dream_weaver

I get up and see what passes for the news.  Correction - what passes for thinking in presenting the "news". 
 
I go to work and listen to people talk politics or ideas which amounts to not moving the goal posts, but blowing them up, because they have learned how to think from Comedy Central or talk radio so they think that crouching in trees and throwing their shit at each other posses as a discussion of ideas.
 
When I go home the Mrs. Architect will likely have saved some horror from today's news because in part she needs to share and talk about it too for her sanity. 
 
This forum is an oasis from that. Not a place to hide forever but an oasis to breathe and broaden a few horizons in real time and real ways before I continue on my day. 
 
I have good freinds and we do things but we will not be having a discussion of Objectivist Epistomology anytime soon.  Or any other kind actually. 
 
I come here so can listen to real conversations with someone else who actually gets what I get. For real thoughts written in a coherent manner that add value to my life. 

Fundamental and primary could be used fairly synonymously here, but general usually speaks more broadly.
 
Fundamental would appear to lay at the root of all generalizations.
Primary would rest on the fundamentals, but serve as the basis within selective branches. Volition, is fundamental to epistemology, but primary resting on being a corollary of consciousness.
General then, would be a derivative induction that would rely on primary and or fundamental inductions that would lead to principles such as honesty, independence, justice,  productivity, etc.
 
 
Edited: Added.

Galileo passed away Jan 8, 1642, Isaac was born Dec. 25 that same year. Galileo was imprisoned by the church only 9 years earlier. War or not, that shadow loomed over all. Newton stated he framed no hypothesis. Both pieces may have tipped their hat in that direction of that shadow, if so, it was to shield the eyes from the intense brightness starting to emerge from the breaking up of the dark clouds that loomed over the land. The meat and potatoes of these presentations consisted of angles, verbal descriptions of observations, geometric illustrations and formulas to interrelate it all, an intellectual smorgasbord for any mind seeking to satiate its hunger on something more substantive than the chewed over carcass beginning to decay after centuries of wallowing stagnation.

But even Billy here has a potentially immeasurable value, in our efforts to grasp exactly what goes wrong in a collectivist mind.
By way of dissection.

Am I suppose to pretend that what you are arbitrarily referencing in here actually ties in to the overall topic that has been being discussed since Binswanger's book came out? Just glancing over your replay reply tells me you're grasping at straws, trying to make your assessment as semi-plausible as you can. Sorry, I'm neither softwareNerd; able to address your insecurities on these issues; or Harrison, able to categorize your rationalizations for what they are. I'm simply a student here trying  my best to understand the material my senses have been provided with.
 
Edited: relay = reply

Taking the oft used example of color, similar shades of blue are viewed as different relative to one another, but introducing a foil of say yellow, or red - the differences are perceptually viewed as similar in contrast to the introduced foil. These color distinctions could easily go back to pre-writing time in my mind.

Supporting Miss Rand's measurement omission recognizing that the similarity of characteristic differs in quantity or magnitude, science confirms this for us without upsetting the fact that this is done perceptually. Since Newton's observations recorded in "The Opticks", the angular relationship he documented has been augmented by further investigations that have demonstrated much more of the light spectrum in quantifiable wavelength's. In this regard, science confirms this measurable aspect of this induction made philosophically.
Newton had to have a sound enough understanding of dealing with the evidence of the sense to undergird his approach to understanding the phenomenon he was investigating. In this sense, philosophy lays the foundations for the sciences to build upon.

On another token, Dr. Peikoff stated that Miss Rand did not think she could have come see reason as the means of survival without the industrial revolution - which could well have it's roots in the application of mathematics to physical phenomenon as laid out by Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and others.

This seems to suggest a symbiotic relationship between the sciences.

Even in Harriman's recent release - the progress in chemistry reached an impasse which physics picked up on, which in turn, enabled chemistry to move forward.

And I'll wrap by saying, consider how all this knowledge is interrelated, interrelates with the philosophic principle of how all knowledge interrelates.

Taking the oft used example of color, similar shades of blue are viewed as different relative to one another, but introducing a foil of say yellow, or red - the differences are perceptually viewed as similar in contrast to the introduced foil. These color distinctions could easily go back to pre-writing time in my mind.

Supporting Miss Rand's measurement omission recognizing that the similarity of characteristic differs in quantity or magnitude, science confirms this for us without upsetting the fact that this is done perceptually. Since Newton's observations recorded in "The Opticks", the angular relationship he documented has been augmented by further investigations that have demonstrated much more of the light spectrum in quantifiable wavelength's. In this regard, science confirms this measurable aspect of this induction made philosophically.
Newton had to have a sound enough understanding of dealing with the evidence of the sense to undergird his approach to understanding the phenomenon he was investigating. In this sense, philosophy lays the foundations for the sciences to build upon.

On another token, Dr. Peikoff stated that Miss Rand did not think she could have come see reason as the means of survival without the industrial revolution - which could well have it's roots in the application of mathematics to physical phenomenon as laid out by Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and others.

This seems to suggest a symbiotic relationship between the sciences.

Even in Harriman's recent release - the progress in chemistry reached an impasse which physics picked up on, which in turn, enabled chemistry to move forward.

And I'll wrap by saying, consider how all this knowledge is interrelated, interrelates with the philosophic principle of how all knowledge interrelates.

Taking the oft used example of color, similar shades of blue are viewed as different relative to one another, but introducing a foil of say yellow, or red - the differences are perceptually viewed as similar in contrast to the introduced foil. These color distinctions could easily go back to pre-writing time in my mind.

Supporting Miss Rand's measurement omission recognizing that the similarity of characteristic differs in quantity or magnitude, science confirms this for us without upsetting the fact that this is done perceptually. Since Newton's observations recorded in "The Opticks", the angular relationship he documented has been augmented by further investigations that have demonstrated much more of the light spectrum in quantifiable wavelength's. In this regard, science confirms this measurable aspect of this induction made philosophically.
Newton had to have a sound enough understanding of dealing with the evidence of the sense to undergird his approach to understanding the phenomenon he was investigating. In this sense, philosophy lays the foundations for the sciences to build upon.

On another token, Dr. Peikoff stated that Miss Rand did not think she could have come see reason as the means of survival without the industrial revolution - which could well have it's roots in the application of mathematics to physical phenomenon as laid out by Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and others.

This seems to suggest a symbiotic relationship between the sciences.

Even in Harriman's recent release - the progress in chemistry reached an impasse which physics picked up on, which in turn, enabled chemistry to move forward.

And I'll wrap by saying, consider how all this knowledge is interrelated, interrelates with the philosophic principle of how all knowledge interrelates.

I'm reminded of an old truck driver I had a coffee with back in the early 90's while taking some downtime to catch up my hours.  He was a guy who had been doing it well before deregulation and we sat next to each other having a meal and talking.  He saw me watching the waitresses (it was a sports bar of sorts) and he said, "Kid, never mind.  Those are Ex-Wives waiting to happen".
 
Of course, I asked "What do you mean?"
 
He said, "You're looking at them in only one way.  That always ends the same.  You marry them because she was hot and you met in a bar and a year later your divorced because the only thing you had in common was that she was hot and you met her in a bar."
 
I can't help but laugh when I see people checking each other out in bars or restaurants to this day - I think of that guy. 

Now, having identified the motive behind "you didn't build that" as the fear of responsibility, and having generalized across every instance of statism, we find ourselves in the unique position of being able to immediately verify this theory.
 
Billy is your average anticonceptual mentality.  He treats concepts (all concepts) as if they were percepts.  Not all collectivists are anticonceptual, nor vice-versa, but I have noticed a strong correlation.
Exhibit A:
Notice that 'both Galt and Marx are wrong' leads him to 'a fair metric'.  The subject has nothing to do with principles, to him.
 
Meaning that redistribution is inevitable and involuntary.
Now, at this point, you may find yourself baffled at how he can consider it involuntary.  But he's already told us the answer, here:
The statement, that there has never been a fully free society, is of course completely true.  You know it's true.  I know it's true.  But we can imagine things which have never happened before while he cannot, because we have conceptualized it.
He is not capable of distinguishing between the actual, the possible and the impossible.
 
So where is this fear of responsibility, if he cannot feel responsible for the evils he advocates? . . .
Whoever asks you to suspend your own judgment, either of identification or (in this case) evaluation, has already done so themselves.
---
 
Bill Harris is afraid of the responsibility of forming his own evaluations.

It is Ayn Rand's birthday. She would have been 101 today. With better health care she could have realistically still have been living. I wrote this poem today especially for the occassion. It is a tribute to her life and ideas. I have never explicitly written a poem in tribute to her before. It's good. But next year's should be better.


Copyright © 2006. Jose Gainza. All Rights Reserved.


AYN RAND 101
By Jose Gainza

I felt one day the gift that you could bring.
I fell one day from the cloud that I was in,
As you struck me like a lightning bolted sting,
Plucked me from the fog that blocked my sin.

I was raindrops, tear drops, tears of joy …
I grew wings, floated, fluttered back to earth,
To find the promise of your love and not a ploy,
For the force bubbling in me where is mirth.

There was the promise of a healthy happiness,
There, the esteem, though hiding, of my mind,
And liberty was the beacon to my bliss,
And gold became a product of my reasoned selfishness.

I do know why I love you like I do—
I do know why and it’s true.
I do know why you thrill me like you do—
I do know why and you too.

Yes, you love me to the range that I’m a man,
Though, you left our world in nineteen eighty-two.
Yes, you graced us with a gift of worldly span
For every able minded will to learn it too.

In Howard Roark bestowed was your “religion”,
Despite a world that would surely call you Sin:
The independence of a man to his good vision,
And integrity to create the world that you can win.

With Dominique you alienated heaven,
A realm on earth where mirth is felt alone;
A work of self-esteem branding earthly heaven;
A joy persists despite her melancholy drone.

I do know why I love you like I do—
I do know why and it’s true.
I do know why you thrill me like you do—
I do know why and you too.

It was the promise of Francisco very soon,
Those early pages of a boy, a prodigy,
The money-maker and the boy with silver spoon,
Who caught me to your rebirth poetry.

“Atlas Shrugged changed my life,” so often said.
The promise-wish of sages past with Galt became fulfilled:
A perfect moral man made real—though not dead.
Thus the John Galt line is mine; this be my guild.

I saw a world where happiness is real.
I knew for sure how needed is the mind;
I felt the innocence to feel a self-love real;
I learned money was the best way to be greedy but so kind.

I do know why I love you like I do—
I do know why and it’s true.
I do know why you thrill me like you do—
I do know why and you too.

Though now you lay still in your plotted ground,
One aspect of your spirit I will always keep
In my mind, as a function, guiding me around:
The gem of “plot” to plunge into the thrilling deep.

I know of causes of some ocean voyages.
I know the fountainhead of dwellings tall.
To lose Roxanne I know the vital series.
I know the reason why New York was lost to all.

I know conflict at the core of man’s excitement.
I know how cool it is to watch the stakes grow high.
To clash opposing values is a magnet-merriment,
And to bang inside of men is an explosion in the sky.

I do know why I love you like I do—
I do know why and it’s true.
I do know why you thrill me like you do—
I do know why and you too.

Even more than the fact that we exist,
Of value is to me is how you think.
To think and know men freely must persist,
Straight ahead and not falling from the brink.

I need not pray for a model far away,
Too far, even further than Plato’s silly dream
To know the things before me that can’t stay
Coz they stay but only by a common seam.

And by contrast to near like things
Our concepts glow with a solid essence,
As they are chained to earth by single things,
And open the universe to common sense.

I do know why I love you like I do—
I do know why and it’s true.
I do know why you thrill me like you do—
I do know why and you too.

This morning I happened to stop for a moment on Regis and Kelly on t.v. They were marrying a pair of long lost lovers for their Valentine's Day special. So I thought of some wedding vows.

It is not that you complete me
For I am nothing flawed.
And I know you don't deceive me
And yet you have me clawed.

Now around this growing heart lives
A hand that always presses.
Sweet caresses it gives and gives.
It blesses and blesses!

Within my mind is joyous thought
And inspiriation to investigate.
All within that is self-taught
I know you do appreciate.

The work by which I'm driven
You understand.
I am shared amidst our heaven,
And together we stand.

Two powerful beings unite as one,
And toast to their achievmements:
Their pride gracefully won--
Of most sacred commitments.

The delight of your harmony face--
The audacity of your smile,
Your soul they do not deface--
Your pride they do not defile.

I want to live my life with you
In days of ecstasy.
I want to cook delight for you
And realize your fantasy.

I promise to remain true to you--
This you cannot doubt.
I vow to bring challenges to you--
This I do not flout.

I promise to support you if life hurts,
And massage your limbs with ease.
I'll take it easy when my loving hurts.
I'll woo you like a breeze.

I love you as never before nor again,
As your eternal lover,
My worship is part of the bargain.
I am bare without a cover.

And am yours,
while you are mine,
down on fours,
or upright fine.

Jose Gainza.

Stay focused. You are all over rhe place and precious little can be advanced in this way. The purpose of the OP was to find the metaphysical root of Mr. O's statement. Mr O was wrong because any attempt to make me eternally indebted to the Country is a form of slavery. I have already paid for the roads, etc that I use. To this extent, I did build that. The eternal debt is akin to original sin. I reject any such debt, and if an attempt is made to compel me to pay ad infinitum, I will default. Mr O's metaphysical error is to reject the Law of Causality. He also rejects Free Will.

As for all the disparate points in your post, I refuse to hunt snipe.

I just read the article and noticed it's not finished yet, it's still just a floating abstraction... :-)

Well, thenelli01, on my second reading, I've come up to this point again. Binswanger specifically states that the reification charge is against 'sensationalism'. Your addressing of the issue clearly shows that reading the footnote provided in conjunction with his writings can produce such a question as you ask. In consideration of the other passages I've cited, I have, however, not arrived at the same question. Thank you for providing the opportunity to re-examine the text in such a light. Dr. Binswanger's studies over the years appear to  have culminated in a usage of 'sensation' I've not adopted. Lacking the knowledge of the further senses of sensation referenced later, makes it difficult to assess this particular at this point -, for me. Your attention to the nuance in this matter is well noted.

I've read it 4 times since the 90's. The first time, I found myself reading it, relating to it most from Dagny's perspective. The second, from Francisco's perspective. It was the third time before I actually read Galt's speech, having skimmed though it the prior 2.
 
In all cases, it has been like looking around and seeing the world in which we are in from page one. Upon finishing it, I close the book, look around, and realize I just finished to book to wind up on page 1 again.
 
While I can no longer be surprised by Eddie's dining partner any more, the contrast between the former employee of the 20th Century Motor company and Dagny along with the other myths surrounding the legend involved, the coal and wood burning engine substitutions with their repercussions, just to allude to a couple few, show the complexity and depth provided to work with,. This depth and complexity is not only in her fiction, but her non-fiction as well.
 
Perhaps it is time to revisit "The Fountainhead".
 
Edited: struck out, added.

I've read it 4 times since the 90's. The first time, I found myself reading it, relating to it most from Dagny's perspective. The second, from Francisco's perspective. It was the third time before I actually read Galt's speech, having skimmed though it the prior 2.
 
In all cases, it has been like looking around and seeing the world in which we are in from page one. Upon finishing it, I close the book, look around, and realize I just finished to book to wind up on page 1 again.
 
While I can no longer be surprised by Eddie's dining partner any more, the contrast between the former employee of the 20th Century Motor company and Dagny along with the other myths surrounding the legend involved, the coal and wood burning engine substitutions with their repercussions, just to allude to a couple few, show the complexity and depth provided to work with,. This depth and complexity is not only in her fiction, but her non-fiction as well.
 
Perhaps it is time to revisit "The Fountainhead".
 
Edited: struck out, added.

There are many people who are afraid of being quantified, measured or categorized.  They don't want others to understand them because they are, ultimately, afraid of understanding themselves.  It's the reason why so much sci-fi has been based on the premise that "AI would destroy humanity" because the concept of Artificial Intelligence, itself, means that our minds can be quantified (it's also what Jim Taggart meant about wanting "unconditional love").
Both "don't label" and "don't judge" seem like examples of that introspective phobia.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-NVs68X_S4
 
Remember your first posts on this forum?  Have you seen mine, or anyone else's for that matter?
Sometimes it can be difficult for us to remember what it's like, to think in such squiggly terms.  I'd take it as a profoundly good sign that it struck you that way; it's indicative of the distance you've crossed. 

Poetic License
 
Rhyme and verse, some metered prose, all carefully arranged,
Words selected, oft’ appraised, for meanings interchanged.
A driving thought, or vague idea, thus served up as a theme,
Helps organize or focus on a goal reigning supreme.
 
Subplots in the narrative must really coexist,
A way as such, support it lends, for interest to persist.
Interspersed, spread throughout, keeping with the topic,
Open to examination, even microscopic.
 
Reaching out to grasp a point that might be so obscure,
May serve as fuel to engineer a new entrepreneur.
Philosophy doeth under grid; its framework must transmit,
Yet poetry can acquiesce, with artistic permit.
 
Gregory S. Lewis
 
Dante, DonAthos, softwareNerd, Devil's Advocate, and Plasmatic, thank-you for your appreciative acknowledgements.

Which, Harrison, captures the Socratic implication behind asking rowsdower this question initially.

Nope. That's the "stopped clock" fallacy... saying it is right twice a day. Putin's actions are not moral, even when they are coincident with what a moral person would do. I'm happy Putin gave Snowden asylum; but, this was not a moral act on his part.
As for the act itself, there too, the threat to ethnic Russian in Ukraine is mostly fiction. And, when it comes to Crimea, it is non-existent. So, Putin's actions do not even coincide with what is right.

Yumpin jimminy, looks like my reading list just grew exponentially.  I don't have time to give you a dozen likes, but thanks for sharing this

Psychobabble
 
Psychobabble, one two three,
Words exchanged ‘twixt you and me.
The mind you study is your own,
Inference thus, some say’s a koan.
 
Cadavers on the gurneys lie,
Brains exposed to naked eyes.
MRI’s and EEG’s
Just show a blip when patients sneeze.
 
The words we use are sensual symbols,
Sight, sound and touch - they act as gimbals.
To infer others are aware,
In-deed’s a delicate affair.
 
Let’s toss the words into a salad
No want for dressing, keep it pallid.
Brush inconvenient facts aside,
Groom psychobabble as a bride.
 
Gregory S. Lewis

I agree, JASKN, the challenge of the search just drove me to it.

How are they different, can you make it more concrete?