dream_weaver

Becoming an objectivist? Is that like 'becoming a christian'? To 'become an objectivist' is dependent on choices, - the primary irreducible choice, to 'focus' - and a further choice in the realm of thought is to maintain the tie between one's mind and reality (existence). The 'peace and harmony' comes from resolving an internal civil war between one's 'whims or wishes' and the external reality in which one exists. The axioms, you identified earlier, have a specific heirarchy. Ayn Rand is the first one to consistantly apply the 'primacy of existence' throughout her entire philosophy. When you grasp the 'primacy of existence', which is done conceptually, the 'recursive function stuck in an infinite loop' can be replaced with eternal. As to what existence is, (matter) - Objectivism does not pretend to offer a definition for, rather identifies that that falls in the provence of Physics.

The Guy in the Glass - Dale Wimbrow

The link just takes you to a website sporting the same image that was uploaded as an attachment on submission. The background picture is the 'desktop wallpaper' or what you see on your computer monitor when no other applications are running.

Grant you, the genus of art work does not delineate specifically to Romantic art, albeit, when looking for something to hang on a wall by which is passed by frequently, José Clemente Orozo is not likely to be in the top ten list for consideration here. Perspicacity by Rene Magritte has been the background picture at work for over 5 years now. http://www.famous-painters.org/Rene-Magrit...rspicacity.shtm

Grotesque comes to mind.

If it was not for the ashtray made from unobtainium that was acquired according to reliable sources from a undisclosed location in Nevada that rests upon the end table (not to be confused with either the chairs or the bed also within the habitat) in the breezeway, the aforementioned certificate would have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

Look closely at the parents signature. It matches neither the father nor the mothers name. Clearly another poor attempt at a forgery. The news media and those about him certainly defer to him as such. Has ever such a position as the President of the United States of America been filled by such an eligible write-in candidate for an allegorical anthropomorphic contendor of Miss Rand's second-hander?

Validating the concept of 'dog' can be established by pointing to instances of dogs. Validating the concept of 'blue' can be established by pointing to instances of things which are blue. First level concepts can usually be validated ostensively.

The direction in which the decimal point is moved.

First off, thanks for the interest and responses. I am not trying to open a can of worms, but determine if this individual is actually seeking to understand, or just looking for someone to adopt his point of view. This has driven me back into the books to try to recollect what was so enrolling 20 years ago. The points brought up here have are much in line with the anticipated responses, while The Egoist's (This is rather impossible) and Alfred Centauri's (under certain assumptions) have me wondering - I have been essentially arguing finite/actual distance - further apart/potential distance - infinite/concept of method; we seem to come back to the same point. The stumbling block is in the finite: Who/what decided this amount of matter and no more/less - who/what decided gravity/speed of light/etc: appearing to me to be a varient of who/what decided Law of Identity. While he is not an explicit theist, the influence of Christianity is obviously present. This was a major hurdle for myself, and at times it takes a great deal of focus to weed the years of indoctrination through upbringing from my own views to try and keep them consistant. We have even hit validation vs. proof - which I have now a better grasp of before broaching this with him (to which I am thankful) yet have not been able to posit it in such a way as to generate an 'a-ha' moment. I see in him, the struggle I went thru moving from an implicit primacy of consciousness to an explicit primacy of existence, and would like to be an effective 'roadsign' to help point the way. Once more, thanks again.

Does a harmonic oscillator like Cesium atoms provide a constant, or is this to variable, due to temperature, gravtity, etc. . . ?

The universe is finite. This is an application of the 'Law of Identity' applied to the universe as a whole. In a discussion with a co-worker, the javelin argument is introduced as 'evidence' for infinite space and 'matter'. This appears to be a variation of 'prove existence via non-existence', or 'prove consciousness via non-consciousness'. i.e., Prove identity via non-identity. Since there is no 'outside' the universe, therefore 'space' and thus - two javelins can continue for eternity along the same vector in opposite directions, infinity is concluded in regard to both the size of the universe and the quanity of matter. This is challenging my grasp of the Law of Identity applied inductively to the perceptually observable, extrapolated to the universe as a whole. I hope I have stated this clearly enough. Thanks.

The 'coffee' they are serving up is so 'weak', who is going to want to drink it?

After receiving the long form in 2000, I stated the number of people and referenced the Consitution, Article 1, Section 2 which outlines what the census is for and mailed it in. A few months later, there were some handwritten notes, one containing a phone number, stating that they stopped by in regard to the census. On a side note, I researched the telephone number online, drove over to the address I found, knocked on the door, and when their daughter answered the door, inquired if her mom or dad was at home. She told me that they were not. I handed her the note, mentioned that it had been left on my porch and I was returning it. I have not heard anything since.

Literally, it was rated R(eification).

Very reactionary. After Sept. 11, 2001 a white powder was discovered on the floor in the cafeteria at my daughters Tenn. High School. The school was evacuated, and a specialty team called in to clean up the mess. After analysis, the mysterious white powder was identified as flour. Imagine that, flour in a cafeteria? Draw a picture that includes a gun, receive a suspension. Use as dangerous weapon a weapon as a magic marker and assault your victim by scraping your weapon across its . . . oh the viciousness, the threat to the other potential victims in the vicinity . . .

The application of reason to the problem of production/survival. Aside from the 'profit to be taken by me' portion - for what would you require 'profit' when anything you can conceive of is yours for the fabrication by your fantastic machine. A device that could transform the raw materials into the values desired/required by man for his survival/enjoyment. (Raw materials, persumably from where the device sits, rather than purchase and fed into it? i.e.: the 'next to nothing cost of production'.) 1. Have the device replicate itself. With enough of them, the 'problem of survival' goes away for anyone. As soon as you give one of these devices to a friend, who ends up making one for one or two of his friends . . . 2. With the problem of survival resolved, the necessity for productive work goes away - who would need/want a 'job'. 3. Rename earth - Fantasy Planet.

From [edit]Wikipedia, under[/edit] Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature: Definately a Pragmatist. Most likely a Linguistic Analyst. Chances are a practitioner of the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy.

GREED is good! R.I.P. Alyssa Rosenbaum A.K.A. Ayn Rand

Three views of guns: A) Guns are complicated and their use should be restricted to those who have been trained on how to handle them. Guns are so simple to use, a Saturday Night Special can be acquired and used in the commission of a crime on demand. C) If you choose to own a gun, you should be judged according to how you use it, within the context of objectively defined laws. Three views of God: A) Theist - There is a God and people have been known to die for disagreeing. Militant Atheist - There is no God and we are going to be 'in your face' untill you get it. C) Non-Theist - There is no God. What is all this commotion about that which is not? [edit] Wrong key apparently submits post, and some formatting discovery process required.[/edit]

Interesting way to state it. While he may be individual; these attributes alone are not the hallmark of a clear thinker, and in this case, it may well be the issue that is obfuscating his thinking.

The dictionary does describe motive as the need or desire that preceeds the action. Reason, on the other hand is the application of Aristotilean logic to the evaluation of the need or desire, prior to or in the context of taking the action. Rationalization, then becomes the attempted 'justification' of an immoral or illegal action, where the logic is unsubstantiatable; or the application of 'reason' that does not conform to the validated methods of reasoning.

While Rush Limbaugh is not the consumate objectivist, in stating that 'the world is governed by the agressive use of physical force' summarizes it nicely. Consider that desiring a rock to move from one location to another does not bring it about. Physical intervention is required. At that point - one can apply the ethical and political evaluations to the application of force and identify its use as good/evil, appropriate/inappropriate, just/unjust. Men are not 'meant' to be, they may only choose. Meant implies an implicit plan/planner. In evaluating what is more efficatious, the American principles in less than 100 years brought about a standard of living which Kings and Emporers of yore lived impoverished comparitively, eliminating the context of what was available to them in their time. Even in todays world, Haiti, North Korea, Africa, and other places which the freedom to exist is not as prevailent as in America, Canada, England, contrast the life of impoverished to the wealth that can be transformed given the freedom to do so.

Edward Rutherfurd, comes to mind. Sarum, Hawaii/Alaska, The Tell? (an archeological dig in the middle east). Nicholas Ostler did a thought provoking work in Empires of the Word. [edit]Underlined titles.[/edit]

Not even sure that it would qualify as good fiction, esp. if you contrast it with A.S. (Perhaps a section on Fantasy?, as A.S. sounds more plausable.) Yet it provided two pages of comment thus far.