tps_fan

It would be remotely the same type of situation if "another person" already had a history of killing people en masse for several decades.... and that's just for starters..... ;-)

I'm certainly gonna try to keep tabs on this thread because we, Objectivist musicians, need album art!

Okay...... there have been a few posts by ARCHN members here on this forum by now.. WHY?!? Spammers are outright rejected. Trolls are quickly given the boot. Why on Earth are ARCHN members allowed to post here (and as if they have even _remotely_ near the same credibility as a troll?????....) Did OO.net security break?!?!

Thanks, Mimpy! That was a great interview. I expected great questions from Scott Holleran (as per usual), but Perelman gave very good answers as well. Perelman's reference to _Atlas Shrugged_ as being too "mechanical" and the characters being too tied to AR almost made me wince. Aside from that, I more or less found myself in agreement with much of what the director had to say. This actually makes me considerably more enthusiastic about the film. I still have considerable doubts about the overall quality of the film, but I suppose that (in the hands of a less capable director) the film could end up being much worse. All things considered.... We'll see.....

Well, tonight the chat spazzed out. It's actually showed me logged in the chatroom even after I closed all OO.net web pages and then reopened the main page! It's also been lagging quite a bit as of about 20 to 30 minutes ago, and there were only about 4 of us in the room. (shrugs) Also, some people complained about the way the chat scrolls, but I found a button for switching the scrolling on and off. I have no idea if that option is related to the room hanging...

Davis quote: blah blah God blah blah and then "This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children." Package deal with a capital Peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! P as in Puhhhh-lease give the God Squad-talk a rest. Somebody read that _P_olitician some quotes from Thomas Jefferson!!!!! ...and check this! Davis: "You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon." Using Dr. Peikoff's shorthand (and notwithstanding that they both may not be archetypal enough....), this certainly would seem to be an M-type accusing an I-type of being a D-type in this case. That is, "we (the religious) believe in something (a mangled philosophy)", but you (whose integration we are ignorant of) "believe in destroying! (disintegrating our mangled philosophy)". Classic false alternative.

Well, I still worship God, but I like some of Oldfield's old stuff such as _Hergest Ridge_. You made an interesting and compelling point though. Many of the giants of electronic music can veer towards darkness. (Maybe somebody should get Steve Roach an energy drink sometime soon? ;-D ) It's good that I'm not the only Objectivist here who loves REAL progressive rock!

I missed seeing the live launch of SS1, but I've tried to keep up-to-date with Burt Rutan's company ever since. Sadly, they recently lost some personnel due to an accident. On the other hand, they are moving forward in support of another enterprise involving civilian space travel.

I just wanted to add for anyone's benefit that while _O.T.I._ is of a special importance in that it comes at Objectivism from a different enough angle (which apparently immediately affected other Objectivist professors' delivery of material in successive years!), it's not a course that should be treated with hasty attention. One of the things that I remember from taking the course is the stress in examining evidence i.e. surveying rather than first assuming what's available. This is _not_ an easy habit to develop without conscious effort. Look, when Ayn Rand developed her philosophy, she didn't exactly have much in the way of philosophical precedents to go by (to whatever degree she may have considered such material....) I think that it's actually very helpful just to take some courses in science and history in order to get a feel for both the methodology and the material that those courses have on offer. I have to figure that A.R. was more limited in her scope of predicting the future than we might grant her. (Yes, _Atlas Shrugged_ looks startling and stark ...even in hindsight, but let's not forget that the premises that that book were based on were hard-fought for.) She induced her own unique principles without some of the sort of concrete evidence which someone could avail himself to now while seeing her work in hindsight. _No one_ (...not even a genius) can project very far into the future as to what principles are to be yielded from scientific history in the making. (What's particularly important is attempting to develop a proper approach to receiving and processing data; predictions are hard to come by and are often defeated when they arrive....) This is NOT to advocate for a false alternative! It's helpful to have a proper philosophy to guide a person's own pedagogical decision-making. On the other hand, without a background in science, philosophy can certainly lack a great deal of context. I suppose that this amounts to an endorsement for studying at a college that offers a comprehensive and objective curriculum.

Nope. Actually the study of mathematics (and human work in general) depends on induction. Unfortunately, in recent decades, scientists have allowed their efforts to be influenced by Modern philosophy. They've come to be more skeptical of their own efforts. If a scientist (or anyone for the matter) wants to be reliable, then they must respect the axioms, but the axioms come from observation of reality. The axioms aren't arbitrary constructs. The axioms allow for greater efficiency in thought through conceptualization. (You don't have to resort to concrete examples of principles every time you want to use them, but that circumstance comes from _already having_ recognized the conceptual chain from observed concretes to abstract principles.) Yes, if I write a computer program, or if I even just make a grocery list, I don't initially have to write every last detail about the objects I wish to work with, but eventually there's a perceptual-level "cashing in" (which in this case is literal and figurative). Try buying 12 bananas at a grocery and ask the cashier to price them as 12 cherries! Yes, 3 bananas plus 9 bananas total up to 12 bananas, but 3 apples plus 3 bananas plus 3 peaches plus 3 melons are the basis for fruit salad! Those two situations where you have 12 pieces of fruit are contextually different! ...and you recognize that difference via observation. (Again, if you doubt me, then ask the cashier when it is time to pay up. )

David, I'm going to be pretty circumspect for several reasons, but actually, I think that you would find that Computer Science currently provides some of the functionality that you are looking for already. I suppose that I'm now more or less a convert to Object-Oriented Programming. As far as programming goes, now you can and most likely would start by writing a "class" that handles the most abstract aspects first. That is, it's possible to write computer code that represents (in this case) "animal-ness". These types of "abstract" classes are used to generate "derived" classes through "inheritance". That is, a "class Animal" can be written with a, b, and c type of data and x, y, and z type of operations in mind. Then, more specific or concrete "animals" can be codified (without having to manually re-write the original "animal" code for each derived instance.) Over time, with additional code, class behavior gets more particular and fine-tuned. ...so for example, if you wanted to keep a database of cat profiles for a pet store, then you could likely write code to represent various breeds thereby allowing buyers to make better informed decisions. For the "hows" of doing this people read computer manuals, and for the "whys" they read ethics. ...which leads to... Sure, there will be more overlapping of fields. (You could call this a new type of "convergence" technology, I suppose.) I still bristle at the idea of AI because ultimately we're still talking about machinery that 1) depends on human decision-making and 2) isn't any more infallible than is possible in mechanics. That is, "artificial intelligence" amounts to delayed and applied human intelligence. ...so I'm not sure what people really expect from AI. Better "expert systems"? I suppose so... but beyond that??? Well...? Yeah, if you can reliably establish inductive principles, then (eventually) those principles can be employed in technology, but I'm not so sure how that's all that different from how R & D has essentially operated in recent decades anyway. For example, the Internet (not ARPAnet) itself is how old now??? at least 15 years, right? Well, it allows for more productivity (obviously), but it's not an autonomous or living entity. Again, with the whole drive behind AI.... what do people realistically expect? (Hollywood movies are fun, but I don't take them all that seriously as some people out there might...) Also, yep, I'm also vaguely aware of Chomsky's influence on language studies... (sigh)

Take the point seriously i.e. treat it as it is. dictionary.com defines arbitrary in several ways, but the most relevant here would be: "4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment." There's a straight, down-the-line difference between arbitrary and possible. "Arbitrary" refers to the unsupported, and there's no known indication that the claim would be supportable. "Possible" refers to something that could be substantiated. Again, philosophy is for living as a human here in this world. We constantly depend on evidence. In fact, we often do it to the point of taking the circumstances completely for granted. For example, a person can have their respective daily routine so thoroughly automatized that he may forget how he got from a given point A to a point B. That person might literally forget how he arrived at a location. If someone said, "Well, gremlins got you here." _That_ is an arbitrary claim; it is by no means the only possible arbitrary claim that could be made in this regard. If someone else said that, "You must have had your mind on something else which you consider much more important." That is a possibility. People have behaved that way before. Also, you've likely had that experience and recognized it for what it is if you were following a well-worn routine. That is, there's some sort of a real-world indication that the premise can be supported. Dr. Peikoff makes a good point here: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/certainty.html "You cannot challenge a claim to certainty by means of an arbitrary declaration of a counter-possibility, … you cannot manufacture possibilities without evidence … All the main attacks on certainty depend on evading its contextual character …"

Insight. Think loooong and hard about it. Hint: this has to do w/ fundamentals.....

Wow, for someone to interpret _Anthem_ as dystopian _because of_ individualism is... just plain incredible (and sad.)

Just at first glance (and without reference to anything further), it appears that Parmenides is just taking the causal connection for granted. (I take his pointing to "another path" to mean metaphysical i.e. biological death of an individual man.) There is volition in operation here: a person's parents had to conceive the child, so given that context "another path" isn't possible. As far as the issue of why man exists at all, I would refer back to the concept of identity. Regardless of evolutionary theory, the entity in question must operate according to his traits. He tried to force the premise underlying his question to lead elsewhere i.e. he was jumping to conclusions. Objectivists would certainly have problems with this line of thinking.

This is just another example of.... http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/packagedealing.html

I'm responding to your response to Kendall (since he already made some fundamental points and I wanted to further elaborate from a slightly different angle.) Generally, Ayn Rand's fiction refers to the same reality-orientation in an implicit way via concretes that her philosophy explicates via abstractions, but I wanted to focus on a more specific aspect. There is a reason why AR didn't include streams of superficial character details as Modernist writers tend to. That reason parallels her reason for designing her philosophy in a way that stresses hierarchy and fundamentality (as well as context). If you examine Objectivism more thoroughly and closely, then you will see her over-riding interest in the conceptual nature of knowledge. She elaborated on the value of "thinking in essentials". Her theory of knowledge stresses that conceptual identification is made via essentialization. That is, there are aspects of objects within a conceptual group which tie those group's items together by type. For example, you can take a Red Delicious apple, a Macintosh apple as well as other types of apples, and you can note the differences and similarities of the various pieces of fruit. The similarities are what you use to relate the individual pieces of fruit as being part of the apple group (among other broader groups e.g. fruit, produce, or food). (The differences are momentarily omitted....) The fact that AR may have not have had Dagny putting on make-up at a given point in time does not indicate that Dagny had no interest in makeup or any other superficial personal aspect of herself. AR does introduce aspects of personal appearance and specific personal behaviour into her fiction, but she didn't stress those aspects when (for a given aesthetic context) they were too tangential or transient to add to the value of the book. Those aspects would end up being distractions if they were introduced in a Naturalistic way or any other non-essentialized way. For a taste of this facet of her epistemology, see: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fundamentality.html http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/integration.html among others.... ...as against: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/naturalism.html She did stress detail in order to increase realism, but that type of artistic elaboration is directed by the author's overall plot-theme. (You really might want to read certain chapters in _The Romantic Manifesto_ and/or _The Art of Fiction_ for relevant explanations of her aesthetic theory.) Long story short, how Dagny ties a bow, brushes her hair, puts on makeup, etc. is important to her as a person, but those aspects of her appearance are not normally of primary importance to us i.e. the readers of her story i.e voyeurs of her world.

John, As you can imagine getting out of the immediate area of the airport is a headache. I would say that you can get from the LAX parking lot to the highway in about 10 minutes. (Yes, there have been traffic jams just _getting to_ an on ramp!!! ) What I've realized in recent years is that Southbound traffic really does differ from Northbound as far as travel time goes. (I chalk this up to the cultural differences between OC County and LA County. Let's face it, OC is "new money" with lots of it, and that means tons more traffic.) Generally, on a normal late night, you can get from LAX to Newport in well under an hour. If you are talking about afternoon traffic, then hoo-boy... it could easily be double time if not more. As far as the immediate conference area goes: You definitely want to go South on Jamboree or MacArthur from the highway. Those streets are plenty fast, so it's not worth trying to negotiate the lesser side streets until your close to where you want to be. Also, the 405 and the 5 merge, but that's considerably further South over towards where Irvine meets Laguna Hills. I hate to say it, but choosing between the two big NW/SE highways is a bit of crap shoot. The 405 is closer to LAX, but it hangs closer to the coast. The 5 is more of a straight diagonal shot, but you have to get to it first, and that likely means using I-10. http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formt...amp;ambiguity=1 Whatever you do when it comes to going county to county, you should add at least 30 minutes to your drive time. If it's a tight deadline, then add 60-90 minutes more. (An individual traffic accident can bring our highways to a grinding halt.... in more than one area! (domino effect))

Jenni, I'm figuring that you wouldn't regret correcting yourself for the record, but I have to inform you and anyone else who cares to know that Timmah deserves far less consideration. I also have something to get on the record considering the circumstances. After seeing what he's had to say in the chatroom here, I no longer consider him to be sincere about Objectivism (and that's putting it mildly.) Obviously, it's fine to make a syllogistic argument. There happens to also be a tendency for people to use the chatroom to make off-color remarks. I have to say that he went over the line. I don't know how you or the other mods and admins consider chatroom use to relate to or compare with this website's forum use. I personally find it offensive when someone not only makes over-generalizations about Objectivism and the intellectuals who teach it but when the person in question also resorts to ad hominem. By that, I specifically mean that Timmah called in the question of the character of certain users of this forum and of certain Objectivist intellectuals, so I certainly won't be assisting him any further.

...or both options? Someone might want to declare their sexual orientation for a number of reasons. Speaking for myself, I think that as long as the option can be turned off (and set for "off" as a default), it's potentially a good thing. (I don't yet see a problem with this idea.)

I've been meaning to write a post such as this for a while now, and this is written in the spirit of the other post requesting IM names.... (Naturally, this is _not_ a wholesale endorsement of what's on offer around the Web i.e. YMMV.) A few of you have given "shout-outs" indicating that you are at LiveJournal.com I can't say that I find any of the AR/Objectivist forums to be of great value because after all.... (ahem), but there are quite a few forums there. Good posts can be found there sometimes even in spite of the lack of proper moderation it would seem. I wanted to add more virtual locations where Objectivists are already congregating at such as.... facebook.com Just do the usual AR/Objectivism keyword search; I think the FB forum for ARI itself has had its "Wall" recently disabled, but there are more forums being formed and joined fairly frequently. myspace.com Same deal... do a keyword search and LOOK OUT! There's more people there, but I personally prefer FB's layout and "vibe" better. Now this is particularly interesting to me: http://www.last.fm/group/Last.FM+Objectivists/members It should be noted that allegedly Last FM may be in copyright violation by streaming unauthorized material, but it's my understanding that they are addressing this issue. Now, the real reason why I'm posting.... Where else are we on the Web? I'm specifically looking for websites which are generally philosophically-neutral and host/allow for Objectivist-oriented groups/forums. Keeping in mind that it's better to avoid websites that are (even indirectly) hostile to AR, Objectivism, or ARI's speakers, where else can a person go "flamespotting"?

Certainly. The results are different. My point was that the motive is _essentially_ the same viz. one of destruction for the sake of it (even if it involves other false "benefits" for the Nihilists e.g. fame and fortune.) In other words, they are different types of Nihilists, but they share common cause. To further clarify, I'll make one of my sentences more explicit: "We've already witnessed Hollywood's stream of horror-glorifying films, and then there's the _G.T.A._ video game series. (...not to forget the _relevant_ difference being that fiction shouldn't automatically and inherently entail a criminal investigation _as opposed to when a crime occurs_.)"

In fact, the NYPD is researching that question: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2..._gone_wild.html I refuse to watch the footage. I'm already aware of the nature of crime from third-, second-, and first-person vantages, and that is in regard to both non-violent and violent types. Certainly, the product is philosophically of a Nihilistic nature as well as being psychologically sadistic. I can't say that this development is particularly new or substantial. We've already witnessed Hollywood's stream of horror-glorifying films, and then there's the _G.T.A._ video game series. (...not to forget the difference being that fiction shouldn't automatically and inherently entail a criminal investigation.) For once, I agree with a news reporter, the filmmaker is definitely depraved and immoral. I think the proper legal evaluation will be more apparent as the police gather information... and likely no sooner or later. I also would add that using this scenario as a justification to invoke "Good Samaritan" laws is based on the slippery slope fallacy. Of course, even that justification would be old news given the nature of ethics and politics based on altruism. In other words, I have to figure that whether the filmmaker turns himself in or not isn't likely to be legally compelling without evidence of his direct involvement of a crime. Again, from a moral standpoint, he's a beast. He should be boycotted and humiliated since he appears to be sanctioning evil.

tim3, I don't know you at all, but you appear to be an earnest and sincere person as far as this thread goes. With all due respect, I have to say that you are well off base here. I think your best bet is to read the books that comprise the core of Objectivism viz. _Capitalism_, _Intro to Objectivist Epistemology_, and _The Virtue of Selfishness_. Actually, you might be one of a very few people who I think would benefit from going straight into Rand's epistemology. Most of your questions are ultimately answerable if you consider her epistemology altogether. This isn't to discount the importance of the other two books and the two respective branches of philosophy which those books refer to. I just think many of your explicit and implicit concerns hinge on the more fundamental aspects of philosophy. To give you some idea of how Objectivism is different, I offer the following as a partial answer: Objectivism isn't a "social construct", nor is it a Modernist philosophy (even though it's atheist and chronologically modern.) You seem to think that Objectivism is to be taken (by some people at least) as a Rationalistic system. Facts aren't "in" Objectivism as you suggest. Actually, the philosophy is _based on_ the facts as viewed in an integrated and conceptual fashion. Again, I would VERY strongly urge you to check out _I.O.E._ to pursue these types of questions further. I think that book by itself will answer many of your current questions as well as quite a few of your future concerns. These are the 3 books I would suggest that anyone read, but the order that a person should read them depends on that individual's background and interest. There are some other considerations involving division of labor and contextual matters: Some questions need to be answered by scientific specialists. For example, how military operations mechanically work is a matter for military scientists. A philosopher can and should only discuss how a science should be treated. (In a word, science is to be _objective_; it's not a popularity contest nor a matter driven by unchecked emotion.) On the other hand, a philosopher is obligated to be able to help people learn logic so that they can evaluate the sciences. In order for someone to actually make use of an information group i.e. a set of data, he has to be aware of and make use of his hierarchy and context of knowledge. (The related methods can only be learned by studying epistemic philosophy.) Objects are not "subjected" or conditioned by people in the course of evaluation. It is a man's mind that is altered by objects insofar as he is willing to actually use logic to ascertain the state and use of objects. You evaluate objects by first starting with sense-perception i.e. you first identify objects, and _then_ you make conceptual evaluations in order to build up your knowledge. (Again, _I.O.E._ goes into tremendous detail about the related methods...) Since a person is not omnipotent, there are matters of personal context aside from wider contextual issues. For example, an action that should be objectively deemed an act of war is universally (though not self-evidentally) bad, but what a person does about a particular war action depends on that person's own scope of knowledge and volition. For example, if I read a newspaper article on a website that indicates that there was a military coup in another part of the world, and that coup threatens the rights of the citizenry of that region, then (at my option) I can do some things in response. I could write a letter to an editor, or I could post to a relevant Internet forum, etc. It's unlikely that I would gain (or generate) as much value by going to that region as some one in a related military outfit or a selfishly motivated news agency could. I wouldn't have the physical resources or the interest as those other people... In short, my background and knowledge are different from someone employeed by the U.S. Marines or the Associated Press. That is, my personal context is substantially different from that of those other people. Those epistemic differences have real ramifications, and it behooves me (and them) to study Objectivism so that I can better choose and act on the challenges of the day. You have asked so much of this forum with the scope of your questions, that I wouldn't expect a complete answer right away. On the other hand, as far as unofficial information sources go, this forum is top-notch, so you might get some other good leads aside from what JMeganSnow offered. Greg

I feel compelled to start with a general comment in defense of this play as well as the artform. I want people to be made very aware of why they should not be daunted by this work. It is NOT necessary to have read the text before seeing this play! Without giving much away, I would just say that Maeterlinck is such a masterful writer that the play "takes care of" the audience i.e. the play is quite accessible... even a century later. Believe this, if a patron is just willing to come to this work with avid attention, then he will be repaid spiritually in multiples. I liken theater (or at least this rendition) to be something along the lines of an experiential hybrid between seeing a great movie and seeing a great concert. As a patron, you get to see a story unfold as in a movie, but that story is delivered with the presence (and sheer brow-sweat) that you would normally associate with an intense live musical performance. (This version of the play is not lacking in physicality!) Beyond the aforementioned, I was thinking about how this specific story doesn't so much arc as much as it climbs exponentially. I will be interested to see if the cast transitions from the 2nd act to the 3rd in the same manner viz. with the same type of dexterity as I witnessed last weekend. The 3rd act is worth the price of admission by itself not only for the emotional escalation. The plot development is astounding, and that was actually the one overriding aspect that really reminded me of _Atlas Shrugged_ though I would not dare refer to either Maeterlinck or Rand as derivative. Hey Steve, No argument here! In fact, I will bear a fair amount of angst this week as I didn't see the play this weekend, but I have EVERY intention of being in Hollywood next weekend. (I'm in the same boat as you since I've only seen _Monna Vanna_ once so far.) I'm not yet ready to hazard a guess as to how familiar Miss Wing is with Ayn Rand's writing, but she certainly seems to be the sort of person who is "primed" for that literature. :-D I just finished listening to the first podcast. HA! Oh man... When Joel said, "...I mean both.." I had to chuckle because seriously... only an Objectivist would be that mindful. Also, yes.... when I first read the synopsis for the play, _that_ movie came to mind. (sigh) When Joel responded with, "...sorry, Robert Redford..." I yelled out a laugh! Gads, that movie is simply trite, but then I have a similar response to _Pretty Woman_. I just find that whole approach to movie-making to be insulting and uninteresting. (Yes, I still blame Modernism for that trend.) Despite my utter ignorance of (classical) theater, I can easily recognize Miss Wing's insight. She made some wonderful conceptual connections there. ...so I will continue to try to inform myself (as well as assuage my temporary disappointment with missing the play) by listening to more podcasts. Jeez, they contrasted Romantic Realism and Naturalism in this very first podcast! Also, I have the book on order from Amazon. They had a couple of used copies of the text _in hardback_ for 3$!!!! I am interested in seeing Christina Valo offer an alternate Giovanna. In the meantime, the "love triangle" leads who I saw last weekend are all stellar. It's simply a rock-solid cast. Steve, I'm impressed by the lengths that you went to see this play, but as supportive as I was last week, I continue to only be more impressed with the original work as well as the new production currently on offer. Again, I consider myself to be rather illiterate, but if I can appreciate this work without having the benefit of attending many staged performances, then I fail to see why many others wouldn't greatly value this play as well. Los Angeles, take a moment to wake from your jadedness, and go see this! :-D