dream_weaver

Talk about barbarians being inside the gates.

While not a reformulation of gluttony, a different contribution to the suggestion box. John Ridpath in 'Religion vs. Man' points out that it is no accident that there is a trinity at the base of many religions. I would like to propose and introduce, as if an introduction is necessary, The Holy Axiomatic Trinity, naturally being: Existence, intrinsically inseperable from Identity, with a spirit of Consciousness.

Another note to this: Notice that all three concepts reduce to the same - The universe is; that which is - Nature is; that which is - Existence is; that which is.

This is an example of where Miss Rand uses the three terms in close proximity to one another. *Universe Synonyms: noun: cosmos, world, macrocosm, space, creation The universe would typically be used when looking out and referencing the sun, moon, planets, stars, galaxies and solar systems building up to universe as the entirety of everything. *Nature Synonyms: noun: character, kind, temper, disposition, sort, mettle, temperament, quality Nature may be more of the context of identity - the nature of things, or nature as in the non-man made, usually the immediate perceptual level such as trees, grass, flowers, rocks, sun, moon, stars . . . *Existence Synonyms: noun: being, life, subsistence, living, entity, presence Existence is more ontological - or dealing with 'beingness'. An etymologist would probably do more justice to them. This is based on my exposure to the usage of the terms over the years. *google dictionary

You do enjoy allegory. While many have opinions, the root of the innumerable choices available to man is volition, or free will. Some more allegory. Still waiting for the most terrible mistake people can make . . . Was it a mistake made by people in general, oh wait, the pseudo-intellectuals serving as the gate-keepers in the universities and owners directing the content within the various media organizations. Supposed to help? A duty, imposed by whom on whom? Immanual Kant? Every individual must choose to focus and think for themselves - it cannot be done for others, by others even when exhorted, unless you believe you are able to demonstrate what you are opining here.

If you are trying to grasp why things are what they are today, you may discover that causality has something to do with it. The consequences of the religious phenomena can be viewed first hand today. Iran is one such example. Both anti-life and anti-mind, religion cuts at the root of requirement for human survival. Faith is not a tool of acquiring knowledge. By packaging the lie in with several truths, embellishing it with 'pretty things' like pity and compassion only helps to direct the attention away from the gaping void at its center.

(ARI)Ridpath noted in his History of Religion the use of El or Elohim prior to the ascent up the volcano to retrieve the Tablets. There after, El became YHWH. El was the top god over the other gods of Egypt at the time according to (Author)Ridpath of Encyclopedia of World History from the late 1800's.

"Citing concerns" . . . Maybe, maybe, maybe - Touche'. The hatred of the good for being good. Motivation by fear is not effective, motivation by love is far more conducive.

Have you set your thought on paper to help organize them? Take a piece of paper, and on one side, draw a gingerbread figure with a happy face. On the reverse side of the same paper, draw a scowling face. On the happy face, list out the traits you find (found) attractive. On the scowling side, list out the traits you find less appealing. Part of this is to understand that all of this is on one sheet of paper. As an individual, we may have both traits. Understand that accepting one, you are also accepting the other side at the same time. This could be benificial in assisting you in putting things into perspective. (edited for grammerical and spelling error)

It strikes me as using a sledge hammer to swat at flies. If the route is undisclosed, why would a pipe bomb be suspected. If the route was disclosed, what other precautions were not taken to enable this stunt? How is government being managed, that the swarms of security appear to be so necessary at the various levels it is provided? Having government stay within the permissions and parameters established by the constitution might be nice. The caption embracing the word 'steal' was in the topic, if observation is any indicator. It did not appear in the article linked.

Could a bicylcle pipe bomb penetrate a vehicle that a sniper in one of the buildings lining the same avenue could not? The quotes just reminded me that perhaps the government does not fear its people enough? In this case, is 'steal' an inflammatory term for 'impound'?

"People should not be afraid of their governments. The Government should be afraid of their people." - from the movie "V for Vendetta". "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States.

Parmenides versus Heraclitus

A skeptic denouncing skepticism may very well be consistent. In other words, they appeal to faith. Continuing, he points out that the skeptic has faith that the mind's certainties are not certain. In a contrast between 'God' and 'doubt', a 'God' susceptible of proof and a 'doubt' susceptible of objective validation would both be finite, undermining either. To acknowledge and embrace skepticism is actually an anathema to the skeptic. By embracing skepticism as a philosophy, it serves to become the very 'proof' that it seeks to avoid.

An unusual combination to try to correlate. As Greebo pointed out, as structured, it appears to beg the question. Even with the general consensus being against, not that consensus is a reliable means to ascertain truth, searching for another way to link the two together does show persistance. Persistance can be a good thing. These forum members. in my short time here, do manifest an interesting cross-section of ideologies, not just objectivism.

Meanwhile, in the opening argument of your topic as well as the topic title itself: While you did not state specifically that it did, you certainly allude to it by tossing the subject and the predicate into the same sentence. A deterministic attempt to stir up the O'pot?

Uncivilized.

Between your posts in this topic as well as this one you began earlier here: The 3 fundamentals axioms of objectivism , as Summer aptly pointed out, you appear to be more interested in feeble attempts at insulting, than acquiring anything this forum has to offer. Objectivism actually identifies three fundemental choices. Focus Non-Focus Evasion If you are trying to enroll others into this quest here,

You've already read 'Virtue of Selfishness', and are back for more. That was quick. The Amazon.com delivery system in France needs to be replicated here in the U.S. Your 'irrational feelings' along with 'irrational abstraction' suggests a failure to grasp definitions as being an identification of the crucial differences. Allowing one's feelings to drive one's intellectual evalutaion of reality, and the relationships that consciousness observes from it still raises the aroma of a 'primacy of consciousness' or the desire of a 'wish or whim' to over-ride reality. Your statements do not align with someone seeking to understand Objectivism, rather they suggest someone who desires to toss out unwarrented conclusions and undigested slogans in an attempt to 'muddy the waters'. As to 'avoiding the potential flaws' of Objectivism, you have yet to state any. Then again, you do not appear familiar enough with its tenents to speak to them. Your use of concepts and that of a parrots ability to mimic human language seem to bear a lot in common.

Probably one of the best ways to learn more about Objectivism is to read, and comprehend Leonard Peikoffs book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. The forum can serve as an introduction, and some clarification, but not the most effective learning tool. You state, however, you have already concluded it is not your way. That will be an obsticle to getting to know more about it. Experience is always a good thing, when you are open to what it has to offer. Why do you not step out in front of a speeding truck? Because you will be struck by an unforgiving nemesis, an absolute reality.

Final destination. Sounds like a good title for a bad movie. As in martial arts, a black belt only indicates that you have reached the beginning of the journey. In Objectivism, the beginning is that twofold choice mentioned earlier. The irreducible choice to 'focus', and then, once turning the 'switch of the mind on', choosing to tie the content of the mind to observations in reality. It is only then, that the journey can begin.

Your original post. You managed to ignore the statement that Miss Rand is the first individual to consistantly apply the primacy of existence throughout her philosophy - the distinguishing characteristic of Objectivism. Yes, if you apply a primacy of consciousness, which is what you appear to be doing 'consistantly' through your prior posts, you can end up with mysticism, subjectivism, skeptism and many other 'isms. You may not find it very tasty - which brings us to the point, why, then, are you here?

Ayn Rand once stated, and this is paraphrased, there is only one Objectivist commandment: To think - but that this would be a contradiction, as the chosen is not forced. The results (effects) are always based on the 'gardening methods' (cause). The law of causality, which is little more than the law of identity applied to action - is immutable. You appear to be spewing epistemolgical garbage rather than being in pursuit of grasping what has been freely offered here. Again, it is freely your choice. Enjoy the 'fruits' of your 'gardening methods'.

Incomprehensible abstractions? Only when they sever the tie between the mind and reality. Intuition cannot be quantified or measured? Are you speaking of quick and ready insight (familiarity with a subject?) or the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference - and what is that, a lucky guess? Irrational=Rational, by what standard? Is there an issue with concept formation here? "The truth or falsehood of all of man's conclusions, inferences, thought, and knowledge, rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions." When you understand that all valid definitions are based in some way from perceptual observations, - you will see that reality gives rise to concepts. A concept not based or tied to reality is incomprehensible, because there is nothing upon which to base the comprehension. Have you considered an epistemological housecleaning?

Reason is the only tool. The 'job' is thinking. Anything else is irrationality. The choice is yours. The consequences (effects) are based on your choice (cause).