brianleepainter

So, do some mental behaviors leave a sign such as a lesion on the brain that can be taken to a pathology lab, or a chemical imbalance that can be the subject of a blood test? Or, does this change show up as an electric pulse in the active area of the brain that can be observed with an MRI or other instrument?

Appropriate to your title is this video, which was already posted, by the psychologist and author, Barry Schwartz: The Paradox of Choice After viewing the video and reading brief descriptions of two books that he authored, "The Paradox of Choice" and "The Costs of Living" it seems to me that he is a socialist. In the video he advocates for the redistribution of some of our many choices to those who have fewer, saying that redistribution of choices will help both societies. According to him western civilization is burdened with too many choices that can lead to paralysis rather than freedom. What the hell is he talking about when he says that as a matter of policy, complicated choices make us worse off, and that there is some magical amount of choices that when exceeded can become too taxing?? On a side note, but nonetheless related, has anyone read his book "The cost of Living"? I don't think I want to after reading a few editorial reviews on Amazon: "Addressing the psychic toll exacted by too fervent a pursuit of money, power, and position, he catalogs many disturbing features of our time: predatory corporations, the status of medicine and law as self-regulating monopolies, the commercialization of professional sports. Ultimately, he concludes that we must sacrifice some individual freedom for community values and ``reform our institutions so that being a good person is less costly.'' -Kirkus Reviews "In this book, psychologist Barry Schwartz unravels how market freedom has insidiously expanded its reach into domains where it does not belong. He shows how this trend developed from a misguided application of the American value of individuality and self-pursuit, and how it was aided by our turning away from the basic social institutions that once offered traditional community values." -Product description

Certainly you cannot speak of the mind without first talking about the context of the brain. There is no point in helping someone that has a brain without a mind; a corpse. Yes, actually I've heard of and had experience with anti-depressants. These things, anti-depressants, are an Up. Prozac is like an amphetamine which makes a person feel good. These things that makes someone feel good are psycho-energizers. Somebody can energize a depressed individual also with an electrode to the brain, in the case of Dr.Nuland. Or, if there is a freezer in a nearby home, a multi-use tool can also be used to do the trick. Kinda like what Freeman pioneered. I think if the person has been "awakened" from their state of sloth from a physical drug or procedure they then have to use their own free will and be wiling to cooperate and sustain their focus in order to lessen and solve the depression's cause. Otherwise, if the medication,procedure, or whatever that targets the organ in an attempt to "cure" the problem is not continued(pills,periodic shocks,nerve severances) the problem will persist. Does that mean that if a change in mental behavior occurs, such as solving depression or a victory over anxiety that this can be traced back to a change in the physical(the brain?)I think it is important to note that a disease of the brain will not equate to an "illness" of the mind.

A physical process? Unsettling to me only so much as that this "physical process" allows for a physical means of resolution to the claimed "disease" of the individual.

Surgeon and author, Dr. Sherwin Nuland, tells of his personal account of electroshock therapy and how it saved his life, "shocking" him out of his depressive state: My History of Electroshock Therapy From what I've inferred from the video, Dr. Nuland knew the cause of his depression which was caused in part from a poor childhood and horrible marriage, yet even with psychotherapy he continued into depression. I find it to be disturbing that the Psychiatric team assigned to him decided that the only "cure" to this labeled "illness" was either a frontal lobotomy or a less dangerous procedure, electroshock therapy. Dr. Nuland recalls that his depression was so sever that a physical shock to his brain was required to allow him to act in free will and blow the mental depression away. Now, I'm certainly glad that Dr.Nuland's electroshock therapy helped to turn his life around, and that the freedom for individuals to choose this procedure is available to those who think it is suiting. Certainly if you find the medication to be helpful, or the lobotomy to be useful then you have the choice to go for it and pursue your happiness in life. The thing I find unsettling is that an organ was targeted in the act of helping someone's mind. It almost seems like a Psychiatrist can target an exact coordinate of an organ to correspond with the mind itself. Perhaps only more time and research is required to treat mental "diseases" through physical procedures, or so it seems.

Welcome to the forums, So, instead we are being robbed from and forced to be our brother's keeper to the people who protest that they have a "right" to a home, a "right" to a job,etc. "Morally, the promise of an impossible “right” to economic security is an infamous attempt to abrogate the concept of rights. It can and does mean only one thing: a promise to enslave the men who produce, for the benefit of those who don’t. “If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.” (“Man’s Rights” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.) There can be no such thing as the right to enslave, i.e., the right to destroy rights. The Ayn Rand Letter “A Preview,” The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 22, 2"

"As far as the issue of actual pollution is concerned, it is primarily a scientific, not a political, problem. In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is proved, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and objective laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved—as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc. But such laws cannot demand the impossible, must not be aimed at a single scapegoat, i.e., the industrialists, and must take into consideration the whole context of the problem, i.e., the absolute necessity of the continued existence of industry—if the preservation of human life is the standard." Quoted from “The Left: Old and New,”Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 167

This is the first time I had heard of Eric Hoffer, whom after reading up on him seems to be very interesting and a strong advocate of freedom,individuality, and selfishness among other things. Thanks for informing me about this man. After having read a wiki article about his writings I'll probably read his book, "The True Believer:Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" Looks like he brings to light the evilness of altruism and self-sacrifice in the said book: "Hoffer defines a “true believer” as “the man of fanatical faith who is ready to sacrifice his life for a holy cause.” Leaders of the mass movement “must know how to kindle and fan an extravagant hope”—for Islamic fanatics, death is the key to instant heaven. “If they join the movement as full converts they are reborn to a new life in its close-knit collective body, or if attracted as sympathizers they find elements of pride, confidence and purpose….” and also "The true believer is “without wonder and hesitation.” “An active mass movement rejects the present and centers its interest on the future.” (p. 82) The mass movement hates independence and individualism. The focus is on “obedience” and “one mindedness.” “Uniformity” must be developed. (p. 101) Members must be “deindividualized” and “incorporated” into the mass movement. “When we lose our individual independence in the incorporateness of a mass movement, we find a new freedom—freedom to hate, bully, lie, torture, murder and betray without shame and remorse.” (p. 100)" Found a review of his book on this site:The True Believer

This person you are conversing with, are they someone you value and are interested in continuing to chat with in the future? If so, then find a pleasant way to debate with them, and think of their honest ignorance as a way of suggesting them to some beginning Objectivist writings. The example question you gave sounds like a common question from someone not knowing the virtue of selfishness or anything about Objectivism to begin with. So, then you've responded in a way that will show you if they really want to think for themselves. Sure, you can answer their silly question with a one word response"yes", and humor them, pointing out their flaws in thinking. You may then find it humorous when they end the conversation with, "I just know it is; or I just feel it; or I just have faith." At that point I wouldn't value them as a someone I'd pleasantly chat with, and I'd probably end up walking away.

I think the money you make cannot be used to buy material wealth that will lead to happiness unless you have first established your values and understand how to achieve them. If you know what you want to accomplish then surely money will bring happiness when you've accomplished your desired goal, which money was a necessary part of gaining and keeping your value. To pursue your happiness ask what it is that you purchase that will lead to your desired goal. I strongly recommend reading "What is happiness?" by Dr. Ellen Kenner. I think you will find it to be a useful and enjoyable read. Here is the article for your viewing pleasure:What is Happiness?

Do you think the fetus should have a right to live at the mother's expense, holding potentiality over actuality? More specifically still: "Doesn't a fetus have a right to be inside the body of the woman? A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb. What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave." For a general overview of Abortion I suggest this article by Peikoff: Abortion is Pro Life

Dr.Hurd

Good for Dr. Cassell, I'm glad to see him showing his dislike for obamacare in a manner that all patients will see. Here is a short video on the topic: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/04/03...ign.cassell.cnn

If you're interested, here is an appropriate read about liberty and democracy which is relevant to this recent discussion: http://www.drhurd.com/index.php/Daily-Dose...-Democracy.html

Trebor, thank you for the links which were of great help in thinking of what to include and what to omit in the statment. The gallery owner accepted my new title, "Sunlit Creek" along with this statement: " Artist Statement on “Sunlit Creek” I often venture into the woods in pursuit of an area that will inspire me to recreate it in paint. A trip to a special greenbelt last fall presented an opportunity to represent the effect of the much-appreciated rain that filled the previously parched creek bed. I was captivated by the reflections glistening atop the water in addition to the individual rocks that were bathed by the warm sunlight as they receded into the far bank. With this goal in mind I could then work on bringing color into the landscape. "

Jonathan13, I really appreciate your comment and it has helped me very much. I see that the painting doesn't speak for itself, and suffers with the addition of the statement. I was too caught up in being inspired my great minds that I didn't put forth enough thought into planing out the "big picture" and overall purpose of the landscape painting. In hindsight I can say that I'm embarrassed by the presentation that I put forth, so next time I'll be sure to let the painting stand for a 1000 words which actually represent the title and integrate into the statement if I choose to include one. After having listened to some advice from a good friend and later reading your helpful response I have decided to try and re-create a statement that is actually suiting to the painting. I do hope that the gallery owner will allow for an updated version and title. Also, thank you for the kind words towards my paintings, they certainly help to remind me to keep pushing myself to progress faster and try to achieve more.

Thank you SoftwareNerd and John Link for your responses. I see that it is inappropriate to try and link a painting with a title that is dependent on the statement for any connection to be created. Like you had said, the statement and title do work together while the title and painting do not share a similar statement. After further thinking about the three elements;title,painting and statement I realize that the painting equipped with a title does not share a similarity and therefore does not stand alone without the statement. My thinking behind this trio was to have the audience enjoy the painting for what it is, be curious about the title and this in turn would help lead them to reading the statement which does connect with the title. I won't make this disassociation in the future, and if I choose to write anything at all in regards to the painting it will be done on a blog or another medium, removed from the context of a gallery, under a label such as "musings" or "food for thought".

Thank you softwareNerd, you are correct in that the painting viewed in no way shows even a hint towards private property. When viewed it is simply a landscape, with no human created structures or figures included. The painting when viewed does depict "raw and untouched nature." I think the look of the wild is beautiful, and I do think that this look is a value which can be kept in this way under someones care. I look at other artists statements, ones that promote Christianity and innate "God given talent", and I certainly in no way want to be associated with that. I don't want to be thought to support environmentalism either, rather I want to explicitly show where I stand as an artist, in this case in the form of a written statement. Perhaps this would be better included under a biography, but I have written a separate item entitled a biography that I would prefer to keep separate.

Hello, I was recently notified that one of my paintings (an oil painting of a creek inspired by a trip to a greenbelt that I value) was accepted into a local art gallery, upon this acceptance the owner also asked if an accompanying artist statement and biography could be included. I was excited as this is my first painting to be showcased in a gallery, although a very small and crowded one, and I put some thought into an artist statement that would stand for an important part of individual rights. Being that the painting is of a landscape I thought it would be appropriate to create a statement around private property, in this case to own part of nature. I think the painting should stand on its own, as is, it is a landscape that I had created to capture reality according to my value judgments, only including the essentials and omitting any negative element. I would really appreciate feedback from an Objective audience. Imagine that this is to be included in a binder along with other artist's statements and biographies. As an Objectivist browsing an art gallery would you be pleased to view this statement. Would it take away from the painting somehow or enhance the experience of attending a gallery?: I had spoken to a good friend about the statement and he pointed out that while I'm writing about the right to own property, greenbelts included, I created the painting at a greenbelt that is currently owned by the city. This did concern me and I had thought it over that day. I'm trying to send a message in the statement that the most beautiful things come from people and their actions to gain and keep something of value; if people value the woods then its full potential of showcasing it is best established under someone's ownership. Thank you!

Thank you very much Trebor, for linking several parts of Craig Biddle's "Loving Life" along with "The Creed of Sacrifice vs. The land of Liberty" article, which was a very informative read.

Earlier this afternoon I went to a local Head shop here in Austin, Texas. I browsed around for a bit and upon heading to the exit I was greeted with bold, vibrant text near the exit stating"Health Care As A Civil Right Petition." I grabbed one of the many printed petitions in order to read over the unsettling document, and in hopes of scanning in a copy to show you guys. I do think a head shop advocating for the government to take their hands off of marijuana and other drugs yet wanting government involvement in another area of their life is a blatant contradiction. Isn't it? This inconsistency ruined my shopping experience to say the least! Anyways, here is the petition form:

Wow, this video more than implies the denouncing of capitalism and actually states that you should spend less time engaging in spending and celebrating prosperity and more time worshiping! This promo vid even shows the unholy marriage of environmentalism tangled with religion. Viewer discretion is advised: http://www.adventconspiracy.org/

Do you not have the option to listen to the particular song before you purchase it and ultimately download it? My reasoning is that you should choose to not pay and download a song that you dislike. I think if you do want to respect the muscican's property rights, you should not download the song before payment is exchanged. Retail stores don't allow you to take a product home, such as a music cd, listen to it and then decide whether you want to keep it and pay it or bring it back to the store.