dream_weaver
-
Posts
5526 -
Joined
-
Days Won
235
Posts posted by dream_weaver
-
-
I see the parallel, but it reminded me of when Russia used to tell their farmers what to plant, and when to plant it, resulting in crop failures.
-
... meanwhile, the world population expected to hit 8 billion, 2022. If not scorn, perhaps a measure of disbelief?
-
It struck me as a conspiracy piece, and I did not read it in depth, just to the extent that the Ivermectin was not being allowed for CoViD treatment, then queried the drug along with the disease for some studies.
If it strengthens your views, that is fine. The multiple conflicting stories on different aspects of CoViD floating about reveal more about the epistemological disintegration. Also this is not the first time I've heard of a conspiracy of CoViD being a vehicle used to depopulate the world.
-
Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424. opens in new tab.)
-
The feature to create your own custom member title used to be available based on the number of posts. This is no longer the case. It has now been enabled for all users.
(4.6: How to restore custom member titles) <-- Invision membership may be required to view.
I've toggled it on and off a couple of times and done a refresh. I see a line for Member Title: with toggle set to on or off.
The joys of software updates. About a year ago, Invision has held pretty well to their stated commitment of rolling an update out every month.
-
Invision Software updated (v4.7.0, 7/5/2022)
Invision Software updated (v4.7.1) recently (8/9/2022). I'm looking at the section regarding ranking. This question had been asked earlier Forum Rank (2005)The rank values appear to be the same, so why ranks have changed recently does not appear to be related to this off hand.
Under the heading Achievement Rules there are:
Comment/Reply Posted, 1 point.
Comment/Reply Posted, 1 point.
Content Item Posted, 1 point.Ranks have the following entries.
Newbie, 0 points.
Novice, 5 points.
Junior Member, 25 points.
Member, 100 points.
Advance Member, 500 points.
Senior Member, 1000 points.
Senior Partner, 5000 points.There is a Badges section too, which would require setup for such categories as:
Great Support
Helpful
Superstar
Great Content -
I think the question was:
"Who is the audience the lame attacks on the misspoke "China is one of the freest societies in the world..." directed at?"
-
The initial gut reaction would be to ask if Yuval Noah Harari is in cahoots with folks the likes of Daniel Schmachtenberger and Alexander Bard.
In her essay, For The New Intellectual, Miss Rand put forth:
"If America perishes, it will perish by intellectual default. There is no diabolical conspiracy to destroy it: no conspiracy could be big enough and strong enough."
Yet, I've run across individuals who declare that it is not a conspiracy, that the attack on America is an open assault (by the descendants of Frankfurt School, for instance), that the power of philosophy is recognized by the enemies of philosophy and being harnessed produce a concentrated impact, dedicated to bringing down any supporters of an alternative view of existence.
In other words, it is not a conspiracy being done behind the scenes, but an open assault with no need to remain hidden behind the scenes, in order to escape detection. Is this how the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times" be brought about?
-
@Easy Truth, you introduced him to me here. My assessment is based on about five minutes of the two audio segments and your analysis in the OP.
As to the second part, I do not have particulars in mind. Alex Epstein would certainly qualify. There is a couple I met a decade ago that formed the Objectivists of Southeast Michigan, that began doing podcasts as an alternative to get together's at the onset of the hoopla over CoViD-19. Five Minutes with Robert kicked it off. Robert and Amy are still producing that weekly podcast, and also one hosted by the Ayn Rand Centre, UK dubbed "Life On Earth". Another, James Valliant, co-auther of the book "Creating Christ" has his own podcasts has been a frequent guest on Life on Earth, as well as Gena Gorlin, who is currently fielding a project she called "Building the Builders" over on Substack. She has been interviewed by the ARC team, been on Robert and Amy's podcast as a guest.
As to pointers about enhancing capacity, it is a byproduct of intellectual growth. Alex investigated fossil fuels. Robert and Amy teamed up and made Objectivism an integral part of their day to day lives. James delved into the origins of Christianity. Gina is exploring the psychology of the builders (producers?).
These examples all share what Joseph Campbell advocated, "Follow your bliss.", or Andrew Bernstein's advocation of Objectivist's becoming "value intoxicated".
Yes, the "conspiracy without leader" still goes on. To the degree Galt's Speech is the essence of Objectivism, it has always gone on, and will likely continue long after you and I have finished acting out the roles we have chosen for ourselves. In that sense, if Israel, or Judaism, are considered as "the chosen ones", why not Objectivism be comprised of the choosing ones, openly recognizing the "secret" so many dread to name, i.e.; "the fact that man is a being of Volitional Consciousness."
His concrete bound approach to human rights is an end run attempt around the development of an understanding of individual rights, what they are, and how they came to be recognized by those who advocate and uphold them.
-
2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
Perhaps, but here he seems to attack the idea of rights.
What to do, then? You've quickly added context that sets the tenor of your OP. As a diverse community, each member here has their values that frame what they find of value to focus on.
In a world of nearly 8 billion folks, there are many influencers on a variety of different platforms.
Setting aside the differences of the participants on groups such as Objectivism Online, Objectivist Living, Galt's Gultch, The Objective Standard, The John Galt Line, The Prometheus Foundation, ... Is it reasonable to take the fight to the Jordon Peterson's, Dennis Prager's and Yuval Noah Harari's of the world, or might it be more productive to hone and develop the capacity to become the influencers, taking a foundation of morality and reason that a Steven Pinker can't quite put his finger on, and use where they go right and where they go wrong to help concretize a position better?
-
It's not the use of a "new form of democracy" that came across as "off" to me. Many folk use democracy in the 2nd sense offered at Webster's 1913 Dictionary.
In order to "know people better than they know themselves", suggests a knowledge of the nature of human beings. Turn it around and to use such knowledge to manipulate people, and it's back to the snake-oil salesmen, or con-artist's availing themselves to technological advances.
Even in technological advances, ways to ward against hacking, viruses, etc., are continually evolving as well. The tools can be used for good or for evil, depending on the hands wielding them.
-
43 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:
I got page not found on the second link.
Should be fixed now. Thanks.
-
On 7/19/2022 at 4:28 PM, tadmjones said:
More like twenty a year as per the OP.
I believe Pinkers statistics do show that violent crime has dropped and continues to trend downward , what would explain current ‘spikes’ ? If ‘mass shootings’ are an example of such ?
Not all his graphs flow consistently downward. This could be aberration that won't show up without putting it under a future microscope examining the past.
C Bradley Thompson offers the following clip aimed at the educational sector for consideration:
Our Killing Schools Part 1
Progressive Education and Our Killing Schools Part 2
Nihilism and Our Killing Schools Part 3 -
Sakkijarvin Polka a cappella (The Swingle Singers)
-
42 minutes ago, whYNOT said:
Very good, dream-weaver. You will admit though, your effort produced a dry summary of the report not a news article for average readers.
No animals were harmed during it's creation.
(Didn't mean to omit that juicy tidbit.)
-
5 hours ago, whYNOT said:
is anyone able to edit the following down to less than 500 words? Compare the contents - only the contents, not subtexts - with the RT article, if so inclined.
https://www.rt.com/russia/559728-ukraine-escalation-rand-report/
RT Article:The US and its NATO allies need to take a series of steps to avoid a direct conflict with Russia over Ukraine, the Pentagon’s foremost think-tank advised in a report published on Tuesday.1.) Sanctions against Russia have created conditions for one of the escalation pathways already, while the continuing flow of weapons and volunteers to Ukraine may trigger others, the RAND Corporation warned.The other three possibilities involve2.) Moscow coming to believe a direct NATO involvement is imminent;3.) that weapons delivered to Ukraine are making a major difference on the battlefield;4.) or that unrest within Russia is threatening the government.Pathway 0 - Escalation spiral that could have already begunPreconditions for Escalation[Preconditions for this pathway, such as comprehensive sanctions on Russia and extensive military assistance to Ukraine, already exist.]Steps to Escalation• Russia eventually decides to retaliate for U.S. and NATO measures that are already being implemented.• Moscow’s preoccupation with war in Ukraine might have delayed the response.• Such an escalation would likely begin with non-kinetic attacksPathway 1 - Preemption against perceived NATO intervention in UkrainePreconditions for Escalation• Political pressure for intervention in Ukraine intensifies in NATO member states.• New NATO long-range strike capabilities are deployed in eastern flank member states.• Volunteers from NATO member states participate in Ukraine war.• Russian conventional capabilities are significantly degraded.Steps to Escalation• Russia perceives imminent risk of NATO intervention in Ukraine.• Escalation could begin with an immediate move to kinetic strikes on NATO forces or territory.• Nuclear use is plausible.Pathway 2 - Interdiction of NATO allies’ military assistance to UkrainePreconditions for Escalation• NATO members transfer more-powerful capabilities to Ukrainian military.• Moscow is convinced that halting allies’ assistance to Ukraine is necessary to avoid defeat.Pathway 3 - Domestic instability in Russia sparks aggressionPreconditions for Escalation• Domestic instability in Russia increases dramatically.• The Kremlin perceives a Western role in fomenting the unrest.Steps to Escalation• Escalation could begin with non-kinetic attacks.• If NATO retaliates, eventual kinetic conflict is possible. -
A couple of more quips from The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (2011) from the subsection Where Angels Fear To Tread out of Chapter 6, The New Peace
Quotepg. 361I am sometimes asked, "How do you know there won't be a war tomorrow (or a genocide, or an act of terrorism) that will refute your whole thesis?" The question misses the point of his book. The point is not that we have entered an Age of Aquarius in which every last earthling has been pacified forever. It is that substantial reductions in violence have taken place, and it is important to understand them. Declines in violence are caused by political, economic, and ideological conditions that take hold in particular cultures at particular times. If the conditions reverse, violence could go right back up.With a slight hat-tip to Karl Popper, who would have been 120 today except for an event he participated in back in 1994,
Quotepg. 361-362The goal of this book is to explain the facts of the past and the present, not to augur the hypotheticals of the future. Still, you might ask, isn't the essence of science to make falsifiable predictions? Shouldn't any claim to understanding the past be evaluated by its ability to extrapolate into the future? Oh, all right. I predict that the chance of major episode of violence will break out in the next decade—a conflict with 100,000 deaths in a year or a million deaths overall—is 9.7 percent. How did I come up with that number? Well, it'd small enough to capture the intuition "probably not," but not so small that if such an event did occur I would be shown to be flat out wrong. My point, of course, is that the concept of scientific prediction is meaningless when it comes to a single event—in this case, the eruption of mass violence in the next decade. It would be another thing if we could watch many worlds unfold and tot up the number in which an event happened or did not, but this is the only world we've got.Per the BBC news on July 1, an underestimate has already reached over 10,000 folk. Granted, the decade would have been over 2021 as the book was published 2011, still ideas matter, and Steven makes a good point in the first citation that the question missing the point. He then succumbs to Popper's error in the second by acquiescing to the notion that the essence of science is to make falsifiable predictions. <sigh>
-
Perhaps the FDA could provide you with a succinct summary why they have not approved the treatment.
From there, pick the essential element you consider yourself able to speak well to. Oft times, picking the right issue to zero in on can damage the foundation that superlative issues are resting upon.
-
18 hours ago, whYNOT said:
Give the vid a shot, risk boredom for a possible gain.
I also looked up propaganda. The 1913 Webster is provided a more positive application of the term from a once upon a time perspective.
Since I reference Steven Pinker's book The Angels Of Our Nature, a quick search came back with a twitter tweet about a recent editorial by him published via The Boston Globe.
In the doublespeak of some of the intellectuals he opens with:
QuoteNo one knows whether it will reverse the Long Peace and send the world back to an age of warring civilizations. Maybe — but maybe not.
The longer version of the above is below.
Is Russia’s war with Ukraine the end of the Long Peace?
It provides a brief plug to his book relative to current events. I've found it an insightful look at the history of violence of mankind. I have to remind myself that he is a psychologist now and again.
*edit to add: The Long Peace is a chapter in the book that I am currently in the middle of right now. (The stuff serendipity is made of.)
-
9 minutes ago, whYNOT said:
To read them, it's like carefully selecting the pieces of articles that you judge to be in accordance with reality, while discarding other pieces that are dubious.
Yes. This.
Share what you judge to be in accordance with reality by isolating it from a linked article, or if it is easier, share the part being discarded by isolating it from what you found otherwise to have merit.
You may find value in the 20 minute video you linked here. I've only got 4,568 days left to squander. Why should I squander 20 minutes on that video in an attempt to experience a pseudo vulcan mind meld with you via John Pilger serving as some sort of mystic intermediary between us?
-
On 7/23/2022 at 10:49 AM, whYNOT said:On 7/23/2022 at 1:30 AM, dream_weaver said:
In so far as Objectivism is concerned. (as this is Objectivism Online) it would be the core of why such a discussion is essential to Objectivism that is eluding me.
Can anyone help me here, or is the "obvious" beyond my capacity to grasp here, giving the "limitations" of language to communicate in this venue?
d_w, the best place for this discussion IS because this is an Objectivist forum. This war and its global response demands objectivity, from many more outspoken individuals. Not that it is "essential to Objectivism", but that Objectivism is essential and fundamental to (identifying, explaining, judging, resolving) it. In short: O'ism's applicability. None other, and I've read and heard many erudite intellectuals on this war, has the unified principles and methodology.
(I appreciate that opinions can be freely thrashed out here whereas, in other places one might be deplatformed and the site banned for daring to question the controlled, moral agenda).
"'Tis not unreasonable to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". David Hume
This anti-philosophy is what mankind has absorbed and we are up against.
and in conjunction with the following:
On 7/23/2022 at 4:42 PM, AlexL said:On 7/23/2022 at 1:30 AM, dream_weaver said:Can someone enlighten me as to: Why is this discussion essential?
For one, I ask myself: "What is essential about what is going on between Russia and Ukraine?" In the responses so far, I'm not grasping what, in particular, is the essential significance.
That what is going on between Russia and Ukraine is that an independent and sovereign country was military attacked and an attempt is made to suppress dissolve it or at least continue to dismember it and incorporate the pieces. Crimea was already swallowed (in 2014), and parts of Donbas were already detached from Ukraine. With the second stage of the war, which started 5 months ago, the process continues with a much higher intensity.
It is unique in that it takes place in the 21 century, in Europe, in violation of a dozen of treaties regarding the independency and territorial integrity of post-soviet countries.
It is a textbook case of naked, cynical, perfidious aggression, similar to Nazi Germany (and Russia’s) aggression of Poland in 1939, which started WWII. For an Objectivism forum it is important as an opportunity to discuss the responses of USA and Europe to this war , from the point of view of Ethics and Political Philosophy
These are pretty straight forward, and both provide a basis for examining the events.
Moving on:
On 7/23/2022 at 4:42 PM, AlexL said:PS: About
QuoteThe evaluations Tony makes continue to provide ongoing weight as someone engaged with various sources providing conflicting sources. What intrigues me is the number of individuals that suggest Tony is missing the point here.
In fact,
- the problem is that Tony is NOT providing conflicting sources, he mainly and consistently provides information, and supports his claims, from governmental sources of one of the warring parties;
- he is also not simply “missing the point”, he supplies “facts” he cannot (and is not willing) to validate.
Let me rephrase my statement.
Tony has been the one adding ongoing materials to the topic.
I know I just read about a brokered deal to ship grain from Ukraine between Ukraine and Russia, followed almost immediately by Russia bombing the seaport referred to in the agreement.
Now I don't use television nor much radio, usually I refer to Drudge Report, Real Clear Media, and <gasp> sometimes even Facebook. I'm hoping without a link the identification is valid enough to stand on it's own merit.
whYNOT replied to your comment to me as followed:
12 hours ago, whYNOT said:Those conflicting sources are rife. In almost all the mainstream media you get to see, I can be certain. Is it too difficult to entertain other conflicting sources?
Something you don't admit to, that there exists, and has for a long while, an indoctrinating and largely Leftist, western reportage - which is for its adherents, generally accepted as Gospel. Sure, no one likes to acknowledge that their minds have been easily influenced.
You don't approve of (Russian) government sources - despite many international broadcasters being Gvt. owned - fine and good;
it should be simple for you to counter and contrast an (e.g.) Russia Today's report with some from western media.
Why haven't you?
Instead of negatively hiding behind "prove it" - be proactive, offer some contrary accounts (and definite opinions). I welcome any.
I have seen nothing from you showing and linking to ¬msm¬ reports - perhaps too - critically questioning their factual evidence and clear bias.
The belief that one side in this conflict alone is evidently, factually honest and the other side deceives all the time, aligns with the a priori belief that moral purity exists on one side - with only evil on the other. Both run against reality and reason, premised upon 'revealed' knowledge - faith.
In all, I have simply been the messenger, indicating that there are other facts (or 'non-facts') and other viewpoints available "out there", ones suppressed in the West, not heard of. These ought to be welcomed by rigorous thinkers.
Discussions and speeches I put up have not attracted any analysis or debate here. E.g. What merit are Mearsheimer's opinions of NATO and the Russian objections? Not a reply.
In closing, I am under no obligation to "prove" anything that comes from media sources. Because - I was not there on the spot, to personally witness events. As nobody here is, therefore we have to painstakingly draw deductions from ¬all¬ we hear.
But I take the view that Objectivists are independent thinkers who aren't timid about uncovering reality without fear or favor.
The last statement is key. Objectivists are independent thinkers.
Something that can help this ongoing thread is how information is provided. Instead of leaving the thoughts implicit of why a link, or several links, is/are posted—give others reason to click on a link. What did you hope to find? What did you find what was worth while. Are you in agreement with the entire article? Did you disagree with something in the article? What is the essence of the article in a paragraph or two, or even excerpted from the article?
*********************
After reading Steven Pinker's book Rationality, his book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (2011). In light of recent events, it seemed relevant given the escalation of violence being discussed here.
One of the passages was impressive enough to add to the random quote database of Objectivism Online:
Quotefrom page 181 of the hard copy edition:
The indispensability of reason does not imply that individual people are always rational or are unswayed by passion and illusion. It only means that people are capable of reason, and that a community of people who choose to perfect this faculty and to exercise it openly and fairly can collectively reason their way to sounder conclusions in the long run. ...Needless to say, a community of people who choose to perfect the faculty of reason is a compelling and enrolling thought.
Steven Pinker also had another passage to cite for contrast here:
Quotealso from page 181 of the hard copy edition:
Though we cannot logically prove anything about the physical world, we are entitled to have confidence in certain beliefs about it. The application of reason and observation to discover tentative generalizations about the world is what we call science. The progress of science, with its dazzling success at explaining and manipulating the world, shows that knowledge of the universe is possible, albeit always probabilistic and subject to revision. Science is thus a paradigm for how we ought to gain knowledge—not the particular methods or institutions of science but its value system, namely to seek to explain the world, to evaluate candidate explanations objectively, and to be cognizant of the tentativeness and uncertainty of our understanding at any time.Yikes. Do I close the book and return it to the library? Perhaps take into consideration that Steven Pinker is a cognitive psychologist and not an epistemologist and read on to see what other gems he may have strewn away along with some of the chaff?
Or post the The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (2011) by Steven Pinker and expect people to just read it because it came up in a link?
*********************
The events in the world are unfolding constantly. As pointed out a couple of times in the recent movie Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore, "No one can know everything."
It is one thing to work with each other to try and elucidate the essentials of what is unfolding. Nor ought there be an expectation to have what is going on in the world broken down in such a way as to be spoon fed, as if this were Gerber Online instead.
*********************
So if folks are interested in what is going on in the Russian - Ukraine Theater, use the process of identification to do so. There is nothing that says it all has to be done in one thread. If someone else want to take the lead of identifying relevant articles to the situation at hand, open a thread to do so and help by setting the example of how to access and separate the 'wheat from the chaff' so to speak.
-
11 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:
@Jon Letendre has joined in with several others denouncing Tony.
No, I have never denounced Tony. Where do you get this?
My apologies. You have rejoined the conversation, while several others have been taking Tony to task.
-
18 pages since this thread was split from another topic.
Can someone enlighten me as to: Why is this discussion essential?The gist I get is that @whYNOT continues to make continued contributions to a thread that was broken off to segregate @Economic Freedom's observation that the mainstream media has provided little other than "propaganda".
@Jon Letendre has joined in with several others denouncing Tony.
The evaluations Tony makes continue to provide ongoing weight as someone engaged with various sources providing conflicting sources. What intrigues me is the number of individuals that suggest Tony is missing the point here.
For one, I ask myself: "What is essential about what is going on between Russia and Ukraine?"
In the responses so far, I'm not grasping what, in particular, is the essential significance.
In so far as Objectivism is concerned. (as this is Objectivism Online) it would be the core of why such a discussion is essential to Objectivism that is eluding me.
Can anyone help me here, or is the "obvious" beyond my capacity to grasp here, giving the "limitations" of language to communicate in this venue?
-
Not that these put the considerations onto solid ground:
Historically, the first movements of the fetus, or the quickening, were used as a rough guide as a before/after line to be drawn in the sand.
Recently, a case hearkening back to 1792 has been brought up, and the discovery of counterpoint tendered back in 2015 referencing the same time era. One based on Nancy Randolph, the other on Mary Wollstonecraft. The first illustrates how the founding fathers considered that the issue was left to the individual's consideration, while the latter outlines an interventionists case against abortion. Note, on the latter, rather than pinning the onus on the Christian God, it is couched in terms of nature.
Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point II?
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
The term "data of sense" is used in both Rand's and Piekoff's writings. I'm looking to connect it to the omnipresent data of the universe. Is it synonymous? Or is there a distinction to data as a part of consciousness that to be distinguished here?