Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Space Patroller

Regulars
  • Posts

    514
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Space Patroller

  1. One of the first episodes I saw in '52. A bit glitchy in the early part but it teaches about enhanced interrogation.. And nobody gave Buzz any lip http://www.archive.org/details/SpacePatrol...Thormanoids1952
  2. You are being unfair and are mistaken. Rush was not handed this position as your statement implies. He created this market from scratch. Though there were several rightist talk shows, they were locally-based. Rush built a syndicated network. This is doubly significant since he did it based on ideas and the notion that ideas matter. Now we may discagree with those ideas but you have to give him his props, if only in recognition of "If you don't give the devil his due, there will be Hell to pay" Beyond that, he has some use: He's starting to question the validity of "sacrifice". The only other big time talk show host to do this was David Brudnoy. He jas also introduced some folks to Atlas Shrugged and he promotes the virutes of productive work, achievement and a rudimentary graspp of the value of principles. Would you rather not have these things promoted on a wide scale? In terms of media, he's an intellectual giant and he proved there's a large market for ideas and made big coin doing it so he proved capitalism works in the field of ideas. There's a lot to admire there and some things to like. More often than not, flippancy is the loud noise of the unwise.
  3. If I recall correctly. Rand did refer to "Existence Exists" as the axiomatic concept of Objectivism. First it is as you say an axiom. However she described the following "'what do you mean by existince?' ". Making s sweeping gesture across the plane of vision "'I mean this!'". Now since that gesture meant "everything" and not any specific concrete, it is comeptual rather than perceptual or pre-conceptual, which would make the statement both axiomatic and conceptual. Beyond that, doesnt the genus subsume all of the characteristics of the corollaries, and thank you for the memory jog with regard to "Existence" and "Identity", I'd been trying to recall them. If the answer is "Yes" then "''Existence Exists" would indeed be an axiomatic concept since it subsumes one or more such. If not then the corollaries would have an existence outside and beyond the egenus.
  4. The key word here is "dangerous". If it is true that the person is dangerous, then they pose a present or near-term threat to life and limb. Would you kill a man-eating tiger, an alligator or a thug that you know would kill you if he had the drop on you? Ayn Rand wrote "The only thing you can do with a criminal is crack his skull before he cracks yours" Wouldn't the same apply to a dangerous tyrnannist? The answer is "ABSOLUTELY YES" and it may be immoral NOT to if you get the chance to do so and go free. However, the devil, like all devils, is in the detail. proving that the person is, in fact, dangerous. Someon whose ideas pose a threat to succeeding generations is POTENTIALLY dangerous, not, in fact, dangerous. As Ayn Rand said of the embryo being a living human being, the potential does not yet exist so cannot be treated as real.
  5. Step away from the Newt.... http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/10/poll-...-for-rnc-chair/ Just why they're still pimping for him has to be one of the mysteries of the age. Just look at his eco-vid. I'd vote for Oba
  6. In ItOE Miss Rand states that "Exixtence exists" is, If I recall correctly, both an irreducible primary and the axiomatic concept of Objectivism. She also identifies three corollaries. One of these is "consciousness" This could be interpreted that the raison d'etre of Epistemology, like Metaphysics is an irrecuible primary amd it may be argued that Epistemology is Mteaphysicis applied to Mankind's unique trait, with Ethics, Politics and Aesthetics being driviatives of these two, which is how I treat them. For me, Egoism stands because things, both living and non-living, exist individually at some level and the only choice for Man is to think or not to think. It stands to reason that given these, the persons have the moral right to, as individuals, be the beneficiaries of their choices and the actions to which they lead, if fo no other reason, the Law of Parsimony aka Occam's Razor. and any other ethical form would be or require a contradiction of those two facts since if nature requires existence in individual form and Man's unique characteristic is a volitional rational consciousness then the consequences of the actions of that consciousness which is a characteristic of only individual persons, must redound to that individual who acts. Now, getting back to the question, are the corollaies of irreducible primaries/axiomatic concepts also irreducible primaries and/or axiomatic concepts, bearing in mind that Rand said "Philosophy is primarily Epistemology" an that one's particular Epistemology is totally under one's choice; i.e. Reason, mixed, Mysticism? I can envison that the corollaries are derivatives of the irreducible primaries and axiomatic concepts to which the attend. On the other hand I can see that if they have values as corollaries, they must share the status of irreducible primaries and axiomatic concepts. On a related note would not an axiomatic concept have to be an irreducible primary?
  7. I recognize the use of the term "fasci(ism, ist)" in this context. It is not a political context be a psychological one. what it means is anyone who has a fixed, hardcore, immutable set of beliefs. although it was never put in those terms in the heyday of it's cration and usage (the late '60's to the mid late '70's). Yet by using a term that is synonymous with oppressive evil these people themwlves are being more judgemental than the worst of whom they attack. They portray themselved, and may even belive it, as open, reasonable, willing to listen and learn and all the "good" things that are the hallmark of the well-kempt intellectual in the face of a world that is "cold, cruel, hard-ass, anal..." whatever and the only imagined crime of which is that it demands that you become something other than a jellyfish with a nasty sting. The fact is that any person who has grown up starts, at about age 27 to have fixed ideas. The liberal intellectual never grows up inside so does not harden into a fixed-characteristics human being or so he thinks but does in fact do so and attacks with a judgementalism and ferocity of a Nazi army others who have any visible fixed characteristics. I don't know if he knows that he is essentially self-contradictory or if he knows the full meaning of the term "hypcorite" that he throws around in his bileous attacks. He is what Rand named when she talked about "dogmatic agnosticism, militant uncertainty and crusading cynicism" He is also what Billy Joel (perhaps unknowingly) meant in the lyrics from a song "Angry young men become angry old men..."., ANGRY YOUNG MAN These types infected the education establishment and the (especially personality and social) psychology and sociology depatments of the 1970's universities and colleges.
  8. In 1988 when the first infusion of federal money, read bailout, into the banking system to "save" the savings and loan system took place, Greenspan was in favor of it. The root of that debacle had its origins in the 1970's when the feds, using the regulatory system in a way similar to the Community Reinvestment Act, required these thrifts to issue loans to the tune of less than 6% interest in a 9+% environment. Needless to tay the predictable started happening in 1979 and several of these institutions went under. With that scenario, it could be argued that the government had damaged the system and was morally obligated to fork over what it took to fix it and Greenspan could have argied from that point of view. However, that was not what he said. He gave the usual clpatrap about how we had to save the system etc...etc..etc. Aside from that, he was not in any way connected with the feds at that time. which means he had to go out of his way to give his imprimatur. to that. It didn't take a Hari Seldon to figure out that this would set the pattern for some larger event in the future. Fast forward 20 years.... Well at this time Dr. Petr Beckmann in an issue of ACCESS TO ENERGY said that Greenspan was "going native". That is having been in with the Washington clique, hse now was part of the Washington clique and supported what they did.
  9. All Frog, All the time http://michelesworld.net/Frogs/frog.htm And it's neither Michelle Obama nor Michelle Malkin This was big stuff on TV when I was about 8 http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...ggy+the+gremlin And before that, the radio http://www.archive.org/details/Buster_Brown_Gang And what frog event is complete without... http://spacepatrol.us/ribbitaaa.html ?
  10. Aside from, and preceding Rand I'm basically science fictions: For fantasy adventure. It's Tolkien For hardcore science fiction it's Heinlein, Asmiov, Niven and some Clarke and Aldiss For sci-fi adventure it's Anderson and E.E. Smith; especially the Skylark serids For sci-fi exotica. Algis Budrys and Cordwainer Smith Throw in Marion Zimmer Bradley Add in IF magazine from 1961 to 1973 and the early TV space shows and I'm there
  11. No matter what she did, she was going to run afoul of smoething. Existentialism would make sense from "Existence exists". I've writtn on the nature of that. http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/09feb.html But that was taken and misappriated, having little to do with existence and more to do with crybabyism. Libertarian certainly fits the bill. From the 1963 World Book Dictionary comes the notion that it is based on the idea of free choice and freedom of action. Objectivism is a pre-existing philosophical doctrine that holds that existence exists apart from and prior to, knowledge. But that applies to all Aristotlean schools of philosphy and is their defining characteristic. I looked that one up in a simplified philosophy textbook hoping to find some reference to Rand. Randism would not be appropriate for her to do as it would be presumptuous. Marx did not call his ideology Marxism: He called it Communism. However, it would be all right for later generations to do since it would set it in the context of a member of the class of Aristotlean schools of thought and I suspect that that is how it will end up in a couple of intellectual generations. As of my sojourn at Providence College, it was not named in that Department. I was referred to first as a Randian then secondarily as an Objectivist. "Randian" did distinguish me from other Aristotleans in an Aristotlean environment. I adopted the term "Randite" from THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS (nice to know that Heinein thinks we'll be around in the twenty-second century: I'll take it!). Also, you would not believe the dishonest, half-breed and outright cockamamie things that were calling themselves Objectivism. I guess theift is the sincerest form of acquisition since nobody tries to steal a rhinestone tiara: Right? Beyond that, we're still at a point in history where we could shatter: We have yet to have our Council of Nicea. For her part. Objectivism is the best choice since iit also carries with it things other than a view of metaphysics (a priori). It also carries a mindset and worldview. Also it served her specific purposes well. As a namme it serves to help move the philosophy through the world system. Libertarian is one of those terms that covers a multitude of things and our political philosophy probably fits within the group of political systems that comprise that alliance. Just to show how confustigated it can get, there was a term making the rounds in the '73-7 timeframe: "Objectivist/Libertarian". For myself, I look at it this way. "Rightist" puts you in the ballpark, "libertarian" puts you in the infield and Objectivist, Randist, Randian or Randite puts you on the pitcher's mound where I'm standing usually fighting with "neo-Objectivists" and some half-breeds but I'll take care of that. If I start being disagreeable i.e. "I'm not really a Rightist..." that chases you out of the ballpark as well as labels me as a bit prissy; read hard to deal with and a bit self-absorbed, on such matters. If thinking first of Rightist, then libertaian then Objectivist gets you there: It's called "successive approximation" and "narrowing of focus" or "zoom in". that's A-OK as long as you find me, since the map is for your use, not mine. I already know where I am. Also in getting you to me. I need to be both myself and an external observer. It could have been really nasty, she could have tried "Existentialibertarianism" and maybe some 8 year old would have been given it to spell on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire"
  12. The Greek philosophers? Seen any of them lately? Where has John Locke been for the last 275 Years? They were from an age when intellectaul meant what we consider it. Ayn Rand? Well, to just say the name is to call the majority of intellectals morons. But she was the oddball in the mix. In fact it was she that inspired my statement. She was 180 out of phase with the pravailing notions and when I compared what she had to say with the overwhelming opinion held by the intelligentsia I came to the conclusion that, as a class, the intelligentsia was polluted big time. The ones you mention are intellectuals the way they oughta be. In fact it was this attitude towoard the intelligentsia that led Rand to refer to herself and us as "New Intellectauls" You haven't seen the way my Verizon connection is acting lately Besides what I'm saying is based upon Big Business' attitude towards capitalism, which I've noted over the decades as represented by the hiney hickies they're giving the eco's, just listen to the commercials about being green. The bastards are tossing us under the bus. Which was the whole point of this thread. And look at the way the're rolling over for Obama. In that sense I am saying what most pro-capitalism commentators have been saying for 35 years. Do you deny the factuality of what I say about Big Business supporting the anti-capitalist movements? When someone says my enemy is great, he's saying that I suck. What should we do with people who say that we suck? I say to give them that which they support. It seems that Orren Boyle is the model of Big Business. There's something else Rand said, too "Don't fool yourself into thinking 'Aw, they don't mean it': They do". Big Busienss contributions have been tending more and more towards the Democratic party lately. Especially over the past dozen years and it's mostly small business mony that goes to the Republicans. 30+ years ago, the split of business campaign contributions used to favor the R's 70% to 30%. Over the past dozen years it's only 60/40 and I don't know how it went' in 2008. Also I was around as Objectivism was taking shape. You have no idea what it was like waiting for. and then devouring the latest issue of The OBJECTIVIST and later The AYN RAND LETTER or whne The OMINOUS PARALELLS finally came out. I was getting them as they were coming out. I was the "hot property" of 4 departments at Providence College (Psyche, Philosophy, Religious Studies and Western Civ) and a major entity in the Psych department at Rhode Island College.
  13. Ah Mosquito, is it not better to be a live caterpillar in New Jersey than to be a dead grasshopper in Thailand? if I tried to re-animate David Carradine would folks say I'm...um...raising Caine?
  14. Libertarian covers a lot of ground and is not monolithic which is the one quarral I have with Peter Scwartz otherwise brilliant piece. Many Libertarians got their start with Rand and I have maintained for years that libertarian would be the proper name for her political views had that term not been misused. Libertarian also refers to a general political outlook. Hence I am oftien referred to as a "small 'l' libertarian". I have never hread Miss Rand give a name to her political doctrine. She lists her ethical doctine as "egoism", her metaphysics as "objective", her epistemology as "reason" and her aesthetics as "Romantic Realism". the closes she has come to naming her political philosophy is "individual rights" or "based on individual rights", but taken together with her general mindset/worldview, libertarian would be almost exact and far more so than for those who have worn that label for the last 30 years. In his early radio career, Mark Williams referred to me as an "atheist libertarian" and my Objectivist identity was known but not understood so that was the closest they could come to it (Yes; I knew him in his early radio days when he was 28 and I was 35, if you have any contact with him ask him if the name "Laser" rings a bell), so there was once honor in that term. Before someone jumps down my throat, that was 30 years ago. However, after 2+ months ago when he threw the free market under the bus. What Greenspan says, like what the Klingon says, is unimportant.
  15. Anybody can make a place for themselves in reality. I was not always as you know me. Hwever, you'll not beat a good sense of life where the rubber meets the road. I know what it's like to have an implicit philosophy that is far better than the explicit one. People say "Man has his head in the clouds and his feet in the mud" It's the other way around. It's the biological needs and drives that push Man forward. It seems that the intellectuals spend their time making up excuses to not advance. Thank you for visitng. It was not the "space cadet shows" that got me interested in space. I had always been interested in flying things since I was almost 4. ONe night, in about March of '52, when I was 6 and change, there was this TV newsreel show called TIME MARCHES ON. This particular night they showed the now-famous clip of a rocket launch with the camera pointed backward. That blew me away. It was a couple of months later that I was introduced to Space Patrol. I imagined my eyes must have bugged 2 feet out of my head. Use the link in my sig. If you want to see what we are like try http://spacepatrol.us/forumhub.html If you want to see actual episodes of what we had. when you get to the forum, open the Power Console Well, now you know why, for the last two decades I've been saying it's "Big Busienss: America's Persecuting Minority" When I see the way they trip all over themselves in the reace to see who can be greener than the others, I want to feed them to the liberals an inch at a time feet first so it will last longer and they would be no great loss, either. It's in small business that the Reardens and Dagny's will be found.
  16. If you ever write your autobiography will you title it I, RIBBIT?
  17. There's no place for anyone in reality. Each of us has to make a place for himself. That's the real job, and pleasure of being a person. To watch something go from a vision or fantasy to becoming a fact. I knew a sceond-hander and he couldn't understnad why my favorite Christmas gifts were tools; screwdriver, pliers, things like that. I told him. "These put power in my hands. unlike you, whose idea of power is to get others to do things for you, my idea of power is to be able to work my will in the world. and do it myself. You are abjectly dependent on the persons you get to do things that you ought to be doing and have to live on their terms, not yours while B.S.ing yourself into thinking how clever you are. That's if they can do what you want at all. Who's the master and who's the slave gets hard to tell. It's like being the wife in a bad marriage. You know what they say about Heaven." I was speaking in the context of social metaphysics and common perception, and I did have my tongue jammed in my cheed so heard, it's permanantly bent. You nailed it from 50 lightyears. This is what I meant by "I have two great passions. Space Patrol which was a beacon from a bright and interesting future and Objectivism; the philosophy of Ayn Rand, which is the means to get there" and why I said when I could understand Objectivism enough to make a competent judgement "This will power men to the stars: Space Patrol come to life!" What I did not realize was just how Space Patrol come to life it was until I was re-introduced to the program in 2000 after a 45 year absence and meeting Ed Kemmer (NO, I do not know his ecplicit philsophy but he was of a heroic cut on stage and flying the P-51 "Damn Yankee": Those pilots were the elite of fighter pilots in WWII) http://spacepatrol.us/firtpage.html
  18. "It was clear among many of the founders of capitalist that there had to be a moral foundation. What happened is that capitalism was reduced to Ayn Rand-ian selfishness. We need to recapture the principle that you do well, but in the process of doing well, you give back." - Arianna Huffington Ariana Huffington? Pul-eeeze: You might as well quote Art Bell or George Adamski. However, in a bizarre interpretation. capitalism does "give back" or rather give ahead. Being front-loeaed; investments befrore project. it fertilzes the ground for prosperity. "The system as a whole is still working. But for capitalism to have a future, it needs to survive. What are the REGULATORY MECHANICS that will ensure that in 100 years - in 500 years - there still is a system?" - Stephan Schuster A money system based on real value as measured by gold rather than pixie duxt. This links money and therefore what is to be gotten out of the enterprise right to reality, with the laws of the universe deciding what does and does not go. Anything else, well... http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/09mar.html "I believe there is a role for the government to play in evening the playing field and investing in development. We need to invest in the future and invest in the global good. Capitalism is not just a free-for-all, every man for himself." - John Legend By having objectively based laws agaihnst the initiation of force and fraud. the governemtn does just that. Anything else tilts the playing field in favor of the "chosen people" be it the eco's, miseducational establishment, unions or whover. Who talks about "global good" means their particular pet lunacy rather than objective, individual good. Forgetting that there is no such thing as automatic, innate or ono-individual based value. This is counter to the definiton of value as that which an organism acts to gain or keep. Well organisms, like anything else. come only in individual form. Even colonial "orgaisms" can be further broken down into single units. Such persons either do not understand the nature of reality or are trying to pull a fast one with high-fallutin' talk. You are 100l% on the money. If you look at what those who are quoted say, and what I note that capitalism does in terms of doing precisely what is called for, it is clear that by the fact that they want some form of economic fascism, they're either mad, ingnorant, stupid or, presuming they have the nacient competence, lying. If this is the best and brightest, as showcased by the media. then humans will be a long time planet bound. They are a perfect follow on to the Age of Faith save that in 1400, men did not know better. To paraphrase Ayn Rand "...But in the twenty-first century? In the United Sates?". She was talking about the religious right (how can they be "right" when they're so wrong? Well ti's nutjobs like those quoted that give them the appearance of profound wisdom).
  19. There has been evidence of Qum forces in Labanon. Also in the early middle part of this decade NPR did a report on what we were up against in Afghanistan and one of the enemy groups that was shooting at us was led by a guy with "tiar" in his name. No, that's not one of my classic typo's for "tiara". that's a name ending in Iran; as in Shapur Baktiar. And to think, that was actually covered on NPR (gasp) Whether these constitue legal grounds for war, I don't know. I could argue both ways here. It is a violation of a nations integrity but does it rise to the level of full-out amred conflict without some intermediate level of contact, I don't know. There's talk that we had Special Forces doing things in Iran. I guess this sort of thing goes on all the time amongst nations and may be considered too small an action for a full response. But then to, there is the case of Eminiar and Vendikar which fought a "clean" 500 year war that Kirk brought to a head and the two sides decided it just wasn't worth the hassle to continue the war in reality. So I guess as long as it stays low level, nations will put up with this sort of thing
  20. Jut the idea that a nation would consider moving to a gold backing puts a creck in the Keynesian system since it represents a willingness to nuke the established order by a nation for its own interests and breaks with the silent Sanction of the Victim that keeps this whole charade going and is therefore in and of itself a threat to the scam since it shows that somebody has tumbled on to the real value of fairydust money. Even if it is not done this time around, it's a wake-up call. That this nation is not the US, home of world capitalism and the nation that, at one time, could have done this, should scare the bejeezus out of the US and the G-Whatever. That it is a nation still giving alligence if not fact, to Cummunism gives credibility to my contention that there is in progress the biggest stealth switcheroo in history.
  21. That program would not have existed in 1909 except as a comedy making fun of the backward . Don't forget, for the last 30 years the Educrats have been busy indoctrinating and brainwashing the kids in school. The leitmotif of the early twentieth century was best express in the song EVERYTHING'S UP TO DATE IN KANSAS CITY" and the operant phrase for something that was state of the art was "Just like New York" Well, given the prevalence of eco's in the media getting enough horses ought be no problem. For every eco there has to be the front of the horse somewhere.
  22. How did Bastiat end up in the CRITICS OF OBJECTIVISM subforum? He was a reccommended source; i.e. a good guy.
  23. I heard this on one or more of the talk shows, maybe Lou Dobbs (sp) and I think some gold bug show on WHJJ 920 AM Providence RI. I'd like more on it but I figured I'd put it here as an FYI alert. It could be bogus, maybe others can verify or refute. It seems reasonable that in an environment of fairy dust money a person playing for all the marbles would know who does and who doesn't understand real value and to whom we owe our soul can call the shots and know just what shots to call.
  24. Actually, it's more like the 1970's. In the 30's the American people hadn't been polluted culturally as they have now. The culture or instant gratification to the point of essential indebtedness, which just led to the intensification of the "rat race" with the rats now having a 3 length lead. The media are feeding the fires by focusing on what they want to be the predominant scenarios to condition the mood of the nation. Notice how the image is changing to one of economic recovery now that the 'crats are in the drivers seat. Also notice the almost oppressive omnipresence of the media in the form of music everywhere to condition the people to background "buzz". Also notice the constant celibrity buzz, most of which is some disfunctional, degenerate or other sleaze-framed image. This is a full-court press since they believe their ends are in sight. However, to cheat fools, give them that for which they ask. Maybe the Economy Fairy will accommodate them: She owes me a favor for explaing Galbraith to her. If the system can go into crisis "prematurely", it will be salvageble and be so apparent that it will be the demise of the left. The '70's did end well with Reagan who provided a two decade respite, albeit incomplete and relatively shallow in depth of understanding. His big appeal was to the American sense of life; i.e. "Morning in America" Read Ayn Rand's "Don't Let it Go" where she said "...whether this will be a sunset or a dawn, I don't know..." or like that. One thing we have to bear i mind is that China is preparing to back their currency with gold. Do you know what that will do to the dollar as a "reserve" currency?
  25. It's beyond Soros. He's just the current incarnation, and goes back to Roosevelt and even Wilson. It's more like a hive with each "bee" conditioned to do its part and to know its part by the gist of the issue and being trained Indy 500 drivers. turn left at 200 mph. This has been building up for 4 generations. The old dodge used to be that the reporters were straight but the editors were pinko. Now, according to Howard Feynmann at Newsweek in the late '90's, talking to Rush Limbaugh, it's the reporters that are lefties. To show haw it is, I heard P. J. O'Rourke doing a comic commentary on NPR. For those not in the know. O'Rourke was the first to apply the nterm "nazi" to libs, specifically "safty nazi" in a 1984 book about manners. Then he wrote VACATIONING IN HELL which was rabidly pro-American and then came REPUBLICAN PARTY REPTILE which proposed that the Republican Party was more amenable to personal freedom than the Democratic. Now he's humping for Radio Pravda. In another thread, David Odden, commenting on dictatorship, put the emphasis on censorship. Bad choice. With the major media as the lead phalanx of the totalitarians, censorship is a very minor issue. Plus they can let the 7% of media that is not part of the body live since they pose no threat and can be used to say "see, we have no censorship". In fact the Establishment media are out to crush what's not part of the hive in a peer-to-peer pogrom by simply outnumbering, attacking and outspending them. and it doesn't help that guys like Boortz are easy targets, Savage is an actor, Rush is relatively shallow, Gingrich has been compromised and the cons are still touting the Iraq war and still don't want to hear any criticism of the policy and refuse to listen to people who tell them that it's a lost war (the goals were either illusory or floating abstractions). So they almost discredit themselves. The person who engineered the election of Obama was McCain, among other thing, putting his face so far up the nether regions of the major media that if he sneezed, they got a high colonic. However, the common perception is in error. Rush refers to the major media as "State run media". On the sruface, that would appear to be the case because the focus is on the political end since that's where the apparent action is. The order of things is that the pols are the arms and legs of the George Soroses of the world. Now you're working my side of the street!
×
×
  • Create New...