maybe a stretch. A gratifying stretch, but a stretch nonetheless. Ahh, intellectual yoga, I love it!

I really like what you say about having the approved "Objectivist" values. A lot of Objectivists I've seen are substituting those "values" for true values. I see a lot of Objectivists debating over favorite movies, with an attitude suggesting that if we can all just agree on favorite movies, than they could know their favorites are ok. This points to an inability to/desire not to think for themselves, dare I say a pack mentality. You're right, Betsy. Thank you for the correction. Yes, there is nothing wrong with supression at times. I've found that learning to supress my emotions when neccesary has helped me succeed in many areas of my life. I often supress an emotion until I can find a proper time/place to express it, ie; I wouldn't react angrily or cry or walk out on a partner in the middle of a dinner with friends, but I would certainly find a place to talk about it later. I've met quite a few, essentially good people and good Objectivists who are severely repressed, and it's tragic. They are rational, hard working, extremely honest, and terribly sad people. They are tense, uptight, never smile, and feel threatened -- yet fascinated and attracted by -- enthusiastic valuers like me. On occasion, I have been able to steer such people to a good therapist who is able to unlock their valuing souls. The transformation can be amazing

"Rationalism Happens". Now that's one for the Objectivist humor thread! Can you say "Bumper Sticker"? Ha. Anyway, down to the serious stuff. You're right, I hadn't thought of it as a deeply automatized psycho-epistemplogical habit. I had forgotten that having been in the thick of it recently. Would you say there is any time at which this becomes a moral problem? I mean, a truely rational person could point out someone's rationalism to them, but that doesn't mean that they'll see it or know how to fix it.

Betsy, I really like what you say about being reality-centered and valuing. In my experience, it's not just what a person says about valuing, but the way they say it. In my experience, some Objectivists "talk the talk" and semi "walk the walk" of passionately valuing life, but when they talk about it, you can tell it's just a failed attempt to integrate, ie; repression. Repression is the most important thing that sets of warning bells for me. So much can be seen in the eyes, in the way a person talks and expresses themselves. My Objectivist girlfriends and I have started to refer to it as "sparkling"; the way it radiates from a person when they are truely connected to the world and fully alive. Thanks.

The scene in AS is when Fransisco is telling is father he got the money to buy his first mine by playing the stock market while writing a thesis on the affects of Aristotle's theory of The Immovable Mover on later philosophic systems. Yeah, I've read that book 20 times. I'm Random Atlas trivia girl.

Yeah, I was awake yesterday! Duh! Thanks!

That one's lost on me. Then again I feel sick, so I'm not at my best.

*rim shot* We ought to get a drum set for this thread :-P