Kellymeg80
-
Posts
46 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Kellymeg80
-
-
I recommend giving up on IE altogether and start using Mozilla Firefox.
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
-
No, Andy Bernstein talks about Objectivism with admiration for what it can do for man's life. The idea that he, of all people, has an ounce of dogmatism is absurd. Perhaps you should consider that you're talking about people who some of us know or have met before you try to get away with such nonsense.
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!
-
An exchange between Roark and Toohey in The Fountainhead, from memory:
Toohey: "Tell me what you think of me, in any terms you choose."
Roark: "But I don't think about you."
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.
There's an aphorism that applies in this context: "Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good."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.
-
If a man has sex casually, he's validating a MUP.
Sorry, I'm new to this thread, but what the heck is a MUP? :-D
-
Just like Cheryl, James Taggart's wife, he did not have the strength to keep living in this world.
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?
-
This conversation is a perfect dramatization of the difference between the prime movers and the honest average man. The first cannot create something from scratch, and he is more vulnerable to evil. Eddie has lost interest in starting over. His energy is gone after years of struggle. All he can do is sink, emotionally and physically, with the entire ship.
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.
-
Eddie was no doubt good at his job, but his self-esteem was borrowed from Taggart Transcontinental. Note his obsession with the railroad from the time he was a child, and his unwillingness to give it up. He was willing to go down with the railroad because he saw his life as nothing without it
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?
-
My approach is to look for, and home in on, any indication of a personal value
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.
-
Betsy rules
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!
-
Rationalism is very, very hard to change. It is like a chronic disease that, with effort and attention, can be managed, but I don't know anyone who has it who has been "cured."
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.
-
I wonder if Betsy chuckled over that one as much as I did.
If you ever want to start a brawl among Objectivists, start discussing what movies they like.
I've even seen a somewhat similar range of disagreement over books, especially fiction - although there because there a number of "approved" books/authors people feel they have to tread carefully.
Frankly, I'm surprised when I hear Objectivists tell me they don't like Victor Hugo -but then I don't particularly like Mickey Spillane, so who am I to talk.
Fred Weiss
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!
-
A real valuer takes values personally. He doesn't just have the standard, approved "Objectivist" values like skyscrapers, Rachmaninoff, and Victor Hugo; he has his own values: his favorite friends, his favorite flavor of ice cream, his favorite colors, his favorite movies, his favorite shirt, etc. If every time "I ask what's your favorite ...?" and he always draws a blank, it's not a good sign.
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.
That's not quite what repression is. Repression is automatized suppression of cognitive material.
You're right, Betsy. Thank you for the correction.
At times it is quite rational to suppress an emotion and the thoughts which caused it so you can think and act as reality requires. For instance, if I think my client is an idiot, I may suppress that, temporarily, as I try to work with him to solve a problem.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
That's wonderful. Your experiences have definately been different than mine, and I'm sure, more varied, due to your greater depth of experience. I've found severely repressed Objectivists to be generally unreachable at anything beyond a surface level. That is, you can teach them how to dance (a very expressive activity by its nature) or demonstrate passion to them in your life, but they are only able to parrot it. They dance or talk about passion, but it is all done rather dispassionately.
In any case, I'm glad you've had such great experiences, Betsy. It gives me a lot more hope for some of the good, honest people out there.
-
What you may be missing is that rationalism is a deeply automatized psycho-epistemological habit. It is usually picked up very early in life and, by the time someone is aware of it, it is so ingrained in one's approach to life that it is extremely difficult to change.
"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.
-
Now my approach is: a person has to actually demonstrate realism and a value-orientation before I assume he has those qualities. Those who are realistic valuers demonstrate it in ways you can see.
(1) Realism. Does he have a good working relationship with reality? Does he plan well? Is he successful in the real world? Does he seem open and honest? Is he curious? Does he expend mental effort to understand things? Is he upset when things don't make sense? Does he show any signs of a significant break with reality such as failure to integrate the obvious, using floating abstractions as if they were meaningful, treating obviously false ideas as if they were certain, etc?
(2) Value-orientation. Does he have a complex personal hierarchy of values and a "favorite everything?" Is he passionate about the things he likes? Does he show any signs of value problems such as resentment towards others, cynicism, or repression?
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.
-
Kel-Kel--
You'll be laughing 'cause you're the crazy maniac who killed them and you'll reload because you're the one shooting the gun.
Glad I could clear this up.
Yeah, I was awake yesterday! Duh!
Thanks!
-
What do you do if you see a bunch of communists lying on the floor? (Stop laughing and reload.)
That one's lost on me.
Then again I feel sick, so I'm not at my best. -
I think Kant is just phenomenal.
*rim shot*
We ought to get a drum set for this thread :-P
Gmail Help!
in Miscellaneous Topics
Posted
Thank you! Mozilla intalled easily and works perfectly! I have my Gmail back!