Brent Rolfe

Yes, and so is the myth of a virgin birth common to many eastern religions and could quite easily have made its way into the middle eastern johny-come- latelies.

Hi Felipe, Re phobias....no I had noticed in one picture you were holding Ragnar at arms length up in the air and he did not seem to have any fear! I think Ragnar is a great name! And from the pictures it suites him very well!Five of our six animals are named with human names: Nigel and Monty (the dogs), Eddie, Sophie, Roger and Smokey (the cats). Whether I am rationally correct or not our animals will always be a part of our family and I just like human names for them. Re roughness, I rough-housed with my younger Golden, Monty and have not had any problems with him biting or nipping me or others. However, and this is a big however, I don't think you will find any training book that would suggest you allow a puppy to get used to their-teeth-to-human-flesh contact. If he thinks it is ok with you now (while he's a puppy) then how will he realise that it's not ok with you or anyone else when he's a 75lb monster of muscle? And even if he would never bite anyone, nonetheless if he play-bites them....causing no damage or skin breaks of any kind, some (non-doggy) people will still be frightened and perhaps offended. And I can see their point. Also remember that to some (very strange) people a boxer is a pretty intimidating looking dog ! It would be better for you to get a tug-toy for those times when he wants to play rough. And even then teach him the command "Enough!" when either he gets too rough or you get fed up or tired of the game (and looking at Ragnar it is almost guaranteed that you will tire before he does! ). On the command he must release the tug-toy IMMEDIATELY and calm down. Of course, at first he won't! So you completely ignore him until he does and then you praise him and even let him play tug again. He has to realise that by obeying you his fun isn't necessarily over. BTW when playing with the tug-toy he will probably try to nibble his way up the toy to get to your fingers.....stop that too! Ah, the fun of a pup!

Hey Felipe! Congratulations on the new puppy. I really like fawn and white boxers and he looks like a character. He is not too worried about heights is he!? What is his name? Brent

Yes, I agree with the Monks of New Skeet books, very good. I hear what you say about raw food diets, my neice and her husband both vetinarians seem to feel the same way. I am not a campaigner for raw food diets in any way, but on the other side of the fence: 1. The money is with the pet food giants, so funding for studies of raw food diets is probably sparse. 2. Raw food is natural food for dogs. How many wild dogs do you see eating kibble or cooking their prey? 3. From my own experience, my Goldens' skin, coat and teeth are far better on a raw diet than on kibble and I have many, many friends who feed their dogs raw who would agree with this. 4. The epidemic of cancers in pure-bred dogs is caused by something. In my opinion it is either from breeding practices....too close in-breeding, or environmental. And the one major environmental factor influencing all dogs is their food. 5. Fifty years ago no-one fed their dogs kibble. 6. Would you eat processed food your whole life? 7. Washing hands with an anti-biotic soap pretty much negates any health hazard to the preparer. (In fact I personally have FAR less colds now than I did before feeding my dogs raw! I think this may be to do with the fact that I wash my own hands after every feeding and after every walk). Picking up after your dog pretty much takes care of any bacteria shed in the feces? And a healthy dog's digestive tract is almost always acidic enough to cope with bacteria in raw food, is it not? 8. Have you looked at the ingredients in kibble? Yuk! I naturally respect your opinion as a vet, but I also know that here in Canada student vets get one course on animal nutrition (that's one course in five years of study) and from my own research over two or three years and my own experience since I am very happy with the results of a raw diet. BTW our student vets also get (only) one course in animal behaviour...and at Guelph U., where my neice studied, it is taught by Jean Donaldson I think...author of Culture clash, one of the other books I recommended. Regards

felipe, Sorry for the delay getting back to you. I didn't go to the kennel club last week, so I will try to get some information on Boxer breeders next Tuesday. In the meantime, some books: Basic: Dr. Ian Dunbar (Sirius Dog Training) Any of his books or videos are pretty good on training the family dog. Karen Pryor "Don't Shoot the Dog" Advanced: Morgan Spector "Clicker Training for Obedience" Uses the concepts (developed by Pryor originally for dolphin training) and applies them to all of the routines for training for obedience competition. A lot of the book however, is devoted to establishing bsic behaviours useful to all.....sit, stay, wait, walk, heel etc. Theory: Burch & Bailey "How Dogs Learn" This is a book on basic behariourist theory, much maligned by Objectivists as it applies to humans....but very good in understanding how dogs learn! Generally useful: Jean Donaldson "The Culture Clash" About understanding the human/dog relationship and the "reasons" behind dog behaviour from a dog's point of view i.e. it de-anthropomorphises the dog's behaviour. And feed it raw food, not this kibble crap out of a bag! Good old fashioned raw chicken, offal, blended vegetables and marrow bones! I will get back to you on the breeders. Good Luck!

Where to start? First of all, there is little doubt that Jesus of Nazareth lived and was a very influential man who was very dangerous to the authorities. There is also little doubt that he had a brother, James, was married and was a member of a very ascetic sect of the Jewish faith, the Essenes. This, and much more, is archeological/historical verifiable fact. However, the other attributes ascribed to him are non-verifiable interpretations of what he did. These myths were intended for a largely illiterate, poor audience and quite possibly cobbled together for very political reasons. Remember, the Jews were around at the time observing this man, yet they didn't then, and don't now, all convert to the emerging Christianity. If he was the remarkable, miracle-worker that the Bible says he was, how could this be? Some, of many, possible reasons: 1) The Bible is a very edited version of the totality of "gospels" written around the same time. The Council of Nicea (a Catholic body) did the editing and expurgated, for example, all of the gnostic gospels because those gospels wrote of an individual direct knowledge of God, one not needing to be mediated through Jesus. These gospels did not mention any miracles or anything else remarkable about Jesus except for his teachings of how to know God. In these gospels he was a teacher, not the son of God. 2) The translation difficulties surrounding the gospels are myriad and lead to all sorts of misunderstandings. All of the miracles, the virgin birth etc., etc., can be explained in much more realistic ways with a few re-interpretations of key words. The feeding of the five thousand was in all probability Jesus' own wedding reception, when the wine ran out and Jesus, as the groom was responsible for buying more. Since the guests had had to drink water for a while, when the new wine arrived it was Jesus who had "replaced" the water with wine, not literally turned water into wine! Every "miracle" has an equally plausible, normal/simple explanation. It's just a matter of interpretation. The apostles didn't "make it up" they were mis-interpreted over the centuries and those misinterpretations were approved by the Catholic church for obvious reasons. ChildofGod, you should read some real biblical history and leave the biblical mythology alone. The Catholic church really has done a wonderful job of pulling the wool over our eyes and once you realise this it will be much better for your life in the long run. In fact, once the wool has been removed Churches in general become nothing more than head offices of giant franchise businesses. I would recommend "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception" as a good starting point, it is written for a layman audience by Baigent and Leigh but is reasonably researched. If you want to try something in much more detail and much more academically oriented try "James, Brother of Jesus" by Prof. Robert Eisenman. BTW, I suffered under the same delusions as you for many years, so my comments are not meant to be demeaning in any way ! Regards

1.The whole passage seems to establish a basis for the later actions of the characters and the relationships between them. Had Miss Rand chosen to cover this in a paragraph or two it would have meant many more explanatory passages later in the novel, when they were all adults and in functional roles in their companies. 2.The childhood scene establishes Dagny and Francisco as members of an aristocracy of earned wealth as opposed to inherited wealth. Even though they were both born into fortunes neither of them saw this as entitling them to anything. They would both have been driven to lead purposeful lives, whether or not they were born into dynasties. Perhaps this makes them aristocrats of purpose,? 3. (Skip) 4.James, of course, was different; being born into wealth and finding no purpose for himself he was later drawn to great "social causes" as a rationale for his being. Eddie, the faithful servant, is established as a dedicated follower, but never a leader. 5. etc., later!

In history books this side of the border we (GB/Canada) won the war of 1812. If the US invaded with the intent of conquering and didn't we think that counts as a win for the defending team? Whether Canada would have been better off had they lost is another debate entirely. But I do agree with oldsalt that no war in history is a clean war, nomatter what the philosophical basis, they all end up dirty messy affairs.

I think this would have to do with points accumulated at obedience or agility trials over the course of a season. The dog with the most points at the end of a season is named #1 obedience dog in the country. They also give recognition to the top dog in a breed and a group. It may also be done for conformation shows, but I don't know much about that side of it.

Thought of as very intelligent. I nearly got one as a boy, but Mom put the brakes on that one, so I didn't get my first dog until I was 42! They are used as police and military dogs in Germany so they were originally bred to work and "think". Often very energetic and very playful. You might need to crate it when you are out, at least until you are confident of its behaviour. I don't know about their hardiness to weather. I know that there is a lady at our local kennel club who is very active with her Boxers all year round. She would probably know the good breeders in upstate NY as dog people here go to NY shows and obedience trials all the time. If you are interested just let me know and I will ask her for some reputable contacts for you. I can also recommend some good trainig books if you are interested in basic family dog training? Anything by Dr. Ian Dunbar is a good start. Brent

I was confused by Tribeof1's original question....wouldn't a unit in this (predatory) context mean the Lion distinguishing one gazelle from another rather than a gazelle from a Land Rover? Certainly the Lion can distinguish the wounded, ill, slower moving gazelle for an easier kill. But dogs can distinguish "units" of humans. Certainly they can distinguish their owners and other, human, family members. But perhaps, to a dog, the smell of each human is so distinct that they are never regarded as a group in the first place?

Some authors have tried to show that one breed is more "intelligent" than another. I was at a dog trainig seminar once when this topic came up. The presenter (Dr. Chris Zink) said in response that if you want to test the comparitive intelligence of a Border Collie (the "smartest" breed) and an Afghan (the "dumbest"), take one of each to the edge of a cliff and throw a tennis ball over! Would you be around the apartment during the day? I am fortunate to have built my business around a home office, so I am with my dogs most of the day and unless it is too hot at least one of my dogs always accompanies me when I go out on appointments. Some breeds do seem to take to training well. As you would expect, the Sporting Group breeds, who were originally bred to work and "think" in the field and the Working Group breeds usually make very good obedience dogs. But, dog training nowadays, which is largely based on the principles of operant conditioning, if applied properly can train most dogs to be good companion animals, nomatter the breed or non-breed. I, too like the "stout" muscular dogs you describe, especially English and Staffordshire Bull Terriers. English Bull Terriers are supposed to be EXTREMELY stubborn and resistant to any training they don't feel like. They can also have great sense of humour and a tendency to run around the house to build up speed so that they can slam their heads through drywall. Your landlord might not appreciate this otherwise quite endearing character trait. The Staffordshire Bull Terriers (the English variety) that I have met have all been very gentle, well mannered dogs. They do tend to look like Pitbulls though, and this can turn some people off. My father-in-law's brother used to sell his Staffy quite frequently in the local pub to unsuspecting strangers, knowing full well that the dog would come home within a few days.....on one occassion towing behind it a full window frame that it had pulled out of the purchaser's house where it had been tethered. No wonder they have a reputation for intense loyalty. I have met some very nice American Staffordshires, but they were all quite boisterous. English Bulldogs are supposed to be very good apartment dogs. They don't need too much walking. But they do come with a lot of genetically related problems.....and an oversupply of slobber. Would a Boxer fit the bill? I used to like Rottweillers, until one decided to chase Monty into the side of my Volvo......$700 worth of bodywork later I have gone off the breed somewhat. I will think some more. Brent

Well, you can normally take a pretty good guess at the (pure) breeds that have gone into a mutt.

Felipe, Finally we have a post on a really interesting and important topic! : I live in Niagara Falls, Canada and have two Golden Retrievers, Nigel and Monty. I am out in all weathers walking and hiking with both of them. I have obedience and agility trained both of them and field trained, Monty. We are just about to get back into serious training for competitions. What are you getting the dog for? Family pet, competition, breeding, etc.? That would have a lot to do with choosing the right breed. What makes you want a pure bred? If you do decide on a pure bred I have lots of advice on how to choose a breeder and a blood line. Nigel is a beatiful looking dog with a great personality and was bought from a very reputable breeder but I realise now (after two very expensive hip operations) that he was over-bred. I did a LOT more genetic research when I bought Monty, and so far he is the healthiest and hardest working dog I have ever seen (except for working Border Collies). Nigel and Monty were my first dogs and I bought pure breds, but only because I was a newbie. I think if I get a dog after these two (we have four cats as well) I will seriously consider an adult dog from the local pound. The obedience thing depends more on you than on the dog, though some breeds do seem to be preferred for serious (competition) obedience people.....Goldens, Australian Shepherds, Shelties, some of the Spaniels, some of the Terriers, German Shepherds, Dobes. In short give me some more information and I will be glad to help. So far, based on size limitations I think you might want to rule out Afghan Hounds (they are also, in general, dumber than dirt), Irish Wolfhounds and St. Bernards. Brent

I saw an advertisement for "new" the VW Bug about a year ago....... 0-60............Yes!

Well I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to become a vegitarian!

Yes, focus is "the STATE of a goal-directed mind committed to attaining..." etc....but putting one's mind into that STATE is "a first cause within a consciousness". Man must "FIRST focus his mind, and then, if he chooses, he can direct that focus to the performance of a conceptual level task." (e.g he can direct his mind to concentrating or to learning something in particular etc.). Saying to oneself :"ok now I am going to concentrate on x" is not the same as "focusing" ones consciousness on reality....if it were we would not need the term focus in this context, would we? No I don't think that Dr. Peikoff's definition implies this. Focus is the primary choice. As he explains: "The choice to activate the conceptual level of awareness must preceed any ideas; until a person is conscious in the human sense, his mind cannot reach new conclusions or even apply previous ones to a current situation". One can work at a sensory and/or perceptual level without focus, but one must focus in order to work at a conceptual (uniquely human) level....the degree of focus which one brings to bear is another issue and it is still different from the degree of concentration.

Not a "mere" readiness, a full, total, uncompromising readiness is closer. Focus is a (voluntary) committment to the process of using the rational mind. A state of active engagement which precedes conceptual consciousness. The point at which we (as humans) choose to focus, is where the rubber of free will hits the road of life

Ah, ok. Simply, reading and thinking. But, of course, it's not that simple at all! You have already identified the right parts of OPAR....but as I wrote earlier, I went over and over these same passages and could not understand how I could "focus" without focussing on something in particular. I think you are having the same difficulty. This is compounded, in part, by the use of the word focus itself....don't think of it as focussing a lens....and don't think of it as "merely" concentration. I started to understand the ideas involved here only after I did some non-Objectivist reading on "the mind" and philosophy of mind. I then re-read OPAR and I realised there was something very wrong with most of the alternate views I had read and the Objectivist approach was spot-on. It is from this perspective that I can tell you that your views of "focus" and "concentration" are wrong, certainly in an Objectivist sense. But that it will come in time.

Perhaps the analogy thing has gone too far. It was meant only as an aid as this is a difficult topic. But at a certain stage the analogy itself becomes a barrier since we are not talking about optics but about minds. But just to put you straight, if you take a lens cap off, the camera is open to nothing, the surface of the lens is in some jeopardy, but that is all. If you want to undersatand this topic, it will take some actual work on your part source. It is worth doing, but it isn't that easy...at least it wasn't for me. And it can be frustrating.

source, You are missunderstanding focus you just don't realise it yet! I can say this with a smile because I was exactly where you now are about 2-3 months ago. Dr. Piekoff puts it best on p55 of OPAR (4th para); "The actions of consciousness required on the sensory-perceptual level are automatic. On the conceptual level however, they are not automatic. This is the key to the locus of volition. Man's basic freedom of choice, according to Objectivism, is: to excercise his excercise his distinctively human cognitive machinery or not; i.e. to set his conceptual faculty in motion or not." This is a qualitatively different process than that of concentration. It is not necessarily antecedent to concentration, one can concentrate without having first focused.....at the sensory-perceptual level. One can also remove the lens cap without turning the focusing ring or pressing the button to engage the autofocus. On p56 (after an excellent quote from Miss Rand) he goes on to say: "....consciousness in the form required by his survival is not given to man; it must be acheived by a process of choice. Man's power of volition is the power to seek such awareness of reality or to dispense with it. His choice is to be conscious (in the human sense) or not." source, what Dr. Peikoff is saying in the paragraph you quote is not what you assume in your explanation. He is specifically NOT saying that when you are focussed you automatically have a goal in mind. He is saying that when you are in a state of focus you have volitionally put your mind in a state in which it can deal with an/any occurence......if and when it occurs. And that you can deal with it in a uniquely human way. A predatory animal acting, as it must, at a sensory-perceptual level, has extreme concentration, but its mind isn't focussed in a human sense...mainly because it doesn't have a mind in a human sense, it is not volitional, it is not conceptual. PS your post would have been just as valuable to us without the final paragraph! Disclaimer and invitation: my understanding of this "anteroom of epistemology" is recent and therefore any comments/corrections on where my understanding of this topic might need polishing will be gratefully received.

Thank you, Stephen

Great, I seem to be getting it at last. I must admit it took nearly three months to grasp the idea of "focus" in these terms and it can only be done through introspection. With regard to the above, I would like to clarify for my own understanding: 1) re "a consciousness lacking focus required for a task"....do you mean requiring concentration for a task? I think of concentrarion as having a timeframe that is controlled by us to be sufficient to perform the task. But focus is an ongoing lifetime committment. Perhaps this is just confusion over the use of the word focus?....the use of that word in this context certainly gives me trouble I would like to ask you one other more general question: what are your thoughts on the evolutionary psychology model. I have just read a good chunk of Pinker's book "How the Mind Works". I think from previous posts that you might not think that Pinker is on the right track(?) but could not site my reasons for this assumption. I have just ordered two of Searle's books who I have seen you recommend to others here.

In the context of this thread I think there is a fundamental difference as to what happens not "when the mind works on a (particular) problem" but what the possible states of mind are before the mind starts to work on particulars. source is making the same mistake I did until very recently, that of not seeing how one could "focus" without focusing on anything in particular. The problem may come from the word focus itself. I agree that one cannot focus in a visual sense without an object to focus upon. But focus here is something different, as Stephen writes it is a committment to awareness prior to concentration. It is the volitional act of taking off the lense cap and must come before focusing. I am, as of recently, fairly sure of the above (but please correct me if I err!). Now into realms of which I am less sure: I think that without focus it is very difficult to conceive of, let alone hold on to, "purpose" in anything like the sustained way needed to acheive purpose. We can all concentrate on a goal in the short term, but without the prior focus it is very difficult to sustain our concentration over the long term and through the inevitable difficulties, nomatter what the goal. This could explain why the vast majority of men "lead lives of quiet desperation"....or in Zig Zigler's terms appear to be wandering generalities I am eager for feedback as I am still integrating this myself, so don't spare my blushes.

source, I had great difficulty with this too, so allow me to try to help Focus, in the earlier analogies used here is "taking the lense cap off the camere" or "opening your eyes"....both are volitional acts and must be done before you focus the camera or your eyes. "Alertness to the purpose" of goal directed action perhaps? Many people do not have this faculty (? terminology) "turned on"...so they can never concentrate on a course of action, only in sudden (child like?) bursts. Does this help?