gnargtharst

The guy on the Tonight Show was Harry Lorayne. The techniques for memorization are actually quite simple (which is not to say easy... but they are methods which the average person could learn). Memorizing 80k digits of pi is more of an issue of motivation. I can't imagine devoting my time to it. http://www.harrylorayne.com/ P.S. To those who are wondering what are those techniques, I'd recommend just getting one of Lorayne's shorter books from a library and checking it out. Essentially, the techniques boil down to mentally converting numbers and names into an "alphabet" of images and then associating to-be-remembered things with these images, creating odd-- and memorable -- "stories". It's quite effective; I can still remember a handful of phone numbers I memorized with this system after getting the book at a library, about 7 years ago.

JMeganSnow said "Yes, but they could not issue more notes than they have promised gold (i.e. the total of their reserves and loans outstanding) to cover, and they still have to be able to pay out actual, physical gold on demand." In a free market, a bank could potentially issue notes on something other than total promised gold. It might or might not be prudent, but the buyer and seller have the right to set the terms of their own transaction; a loan might say "this note is backed by gold, based on our anticipated growth over the next 5 years". It's up to a buyer to contract for whatever risk that might involve. P.S. Richard Salsman's books and tapes (I think available at the Ayn Rand Bookstore), have quite a bit of info on private money.

In response to the original question of this thread, out my check mark in the "change the old one" category. I've discussed this on a couple of other threads. The following is only an opinion -- I've not integrated it enough the claim it to be more than that -- but, I get a little irked when Objectivists throw up their hands and say Oh-we're-doomed-the-only- chance-we-have-is-to-colonize-space (or an island, or New Hampshire, etc.). I think: Objectivism offers an inspirational vision for man, along with the means to create that vision (reason, and a proper understanding of the role of ideas in the world), and yet some people seem to become more hopeless after "discovering" Objectivism. When I read Atlas, e.g., I came away from the experience extremely motivated and enthused about the world, and about the prospect for changing it. But some people seem to get depressed by its message. As I've discussed before, I find this attitude naive, especially when uttered by somebody who's just found Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged and now feels sophisticated enough to be pessimistic. Self-righteously pessimistic. A lot of people have been working hard for a long time to spread Objectivism into the culture, and the progress that's been noticeable in the past 10-15 years is staggering. Surely someone who has observed the influence of O-ism during that time will back me up on that? We have the ideas and the method. The road is cleared (to quote a character from a book). Now why are we still talking about colonizing New Hampshire, for goodness' sake?

Okay, this bet thing is getting a tad off-track. What I asked for was some/any criteria by which you'd acknowledge the growth of Objectivism in the culture. You not only gave the criteria --Objectivist politicians -- but a "level" (2%) to reach. Wouldn't you agree that the election of any major politician with O-ist principles was a sign that it's growing in the culture? (Especially with politicians, which as BurgessLaughlin pointed out, would suggest that it's become so influential in the culture that it's reached all the way to the politicans) Further, aren't these rather subjective/difficult to prove criteria -- not only a policy but a policy motivated by philosophically consistent principles. This paves the way for a future argument along the lines of "Sure Candidate X advocates lowering taxes but he's just pandering to altruist sentiments among the wroking class..." etc. I was thinking something more along the lines of: 5 years from today, will there be more Objectivsts -- let's say those whose works are offered for sale through ARI or some subsidiary -- inhabiting philosophy departments at important schools (defined as any of the following X # of schools), etc.... or will there be fewer? Or: In 5 years, will respectable academic publishers like Cambridge University Press, or Oxford University Press, publish more, or less, titles by O-ists containing the phrases "Ayn Rand", "Objectivism", "Objectivist", etc. These kinds of criteria indicate important inroads into the culture and they are easy to quantify (e.g., for my second example, there are 0 such books today; 1 or more books published within 5 years would win me my $1).

"2%" is specific and discrete. But not many of the other terms are. "Polls"? Just any polls? Are there specific criteria? Gallup Corporation? Minimum sample? I'm not trying to get too tricky here, but there has to be some specificity as to the polling, or else I could simply post a poll here at this forum and collect my $1 immediately. However, these details are stillborn because of one other major flaw I'd not concede: calling one's political philosophy "Objectivist". I'm an Objectivist and I don't even call my political philosophy Objectivist. I'd refer to it as "Capitalist", or "Freedom", or "individual rights-respecting", etc. Do you have another suggestion about a specific poll answer? I'm already daydreaming about how I'll spend my $1!

Thanks Christopher Schlegel for the music. I enjoyed listening to the earlier version. Nice stuff. I also recently got Garritan Personal Orchestra, and am only just getting into learning about it. If you are very knowledgeable about it, would you consider a couple private lessons? Contacting me via e-mail if this is possible. Thanks.

Greetings Username. Glad to have you here. You mentioned that in your line of work you've been all around the world. What do you do? Also, regarding your comments that you don't try to discuss philosophy with other people anymore, as it's futile, I half agree with you: it's futile to discuss ideas with those over 30 years old -- that's an overgeneralization of course, but I see much more receptivity to ideas among younger people.

EM wrote: "The writings of John Locke and the English libertarian “Cato,” were well known and highly regarded among the men of wealth and influence in the American colonies. Please offer some evidence that anything like this is taking shape with regard to Ayn Rand and those who have influence over modern American society." What evidence do you wish? It's a rather large order, if you want a thorough list. You want multi-millionaires? Monroe Trout. John McCaskey. You want top-500 NYSE and Nasdaq coporate heads? John Allison, BBT Bank. T.J. Rodgers, Cypress Semidonductor. You want eveidence of recent influence among businessmen in the tech sector? Just google "silicon valley" and "Ayn Rand", and get back to me after you've read the first thousand entries. Rand's influence among doctors? Small business owners? Within the culture at large? Just link to Ayn Rand News via Google, the link of which is provided on this site's homepage. Who else has influence in modern American society? University intellectuals? I've already pointed to O-ism's inroads into academia in previous posts. What is it you'd regard as "evidence", if not pages an pages of evidence? EM continues: "...The growth of Objectivists entering academic positions and publishing in academic journals is both exciting and commendable. But it hardly suggests that there is a “renaissance” in Objectivism at the university level." It hardly suggests this? Orders-of-magnitude greater numbers and quality of Objectivists teaching and publishing seems to suggest exactly that. EM: "...I no longer have Lexus/Nexus access, but any real demonstration of the rise of Objectivism in academia would have to pass a comparison test of Lexis/Nexus five years ago with it today." Well, then, I'll make this line of discussion easier: Access the LN database through whichever method you wish. When you show me that there has been no increase in academic tratment of Objectivism/Ayn Rand since Q2 2000, I will pay for your LN subscription. EM: "...My guess is that we will not be politically better off even if we have three times the number of Objectivists as we have today -- and if we are it will only be a matter of coincidence." Can you offer any reason why I should regard your "guess" as relevant here? "Three times the number is still a very tiny percentage of the electorate and only a tiny percentage of those who exert influence over politics and popular culture." The electorate do not have to be philosophers. Their teachers' teachers do. When there are three times more Objectivist professors in universities -- which looks to be inevitable within about 10 years -- we'll find out whether their influence is 3 times as much, or much more than that. EM [referring to my example of the growth of home computer influence]: "Non sequitur. Just because there was a home computer revolution, it doesn’t follow that Objectivism will enjoy the same success." Of course it was a non sequitur. That was its point. You had given an example wherein O-ist influence had prgressed at a certain rate for a certain time period, with the implication that it would then likely continue at that rate. My coutner-example illustrated that such are dangerous assumptions. EM: "You still have not presented any compelling evidence that Objectivism is going to become the dominant philosophical model 30, 40 or even 50 years hence." Of course I haven't. One does not "present compelling evidence" of the state of intellectual movements 50 years into the future. People have free will. Nothing man-made can be guaranteed for the future. I have, however, offered plenty of evidence that the Objectivist movement is growing. Financially, professionally, culturally. EM: "I’m disappointed to hear that Rand thought that the heroes of her great novel were naïve." You can attempt to attribute to me things I didn't say, all you want. Rand was clear: she regarded the culture as flawed but capable of correction. She regarded utopians as naive. EM: "If I’m free what happened to all that money I sent the IRS last month?" This topic -- whether or not we are free in our current culture -- has been done ad nauseum on this, and other, fora. I've said my piece on it elsewhere, and have nothing more to contribute here. Let's close this digreesion -- for which I apologize to other forum mebers (I'm not that swift navigating the forum site, and realize I should have started another thread, but didnt' want to lose all the posting in a cyber-limbo mistake) -- with a challenge: EM, you come up with some objective, exact, discrete measurements, by which you'd concede an either growing or waning influence of Objectivism in the culture. Present these terms here, including the time frame, and we'll bet $1.00, just like Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich did. At the designated date in the future, you present the evidence exactly as you agreed in the terms, and the winner walks away one dollar and considerable I-told-you-so rights richer. Sound fair?

Skyscraper said: "I didn't say Objectivism is excessively negative, I said Objectivists were." True enough. My mistake. That said, if you are really finding many of them excessively negative, you might just want to shop around a bit -- all the Objectivists that I know are benevolent and optimistic.

I read the above response by Eric Mathis, but could not read/understand a good bit of it. If you'd like to edit and repost, I'd be happy to respond when I get a chance.

Eric Mathis writes: "...of the millions who devour Atlas Shrugged only a tiny percentage become full fledged Objectivists." This is true. But unanimous, monolithic philosophic agreement isn't necessary for a cultural renaissance. Of the many who read John Locke, for example, only one grew up to be the third president of the United States. The majority of the population will always be ballast, for good or bad, regarding philosphic principles. EM continues: "...as someone who spends hundreds of hours each year reading scholarly journals in philosophy, political science and economics, I see no evidence whatever of an Objectivist renaissance among academics." Well maybe you're reading the wrong things. Maybe the influence hasn't reached your particular experience yet. Most journals cling to an editorial status quo; the more specialized, the more this effect applies. But the trend is there: Alan Gotthelf at University of Pittsburgh, Tara Smith's upcoming publication for [i forget the publishing company -- a prestigious academically-oriented book publisher. If somebody remembers please feel free to post it]. University chairs and departments endowed by Objectivists, the Anthem Fellowship Program and the Ayn Rand Business Library at Auburn [again, going by memeory here; feel free to correct if necessary]. The number of Objectivist students entering acedemia growing exponentially. This list could go on for quite a while... EM: "But let us go ahead and suppose that Ayn Rand’s philosophy will grow three times as fast in its second 50 years as in its first -- where does that leave us?" Assuming we could quantify such a thing, it would leave us 300% better off than in 1956. But why the supposition? What rationale justifies 3x as a measure? Let's consider another example: let's suppose that computer memory available for home computer users increases 3 times faster in the 50-year period after 1980, as it did in the 50 years before 1980. At that rate people will be able to play Pac Man on their home computer well before the 22nd century! Fact is, intellectual movements tend to simmer and ferment, and then progress in exponential bursts. The Renaissance did not produce great art and culture at a rate 3 times the progress of the dark ages, it exploded a hundred times that fast. The industrial revolution didn't continue the rate of progress and wealth of previous ages, it surpassed previous ages' wealth in terms beyond description. Objectivism further improves on these movements, in its noncontradicotry alliance with reality. If you'd be interested in making a long-term bet, a la Simon and Ehrlich, about the future state of Objectivism, I'd be more than happy to take your money. EM: "That would be like counseling Midas Mulligan to forget about Galt’s Gulch and spend his money giving away copies of Bastiat’s The Law..." It would be like that, except for one thing: Midas Mulligan was a fictional character. His real-world creator, Ayn Rand, regarded Utopian fantasies as naive. EM: "Call me selfish, but my philosophy is to free myself first." You are free, Eric Mathis. Note the computer under your fingers and the uncensored message in front of your eyes. Moose notes: "many more people are exposed to [Objectivsm] than there used to be. Well, any person with a basic knowledge of statistics can tell you that part of that is because the population has grown." If the rate of population growth equalled the rate at which Ayn Rand's name is increasingly mentioned in the media, you wouldn't have had the elbow room to type that sentence. From Moose: "Even so, many people who become somewhat familiar with it just let it slide off their backs, or even become adamantly opposed to it." That's their problem, not mine. Historically, that same has been true of every new idea from anaesthesia to heavier-than-air flight. The existence of ballast doesn't tell me much about the direction of the ship. From Moose: "If you need an example of this, go to [a sp. forum] and read the discussions [of "Objectivsm" and "Ayn Rand"]. Now why would I do that? I know idiots exist; I don't need to immerse myself in their culture.

From Eric Mathis: "Let's see. Atlas Shrugged was published October 10, 1957, almost a half century ago. Nathaniel Branden began delivering seminars on Rand's philosophy 47 years ago. Rand and and Branden began publishing The Objectivist Newsletter 43 years ago. The Virtue of Selfishness was published 41 years ago. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal was publiched 39 years ago. Now, unless I'm mistaken, the percentage of 200+ million Americans that we can count as Objectivists is still quite tiny. Why should we think there is going to be any sudden change in the near future?" Or, viewed from another perspective: In less than 50 years, a fundamentally different philosophy is making unprecedented cultural inroads. Rand's books continue to sell 100,000s each year. More books than ever before are being published by Objectivist intellectuals. Ayn Rand's name appears in media orders of magnitude more often than in the past. The budget/membership/projects of ARI are at an all-time high. 100,000s of high school students are being introduced to the Fountainhead as part of their official curriculum each year, and that number is growing quickly at this moment. The current generation is given more exposure to Objectivism than any preceding generation. High-profile enthisiasts and/or supporters continue to "find" Rand. ARI's training for professional future intellectuals continues to grow each year. In addition to this long -- and very incomplete -- list, there is the fact that reality is on our side. A philosophy of success breeds more success, which continues to feed the efforts of success; Harry Binswanger refers to this process as a "virtuous circle" (as contrasted with the phrase "vicious circle"). In my period of familiarity with Objectivism -- approx. 20 years -- I have seen Rand and Objectivism take a major turn of influence in the cultural mainstream. If one focuses on the essential changes which are necessary to fuel a philosophical renaissance -- especially educational changes at the university level -- and ignores the incidental, the day-to-day, the cultural "ballast", one cannot help but see the trend toward Objectivism. Given our limited resources, it is talk of "islands" and Utopias which are a distraction from the battle at hand. After many long frustrating years, Objectivism is winning, slowly but very surely. Cash in your start-an-island fund, and donate to ARI's Free-Fountainhead-for Schools project.

Eric Mathis wrote: "Damn right. That [starting our own island] would represent a far more practical use of our severely limited resources than trying to educate 200+ million people in the Basic Principles of Objectivism." I believe you overestimate the difficulty of educating 200+ million people in the basic principles of Objectivism.

Skyscraper wrote: "...This attitude of "identifying enemies" and "fighting a war" is what is excessively negative." By what standard is this "negativity" excessive? Is there some level at which we should resist, say, Islamic mass murderers, but another level beyond which is "excessive"? Also, The Intellectual Activist is a magazine explicitly dedicated primarily to political issues, which, given the present state of our government, will largely focus on criticism. Did you subscribe to The Intellectual Activist with the impression that it was dedicated to psychology and self-affirmation? Skyscraper continues: "How can you be fighting a war and still be happy?" I would answer: the same way anybody can face and overcome obstacles and remain happy. Life is not the Garden of Eden; there are obstacles to be overcome. To expect that surmounting obstacles is a barrier to happiness, is to employ a metaphysical premise that is the polar opposite of Objectivism. It is no wonder that, with this premise, you see Objectivism as "excessively negative". Objectivsm is not escapism. In my experience, most Objectivists strike me as very happy people. I don't think this is an abberation -- I don't hang out with some odd subcateogry of Objectivists. When I attended the Objectivist Conference in Wintergreen last year, for example, the entire atmosphere seemed very benevolent, very relaxed. Smiles were the norm. The Objectivists I know are very benevolent people. Funny people. Passionate people. The funniest person I know is an Objectivist. I'd trust my Objectivist friends with my life (if I had to, which I don't, thank you). I am not making these points to be combative with the contrary observations here. I just don't understand them. Not at all. I remember quite clearly finishing reading "The Virtue of Selfishness" 19 years ago. I was elated. I felt a lightness. A surge of joy that accompanied my new knowledge. I cannot remotely relate to those who say their impression upon reading Rand was one of anxiety or negativity. A request: could those posters who have expressed their experiences of negativity please expand a little more, with some details? What specific passages made you feel hopeless or anxious?

AB wrote: "To me, Objectivism as taught by Ayn Rand and the orthodoxy always seems to say two things (between the lines, but very loudly nevertheless): 1. Adhere to this rather arbitrary-seeming Standard Of The Good which we have delineated for you; and 2. Convert the world." Wow. To say I disagree would be lying via understatement. AB, do you have any examples at all to back up this very-loud-between-the-lines impression?

"The Fountainhead is absoultely positively the most amazing and my penultimate favorite book of all time..." You might have told him to look up the definition "penultimate".

The symbol is supposed to represent man resisting tyranny. The star (which is red in color versions) was the symbol of the bad guys on the album 2112. The man recoiling against it portrayed the hero from that album. (It always seemed to me that a red star as a symbol of oppression almost certainly referred to the Soviets. But that's just my opinion.)

AB wrote: "Does Objectivism make you happy? Does converting to the philosophy of Objectivism make a person happier, either immediately or down the road?" To expand on what has already been said here, Objectivism gives one the tools to achieve happiness. All of these tools are not held exclusively by Objectivism, and so it is possible for one to be happy without knowing about Objectivism (I was, e.g.), but Objectivsm offers the most comprehensive, integrated philosophy for achieving happiness. The psychological responsibility for achieving one's own happiness -- for employing the technology to achieve happiness -- lies with the individual, though. AB continues: "And if not, why not? So what's the point of converting? What good is Objectivism? Abstract knowledge without use or practical value seems absurd to me." The phrase "converting" makes me suspicious. One integrates knowledge, one doesn't "convert" to it. "Converting" to a philosophy and expecting happiness to automatically follow implies a type of intrinsicism, which I can not expand upon here without psychologizing, so I won't. AB: "I'll take a chance and let everyone in on a little secret: As far as I can tell, and maybe I'm wrong, Objectivism hasn't raised my level of happiness. It hasn't knocked it down any, as far as I can tell, but it hasn't raised it. This seems to be the experience of others too." This doesn't tell us much. Are you basically happy or unhappy? Are you basically reality-oriented or primacy-of-consciousness-oriented? By what method do you conclude "this seems to be the experience of others, too"? Just the results on this thread alone seem to belie that conclusion. AB: "A few years ago I asked Nathaniel Branden..." If you're unahppy, a good starting point might be to stop hanging out with Nathaniel Branden. "...if he thought people were happier after conversion. I asked after establishing a decent rapport with him and very casually. Then I watched very closely when he replied. He seemed astonished at the question, hesitated a small moment, but then answered right away in an evidently candid and forthright manner: NO. (We talked a bit more, but that was the gist.)" This says nothing much about Objectivism, but speaks volumes about Nathaniel Branden. Perhaps Objectivism would make even him happy, if he were ever to try integrating it into his life.

Tom Robinson wrote: "I believe that I have not in any way suggested that the Rand-Branden identification of the “stolen concept” is erroneous. I merely pointed out that it is a variant of Aristotle’s PNC." I too would like to see Tom Robinson answer the question that has been directed to him 2 or 3 times in this thread: Yes, the fallacy of the stolen concept is variation of Aristotle's PNC. ALL fallacies are variations of the PNC. The various fallacies are just categorizations-by-technique of commonly-heard contradictions. What was your point, beyond that?

Burgess Laughlin wrote: "1. What does "point of no return" mean in relation to the direction of a culture, society, and political system? What is it and how does one know that a culture, society, and political system have reached it -- that is, what criteria must be met?" I'd say that when large numbers of innocent people are killed or imprisoned, that's a clear-cut criteria signalling totalitarian dictatorship. "2. More fundamentally, what causes a culture, society, or political system to be what it is and to be moving in a certain direction?" Ultimately, philosophy. "3. As a corollary of the first two questions, what must be done to change the direction of a culture?" Change the underlying philosophy within the culture. Primarily, the philosophic ideas coming out of universities. "4. Further, to keep the discussion focused, defining "our society" would help. This forum is an international forum, so I assume "our society" refers to Western Civilization in general and that it is most evident in countries such as the U. S., Canada, Australia, England, and the European Union -- in varying degrees." I meant for "our society" to refer to the United States. There's nothing wrong with considering those others, of course, but for simplicity, I mentally isolated the US. Presumably, there's not likely a philosophical movement that will affect Canada, but not Australia, e.g.

Free Capitalist wrote: "...Dagny might have killed the guard in the end of the book, but Ragnar had been killing men like him since the beginning of the book, and even for years before the starting timeframe." I haven't re-read Atlas for a while, but I don't remember that Ragnar's pirating necessarily killed people. I dont' remember that such was ever explicitly mentioned in the book. And to Moose's comments regarding Dagny killing the guard: I assign the guard the same moral responsibility of an MP at a Nazi concentration camp, which I would consider a capital crime.

In another thread, it was suggested that our society has reached a "point of no return", meaning that the downward slide toward totalitarianism was irreversible. I think I recall Rand mentioning that the last and crucial element of a point of no return was censorship, at which point the ideas which could save us would be silenced. While there certainly is a degree of censorship in our society today, (via FCC, campaign donation limits, etc.), but I dont' think we're anywhere near a "point of no return". Agree? Disagree?

End game wrote: "May I board a plane to leave the country with all of the funds I have in cash way in excess of $10,000 without hinderance? In what way does the seizure of my funds if I chose to do as above not ring with tones of tyranny?" It does. "I earned it, paid taxes on it, now the same entity want to lay claim on it again?" An injustice, to be sure. "My guess here is that you have not had many experience of late dealing with financial transactions." Then keep guessing. "Anything from getting a cashier's check or wiring money is brought under scrutiny including paying cash for anything. How is it exactly we can put a stop to this under the present system?" Exactly? I don't know. Generally? Gradually change the political climate through fundamental philosophical change. Letters. Articles. Books. Donations to ARI. Broadly, educating oneself and others about rational alternatives to the present culture. "...My wealth is mine and no other has a claim against what I own. Is not what I own mine or should others have claim to it. Which way do you want it?" Which way do I want it? End game, in your intro, you mentioned that you are around 40, and have been studying Objectivism for a "couple of years". When you have gotten around to multiplying your efforts in this area about tenfold, then you'll have put in about half the time I have. My position on whether one's wealth properly belongs to oneself, or others, is well established, documented, elaborated upon, and available to anyone who would bother to reseach. Or ask. This exchange has gotten ridiculous. My objection to your post was on one minor detail: the claim that society has passed the "point of no return". Your conclusion doesn't follow from your argument. (Actually, you have presented no argument, only details of the particular injustices you've endured.) You've then proceeded with this exchange, responding to my comments as if I approve of these injustices. I don't. I've stated this explicitly, and I hereby assume that this issue has been concluded. If you wish to persist in your claim that our society is in a downward spiral from which no return is possible, then please let us hear your argument -- what guides the state of society? Why do you feel it is not reversable in this case? What do you make of Objectivist inroads into the culture? Etc. "...By the way, did you notice that trading was halted Friday 15 minutes early and the indices were brought down below the stop gap which halted trading? That sure tells me something, how about you?" It tells me that my decision to short Cypress Semiconductor late in the previous week worked out very well. I didn't know trading ended 15 minutes early, as I got out at about 2-2:30 and went swimming. I didn't look at the market again until writing the sentence previous to this (it's up, btw). I must admit, I don't get what this "tells you"; the sentence has an ominous, end-of-the-world vibe, and, yet, here we are. I'm done with this particular thread. My intentions were benevolent at first, but I believe the tone and content has reached an antagonistic "point of no return". :-) Since I've made my point, I see no benefit to following digressions. I'll continue my original point in a new thread (see "Point of no return").

End game wrote: "You may refer to "point of no return" however you wish but my statement stands." Yes, it does. Incorrectly. Your comment was that since you can not cash out and leave this country with all of your money, then we have passed the point of no return. I assume that the "we" here is we as a society, and that the "point of no return" means that the political regression toward tyranny cannot be stopped. The argument doesn't follow. End game: "Freedom is ownership without encumbrance..." Among other things. End game: "...Your position that my statement is absurd is ignoring the basic principle of Objectivism." Specifically, I claimed that the position "I cannot presently cash out 100%, therefore society's slide toward totalitarianism is unstoppable" is absurd. Which principle of Objectivism does this ignore? End game continues with details of the injustice he endures. I have no quarrel with this description. Injustice is injustice. Graduated taxes, tarriffs, government-mandated licenses and fees, etc. -- it's all very unjust. But the decision to "shrug" is not the to-be-assumed response to every injustice; this was my only claim. I only made this response because I feel it's too flippant to claim that the US is "beyond the point of no return". At the very least this point is certainly not self-evident. Further, I believe it's far from the truth. This implies no disrespect to those who are victims of injustice, just a respect for perspective. For anyone to whom happiness is acheived by shrugging, I say: Happy shrugging.

Jaco213 wrote: "Since part of the definition of pain must be left out, it is unable to be considered an absolute, concrete definition." What part is left out? By what standard should the definition of a thing actually be the thing? Is the dictionary definition of "bicycle" incorrect, because I can't ride down the street on the definition? The purpose of a definition is to denote a thing, not be the thing.