dream_weaver

If you rewind a tape, it will play the same thing because it is the nature of the entities involved - the cassette, and the cassette player. Life, specifically with regard to conceptual consciousness, too has a nature. The primary choice is to focus. The choice to focus provides you a plethora of choices which exist about you available to direct your focus on. Did you direct your eyes, or are they being moved in some predetermined way? (If your eyes are being moved in some predetermined way, please let me know what kind of vehicle you drive so I can choose the next exit, should I observe it.) The tape has magnetic particles and the head of the recorder reads it as it passes across in the order it appears on the tape. Which way, or upon what you direct your focus is guided by your choice. You can choose to read these words and comprehend them, and ignore or choose to pay attention to the sensations available to you on your back against the chair (presuming you are sitting in a chair reading this) or even take cognizance of the brightness of the light enabling you to see the myriad of things about you. You can even choose to read these words and take note of the suggestions mentioned to become aware of how the words and the related stimuli correlate.

The spiral theory of knowledge applied to the ongoing choices which shape your character, helping to shape your future choices, only able to regress back to the fundamental choice, the choice which has the potential to set all the subsequent choices into motion; the initial choice: to focus - thereafter followed by the ever present continual choice: to focus.

I actually do not see how your 'type of combative science' differs from any other study of self-defense based on your very broad abstract description. Even the suggestions or explanations that I have provided and offered are situational, or context dependent. Even your distinction between "anti-social" (I read an aggressive individual there) and "asocial" (I can only envision an individual that is withdrawn or essential non-social in nature, in which case, why would you be defending yourself against them or attacking an asocial person in that context), leave much to be desired. While a person may be attacked by another at just about anytime or any place, even the likelihood of such an event is going transpire depends on the context of where they are, and what they are doing. Is this the grounds you are basing what comes across as the necessity for every human being on the planet to specialize in "combative science"?

So, how does combative science differ from martial arts, essentially? I'm seeking along the lines perhaps that martial arts is learning defensive skills that involve the use of ones person or perhaps an object at hand which could be used, as contrasted with carrying specifically a weapon of choice, or using the efforts of an opponent to redirect his force against him.

What are the only ways to learn and do anything? Seek out someone who knows what you want to learn, and implore them to teach you and be willing to develop the skills required. Study the situations that can arise by your own cognizance, and determine the best course of action you could take and develop the skills required to do so. Out of curisoity, Ted, in the many years you have studied the arts, how many times have you used the skills you have developed?

Surely, as a long time student of the martial arts, you recognize that you possess an arsenal of tools at your disposal. No single technique is used to the exclusion of all others. Many techniques, properly deployed, can be defensive as well as offensive. "How to apply violence?" Is there a 'one size fits all' application? Why teach different kicks, striking or blocking techniques? Among some styles of traditional Japanese martial arts, the phrase ikken ni satsu, one blow, one kill is central - train to deliver the most efficacious technique with the maximum effectiveness along with the minimum exertion. "What is the best way to gain the use of violence as a tool of survival?" As a martial artist, how did you gain the use of violence as a tool of survival? You studied, trained, practiced in a personal concerted effort to automatize the skills necessary to deploy if necessary. In general, though, only a small segment of individuals are willing to do this for themselves. Even those acquiring a CCW should recognize that practice is beneficial, and beyond that, one still has to develop the mindset required to make the correct decision should the need arise. "What is one's most potent weapon in violence?" Aside, again from is there a 'one size fits all', the answer is clear to me: Reason. The ability to ascertain the situation and select the most efficacious response tailored to the situation available.

OPAR, pg. 310, chapt. 8 Virtue: "In essence, there are only two viewpoints on this issue, because there are only two basic methods by which one can deal with a dispute. The methods are reason or force; seeking to persuade others to share one's ideas voluntarily—or coercing others into doing what one wishes regardless of their ideas. Objectivism countenances only the method of persuasion." </indent>The "pacifist" society is not one adhering to reason. A society of reason understands there are essentially two methods with which to deal with one another, and acts or sets itself up accordingly. Martial arts, taught as a method of solving disputes, is thuggery. The only proper deployment of the skills acquired in martial arts, is in the defense of self, or in proper context, the aide of another. As my instructor was fond of pointing out, karate means empty hand, not empty head. A martial artist struggles to understand violence, and in grasping what violence is (a recognition of the inability to be able to gain ones way by reason) only desires to use it when it is recognized that reasoning would be futile.

Unless the price of the goods fell in such a scenario, the circulation only exemplifies how many trades transpired, not necessarily economic expansion. The division of the coins to support a growing population and/or growing economy demonstrates an increase of value of the monetary instrument, and/or the increase of efficiency or additional products from which to choose.

Your summary comes across as rather cynical. Changing one's sense of life is difficult, but not impossible. Identifying the premsises upon which your sense of life is built upon requires ruthless, relentless introspection. Even after discovering a mistaken premise, integrating a new premise in its place is not automatic.The desire for happiness is seeking the value. To actualize the value of happiness requires the virtue of doing what is necessary to bring it about. To simply say we want happiness, or money, or knowledge is not enough. Discovering and implementing the actions that should result in happiness, money or knowledge is the prerequisite to having the chance or opportunity to actualizing ones values.

If you cannot distinguish between where it was and where it is, did it move? Even developing sophisticated equipment that can generate a resolution greater than your perceptual abilities, if the equipment cannot distinguish between where the object was and where it currently is, did it move?

Words are the symbols for concepts, but rather than being the inadequacies of words and their meanings, it is precisely the understanding of the relationship between the concepts and the words that provide the meaning for the words. Concepts are an integration of the perceived similarities identified by the mind from the data provided by the senses. Words in themselves are not clever. In the example provided, the invalid concept of 'God' relies upon the acceptence of the concept of "God" as 'valid' in order to be provided the sanction of the victim.

Consider this passage describing Mike's character a bit: "People meant very little to Mike, but their performance a great deal. He worshiped expertness of any kind. He loved his work passionately and had no tolerance for anything save for other single-track devotions. He was a master in his own field and he felt no sympathy except for mastery. His view of the world was simple: there were the able and there were the incompetent; he was not concerned with the latter. He loved buildings. He despised, however, all architects." And just before that where Mike is telling Roark: "Well, you'll be the first one [architect] that knows something besides pretty pictures and tea parties. You should see the teacher's pets they send us down from the office." Most people view those with expertise and a passion for what they do as simply stubborn lousy bastards who insist on things being done their way. Mike , as IchorFigure points out, are developing a mutual understanding of their respective desires for mastery in their respective fields.

That is an interesting observation. Like seeking like, writ large.

Could this be considered 'rigging' the problem? Instead of observing an auditorium to see if every seat is filled, and there are no people standing, which may not be do-able if the lights are dimmed, we 'rig' the problem to state that there are two legs for every body that is present. The set of two legs for every body is a given (presuming of course normal, un-maimed bodies). The set of even integers to the set of all integers is by its nature definitional 1:2.

You need to step back in the quote to the mathematical analogy established by endless series. The units that are integrated by the mental entity "man" in this case, would be every man that exists, has existed, and will exist, without specifying the specific quantity. It also apply to the knowledge integrated about man under the concept of "man" which would include all the knowledge known about man and all the knowledge yet to be discovered about man, again, without specifying the scope of that knowledge. This is what gives allows concepts to expand the range our scope of awareness beyond that which is just perceptual. Edited to add.

Sounds like someone who desires to get by on the minimum necessary virtuous aspirations.

What the heck is a fuzzy/hazy/blurred localization? How would that differ from a specific (though left unspecified), definite (though left undefined), precise (though the degree of precision is omitted) location?

This is a failure to grasp the form/object distinction. It is like saying if you take I-495 to New York, you can only get to know New York as it appears by taking I-495, you can't know how New York."really" appears. Perception is the form by which we grasp the objects. What can you possibly compare your perceptions to? There is perception as it appears to me, as compared to the way it really looks? As it really looks to who? The flying spaghetti monster?

Word Casserole “Words transform concepts into (mental) entities; definitions provide them with identity.” “The process of forming a concept is not complete until its constituent units have been integrated into a single mental unit by means of a specific word.” “an integration, i.e., a blending of the units into a single, new mental entity which is used thereafter as a single unit of thought.” “A unit is an existent regarded as a separate member of a group of two or more similar members.” from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Forming a word is kind of like baking a cake. The process of making or forming a cake first involves mixing or blending the ingredients together into a batter. The process of forming a concept first involves the blending of the units together into a single, new mental entity. In the case of a cake, the ingredients or units are flour, sugar, milk, butter, etc., which are mixed together into a single, new entity. In the case of forming a concept “tree” the units are an oak tree, a maple tree, a pine tree, etc. which the similarity between them, given perceptually are abstracted into the single, new mental entity. The process of making the cake is not complete until it has been baked. The process of forming the concept is not complete until it has been assigned a word. While the analogy is not exact, it can provide some other analogies that can be drawn from it. The cake, once baked, cannot be separated into the individual ingredients with a fork. To analyze the constituent units which make the cake up requires a different process. The word, once formed, is a single unit. To analyze the constituent units which make it up requires a process. The cake, once baked, can be used without knowing how it was made. The word can also be used without knowing how it was made, much like a floating abstraction. If you do not know how to bake a cake, you may not do it properly. If you do not know how to form a concept, you may not do it properly. If you put the wrong ingredients together and/or cook it incorrectly, the results will be terrible. An invalid concept is one that the constituent units have been either misintegrated or disintegrated together, usually an attempt to integrate a contradiction. It is much easier to learn how to bake a cake. Gregory S. Lewis

Perhaps that was because I was unclear on what you were trying to ask. Are you looking to understand how Objectivism formulates and approaches infinity and space, or to put forth your view of how infinity and space ought to be understood? You stated in your opening remarks that there are definately physical infinities. You should then be easily able to reduce or valdiate your claim showing the hierarchal chain(s) which link it back to the evidence or data of the senses. After you do that, you will have arrived at just how the finite mind actually comprehends infinity.

Actually, Grames captures it quite well here. What I am actually stating here is that our precision of measurement delimits our assessment of reality. Our identification of reality is delimited to the precision of the tools we have developed to quantify it with. The law of identity only establishes that if something exits, that it is something specific. What you appear to be specifying is that if we have not discovered the specificity of that which we have determined to exist is due to a mentally perceived limitation of a capacity for which our minds are yet unable for us to comprehend. The form/object distinction comes to mind here.

Why are we going from a set of lengths (which presupposes something that is one foot long) to motion and the complications that it adds to the measuring process? The required precision of a measurement comes in, for if you cannot distinguish between two objects possessing length a and length b, can you determine if they are the same length or different lengths? Or to try and organize the principle around the words of your bordering on thought experiment type like example: If you cannot objectively distinguish or objectively measure the distance the quark moved, to what data of sense are you appealing?

Not explicitly. Oh yeah, that's right. It is not what you said, it is what your professor had said. Of course, when I was putting the bid in on my house, my real estate agent told me that the purchase agreement should contain a few weasal clauses, just in case.

Aside from how you have chosen to grasp avila's law of causality (i.e. because man-made entities have man-made causes, the super, natural entities must have supernatural causes), you totally missed the analogy presented. Is the nice thing about floating abstractions the fog they produce obscuring the capacity to understand with a mirage of that which can be imagined?

Is it true that science only gives an approximation of reality? Are you suggesting that there are absolutely no absolute descriptions regarding reality? (Hint: "There are no absolutes." they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute.") To exhort the study of science, which of the sciences? A quick query yielded the following list (from Yahoo answers): Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines: Natural sciences, the study of the natural phenomena; Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and societies. Natural sciences Astronomy, the study of celestial objects and phenomena that are outside the Earth's atmosphere, e.g. stars, the cosmos, etc. Biology, the study of life. Ecology and Environmental science, the studies of the interrelationships of life and the environment. Chemistry, the study of the composition, chemical reactivity, structure, and properties of matter and with the (physical and chemical) transformations that they undergo. Earth science, the study of earth and specialties including: Geology Hydrology Meteorology Science-based or Physical Geography and Oceanography Soil science Physics, the study of the fundamental constituents of the universe, the forces and interactions they exert on one another, and the results produced by these forces. The main social sciences include: Anthropology Communication Cultural studies Economics Education Geography History Linguistics Political science Psychology Social policy Sociology I must note that philosophy is distinctly absent from this particular list. Do you consider philosophy a science? As to the charge of ethical/unethical, to which science does its study belong? Is your charge substantiated according to the guidelines discovered therein?