Skipyrite

Just let it go

I sincerely think that's exactly the opposite of the result, Zip. All the knowledge and benevolence in the world, does not, a spoiled child make. But more scientifically, it's a matter of study and psychology. An understanding of the human mind, genetics, (sugar spice and everything nice) the ingredients to make the perfect world. You bring Paris, Woods, and Tiger in there, but it's the same issue of minor ability (im just saying, in light of my fantasy above, we ALL could be a hell of a lot more) And that's basically it, Tonyx. Ayn fielded this pioneer spirit on a rational and american foundation, and that was the big deal of it. But I think she's supremely guilty for taking it to serious in the manner of it seeming like this horrific impossibility that all the Objectivists run around screaming about it not happening, and no frontiers are broken in that fear.

I think in the context of its time in human history, Objectivism was specifically about the issue of pioneering new frontiers. So should I begin by asking whether the children should stay in Mother-Ayn's nest? I think her issue is of how pioneering couldn't happen in the con-fines of this or that 'societal system.' If we're breaking new ground today and putting the unchecked premises in check. Please let ME begin by asking what the hell it should ultimately matter if people are highly differentiated as individuals or all rather john galtish. I think human ability is totally taken for granted in Objectivism because it upholds the -serious- importance of money. And "we don't have to take any of it seriously" is a brief sideline. Isn't money ultimately a trivial issue in a benevolent world? That is, one in which most/all people have a general understanding of the 'wealth' of human knowledge, and a needy person is an absurdly easy fix to think twice about. I say that there's no "Serious" necessity of a money system to 'get there' to our super-duper heroes, or for a world of them even. It exists now, so people work that way and accomplish by the means of money. That's like one generation of good parenting and kids with the heritage to care less about it and correct it all. Someone feel free to bitchsmack me if they think that's over zealous or something. Don't say I didn't tell you so when we get knowledge and attitudes by the flick of a switch, matrix style.

Do you think swallowing fear is all emotional control pertains to? There's still the issue of introspection aside from that. Of how people change from other emotions irrationally. Irrational in regard to how it affects their capacity to gauge things. Though not irrational in the lone motive to gauge things. Imaginatively, can emotional transitions have a relationship caught between a necessity of performance (such as the petrified soldier can't be petrified, therefore must be fearless in battle) that necessity, though contra to the "momentary" issue of being the best possible introspector to yourself. And at the risk of losing some important detail to know about how to act in the moment. Stuff like that..

Sounds like it could easily be habitual

The're not without a measure of control, though what measurement and what control?

Because of the psychological or epistemological (knowledge of self) consequences involved in rushing before memorizing. Or the issue of how feelings themselves pertain to the knowing of events. Or how pertain to taking the action to know. When you know the most, or what compromise (if any) is involved in feeling too deeply or too little in thinking things through and thinking them through with the proper feelings (if certain mental or performance corollaries exist) given the context of the moment.

Eddie Willers would've given more of an answer than that.

Can the rate or speed at which someone moves from one emotional state to another be immoral epistemologically? introspectively? Metaphysically?