tps_fan

(sigh....) IMPOSSIBLE!!! It did not happen!!! I'm telling you that I am still trying to recover from what I experienced last night. In fact, after the show, I walked more than a block past the parking structure where my car was, and I didn't notice. When I realized that I had to backtrack, I didn't care. I was floating! When I got home, I had to sit in my car. By the time I got indoors, it was 2am. ...it could have been 11:02pm for all I knew! God, I felt like I could have written 15 pages last night... STUPEFYING! UTTERLY FEARLESS! You remember how it was to read _The Fountainhead_ for the first time? You know how it "ruined" literature i.e. how it completely shredded your presumptions about the discipline? _Monna Vanna_ on stage does this ...in spades. BLISTERING! GODLIKE! I already could care less about the film industry. Now, I fear that I will feel the same way about theater... I was thinking that I will cry when this play closes; well, I am ready to cry now. I am actually jealous _of myself_ since a person can never have their first time experience again! Anyone who knowingly and purposely misses this play when he could have attended is someone I don't want to fraternize with, period. Joel, you apparently don't remember me at the moment, (and that's perfectly fine of course) but I want to punch you in the shoulder HARD! All these years, and I didn't know that you had THIS in you! GOOD GOD! Congratulations, you and your team totally earned it!!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wish.... that is, I wish there were a brick and mortar store of the sort. ARB is an arm of ARI, and certain people would have some choices words for me if I just showed up there to buy a book, I suppose. I just recently spotted the painting online for the first time. He's got his own featured webpages here as well. I likely have to agree with you about Emily. In fact, _now_ I find the idea of Jolie as Dagny to be rather laughable in light of Miss Wing's work. Emily would probably utterly suck the part dry for everything it's worth!

It may be just my ignorance but I have not heard of her before. She sure sounds like an Objectivist (does anyone know?). Yeah, I know because...... 1) I've seen her work at several Objectivist conferences and 2) she _lectured_ at one of those seminars. As far as I'm concerned, she's "Dagny T." _incarnate_. ...but YOU know this is true because you've seen her work as well!

Linda or Joel, I haven't had a chance to check the podcasts, and I didn't happen to catch a reference on your website. Are reserved tickets required? Can tix be purchased at the door? Thanks! Also... If any other SoCal people know of any Orange County stores or libraries that carry the play (in English!), then I would appreciate the info. TIA!

Mammon, Reread what 4reason wrote. She's _already_ indicated being physically assaulted i.e. her pursuer has already crossed that line. She absolutely should not approach that man. 4reason, As I've been victimized with direct physical force several times, you certainly have my empathy. I also specifically appreciate your legal and ethical questions, and you appear to have a pretty good perspective as far as those concerns go. I don't have a background in law or police enforcement, so I can't speak to those specific issues as an authority. Given my experience, the police tend to simply do what they are ordered. As much as I might complain about specific incidents, I think American police have a pretty good track record in general. The real problem is in legislation, and that stems from Modern philosophy. If anything, my experiences make me _much_ more adamant that Ayn Rand was correct. Likewise, I've come to take other intellectual's opinions less seriously. The solutions which you personally look for as well as what America needs will take a lot more time. As for you, I would say that in the near future, there are some things that you can do. As K-Mac indicated you can purchase a gun (keeping in mind that there is at least as much of an intellectual investment in learning how to properly handle the thing.) You can also get pepper spray though even those types of defensive weapons are regulated as well. In the longer term, you might want to take classes in general self-defense and/or Krav Maga (which government agents actually use for themselves.) Believe me, I know first-hand how disheartening it is to consult with police only to find that they ultimately won't help in the manner we might want. In the meantime, people need to be more aware of their regional laws as well as being more pro-active in terms of self-defense. At least, all of this information can be researched on-line, so you might want to locate websites which specifically represent local law agencies, victim advocacy groups, criminal news aggregates, etc.

Thank you for your consistently wonderful writing!

Hmm... maybe... "V" for men, and "Richie Rich" for boys?

Thank you for posting your notes, David. I haven't read FN's primary works. I've just seen a PBS documentary on his life, so it's great to compare that show with these notes. I'm really surprised that Dr. Ridpath gave such a long lecture, so now I'm doubly jealous! I think that it's great that you have provided a ready reference that so clearly illustrates how FN and AR are substantially different. There are a fair no. of people posting on the 'net these days who are trying to rationalize a strong connection between the two. (...and that's really not unlike the disservice that Chris Sciabarra provided with his attempt to tie AR to more common Russian intellectuals.) There simply is no getting away from the fact that AR was one of a kind.

Try telling that to Pete Townshend! (I can't vouch for the accuracy of this website I just cited; though at first glance, the content looks plausible.)

Oh, does this subject ever hit a sore spot with me!!! Unquestionably YES, it's a property violation! Delusion is "on the side" of such a person who would be willing to perform what is known as trespassing while not acknowledging it (and its consequences.) That's hardly a rational act! Some of the people who blast music at maximal volumes are true Nihilists since they want to vent and spread their apparent hatred. I can't think of a single case where any of these type of force initiators are not Narcissists as well. I have to say that I hate these people with a passion for many different but related reasons.... Based on my own observations, there certainly seems to be many more of these people making their respective presence known these days. Sound can certainly be measured in dB SPL. Even timbre can be specifically analyzed. The difficulty for legislators, law enforcement, and victims is in trying to come up with appropriate solutions which are legally consistent and feasible. While not being a legal expert myself, in my opinion, I would figure that (ideally) the process of enforcement would first involve identifying and warning the trespasser. If he continues as before, then he should be fined and/or he should be separated from related property. If he still continues as before, then he should be punished more severely. Whether that involves removing a stereo or kicking him off a property or some other action altogether depends on the moral and legal contexts. There's really no rational excuse for this type of crime since someone who has and uses music producing equipment can acquire and use headphones and/or soundproofing. Plus, music producers and listeners regularly rent property for the express purpose of sound production ...if they are at least minimally rational. If someone has the means of producing sound, then they are morally obligated to provide the means for reducing that sound if it persistently disturbs other people.

Gotta say it... It's _real_ nice to read something in the major media that might actually make me truly proud to be an Orange County, CA resident. (Perish the thought?!) Yes folks, there's more to "the OC" than teen angst and failed romance, overbearing police, traffic congestion on the I-5, and fallout from the dot com bust and our real estate cool-off, ....but of course there's the glorious beaches. (A big raspberry to Surfrider Foundation. Yo dudes, what did you want for property which you don't even own?!? Stop complaining, and get back to surfing!) I'll always remember this area for the great employment opportunities which I've had out here over the years, and I think there's plenty of economic growth to come in the near future as well. I do miss visiting the L.A. offices where ARI used to be, but it's cool to go catch a flight at the local airport or visit UCI, etc. and know that "Hey, I just drove by the offices of ARI!". Plus, I think it's time to say that having Dr. Brook take over for Dr. Berliner was an inspired move. We are fortunate to have had them both fighting the good fight. I've personally witnessed and been impressed by Dr. Brook's increasingly fine lecturing abilities. Likewise, to come to a point where it's almost expected to see him on TV these days is actually darn incredible in retrospect. Good for the Institute and us.

Let's see theonion.com beat this!

(Partially following Tenure's lead...) What would you consider to be the defining historical moments of the American Revolution _ideologically_? We hear so much about military campaigns (that is all well and good), but I consider that information to be critical though nevertheless secondary.... More to the point, what do Americans tend not to know about their history that would better point them to why the Founders were so ground-breaking? Thanks.

At first I thought that I didn't have much personal experience to draw from which I could use to answer you, but upon further thought I actually can speak to this somewhat. Rather than thinking in terms of unrequited romantic love, I will refer to the more general relationship type of friendships. Long story short, one of my better friends moved geographically farther from me to be with his girlfriend. (They also moved to be closer to their respective work sites as well.) If I recall correctly, he and I actually talked a bit about how it would be harder for him to hangout with me due to positive changes in his romantic relationship. Logically, the situation was beyond reproach. Still, while I knew what was to come in the near future, I couldn't help but be in some emotional pain. There is simply no getting away from the partial loss of a major value, but (as always) the first thing to do is to face the situation head-on. I quickly realized that I would _much_ rather that he be successful in finding his top values than for me to have greater access to him since that would require a sacrifice on his part. Given the Objectivist ethics, you can see how this situation would not benefit either him or me if he were to fail to pursue his romantic interests. (Altruism is a wicked joke on the unsuspecting because that ethical code always eventually backfires.) There is another point that Ayn Rand tended to raise with regard to business relationships. Even if someone is turned down for a job, that person still has the option of looking for other work. Obviously, work and romantic love can't substitute for each other, but the point can be generalized. There are actually other people worth actively searching out in the hope of establishing similar relationships. (I'm not assuming anything, but if in your heart of hearts, you want more from him than a friendship, then you are going to have to be braver and stauncher _and_ more careful.) More specifically, you apparently want to be friends with both of those people. It's easy to overlook the fact that each individual relationship has its own requirements. Also, keep in mind that it would be risky to attempt to use another relationship as a substitute for an older relationship without examining the circumstances of that older relationship. To get closer to your concerns and to put this in concrete form. The woman you want to befriend is someone you would have to go through your male friend to contact. Also, you still seem conflicted as far as how you feel about him goes. If I were you, then I would start with what you are most sure of and with what you and he have the most invested in. In this case, it would seem that it's your friendship with him that is the most valuable. You can be concise and circumspect when first talking with him, but you need to ask him how the two of you can spend more time together as friends if it's possible. At the same time, you need to be prepared for rejection. I would say that if he is really your friend he should be (and likely would be) willing to forthrightly answer your most general questions. It's incredibly common for people to have unrealistic expectations when the conditions of personal relationships change. It takes patience and work to properly assess a relationship's status. Ultimately, you should focus on what you want the most and work to maintain those priorities accordingly. To sum this up in brief, talk to him, but don't hold out expectations that run contrary to the history of your friendship with him _or_ to the fact that your relationship with him must change in order for _both_ of you to be happy. If you think you can offer him better solutions, then your best bet is to make rational arguments that point to your shared values as the source for growth.

Just to clear up some potential confusion, Amazon keeps quite a few lists. Today and within the last hour, _A.S._ isn't anywhere on the top 100 of the general list of books. On the other hand, when I went to the specific page for the Centennial Ed. HC version, I found the following: #3 in Books > Literature & Fiction > Authors, A-Z > ( R ) > Rand, Ayn #3 in Books > Literature & Fiction > Classics > United States > Rand, Ayn #20 in Books > Literature & Fiction > General > Classics ...so (wait for it!) ...it depends on the context of your search. (I just _had_ to get that in there. )

Betsy, I wish that you were a little more careful in your post numbered #113 because I now have a bunch of things to correct you on. I may have to do it in separate parts as it is. Also, as far as essentials go, I haven't seen you expressly deal with the idea of "dominant trends" as the idea appears in your original quote of Ayn Rand; nor have you expressly dealt with the idea of avoiding disintegrated evaluations of political candidates (which as far as I can tell involves the crux of the entire essay from 1964.) I explicitly acknowledged this in what you responded to! Let me restate part of my assessment of that essay: She only _concretely_ mentioned several candidates; she _abstractly_ focused on Barry Goldwater as an example of a pro-freedom candidate. ...and while I'm at it, if she considered him a staunch Christian, then why did she say what she did in 1980 (of which I only quoted a fraction of her anti-conservative antipathy.) Also, why did she say in the same essay which you quoted from(!) that: "No, he is not an advocate of laissez-faire.... But the difference between him and the others is this: they believe that some [undefined] element of freedom is compatible with government controls; he believes that some [undefined] government controls are compatible with freedom. Freedom is his _major_ premise." Where does _Ayn Rand_ refer to him as a Christian?! She advocated for him (and not the others) for his pro-freedom stance, period. Read what I just stated. Then why did she respond to this question in 1980 (from the same interview I quoted) as follows?: Q. Of the current candidates, then, are there any whom you favor? A. No. I would have voted for Gerald Ford, as I did in 1976. He is not ideal, but he is the nearest to a civilized, conservative candidate. But I will not vote for any in this year's election. ...and this is after she excoriated Reagan. You should have told her about Ford's religiousity because she _never_ mentions it anywhere in this interview and she _still_ wouldn't vote for him again. Immediately before the aforementioned question, she _very_ explicitly has harsh words for any candidates who are anti-abortion. In other words, if she knew Ford or any one else was anti-abortion, then she would _not_ have wittingly voted for them. Again, note what I said in an earlier post about Forbes.... _and_ Dr. Peikoff's reaction in turn. That hardly seems like a contradiction on either of their parts at all. ...so by my count you have cited 0 promotions of Christian conservatives by Ayn Rand. That is hardly the "multiple candidates" of which you mentioned. Hopefully, I'll get to more of this later...

Please stop switching contexts (..both mine and Ayn Rand's). The "without exception" comment I made was in reference to the 1980 interview in specific, and she WAS abundantly clear about candidates who are anti-abortion! (I still haven't posted the other 2/3 of her answer which is further damning of conservatives.) Likewise, I haven't seen the article you just referenced in hard copy or in total. Also, it doesn't appear to be in The Objectivist Forum compilation so it _does not_ follow the interview I cited from 1980. (Betsy incorrectly quoted my quote of Ayn Rand.) Obviously, I'm not omniscient; nor am I obligated to be. You don't give a reason why she would vote for Reagan over McGovern or Kennedy. It wouldn't have anything to do with gaining _new_ information about Reagan, would it?! Again, to be absolutely clear, she was against Reagan (apparently more than anyone else) in 1980. ...and _that_ is the most recent reference to Ayn Rand which I've seen so far. How do _you_ reconcile the 1980 interview with everything else? edited for clarification.

Betsy, There's yet another reason why invoking that quote is a misrepresentation of both Ayn Rand's and Dr. Peikoff's ideas. The essay you quoted from focuses on the evaluation of a political candidate. Dr. Peikoff's D.I.M. hypothesis _and_ his election-related warnings respectively involve cultural evaluation and political trend assessment (among other application options). As far as this issue is concerned, there's a point that transcends all others: Those professional Objectivists' goals involve different scopes and different requirements. (Someone could likely write an entire essay on just those differences alone. Suffice it to say, I haven't seen any one care to notice those differences even though they exist.) In fact, in your interest to focus on principles, you have seemed to missed something else that is explicitly mentioned at the very end of that quote: "But we have to judge (a political candidate) as we judge any work, theory, or product of mixed premises: by his DOMINANT TREND." (emphasis mine) This Summer, during the very last lecture of Dr. Peikoff's DIM hypothesis series, he gave a laundry list of values. It was readily apparent that he was speaking of the current President. Dr. Peikoff was making the point that the President holds onto unrelated (even conceptually contradictory) values. Yet, if anyone actually bothers to evaluate the President's track record, there is indeed a dominant trend running throughout the Bush presidency. That trend (which Dr. Peikoff continues to be criticized for recognizing!!!) is comprised by the drive to further inject federal law with religion. ...and there is even yet another flaw in interpreting that quote from March 1964 as you have. Admittedly, the flaw is better revealed when the 1964 quote is held up against what A.R. said over 15 years later in the interview which I quoted from. When she spoke of religion mixed with politics, it is abundantly clear that she meant what she said _without exception_. In other words, her view of religion interspersed with politics flat-out trumps all other considerations (including everything that was said in the March 1964 essay.) Now it just so happens, that A.R. did not contradict herself. As I just stated, a Presidential candidate must be evaluated by his dominant trend, so the two written pieces jibe perfectly with each other. Look at it this way, if Bush, Jr. did not operate by religious premises, he would likely be more like President Clinton. As the case was with Clinton, you will note that there wasn't a move towards faith-based initiatives, antipathy for research science e.g. stem cell research, a toleration for greater limits on abortion, a self-sacrificial backdoor draft, etc. (I'm just starting to read your most recent post.) You should note that the interview I quoted from was in 1980 (which is later than 1975.) By the way, she had something to say about Gerald Ford in that same interview of 1980 (and it doesn't help your case).....

Betsy, I've just scanned through this entire thread, and I don't see the article link which you stated that you posted. It's no matter for me since I have an original bound copy of the article to look at. I've have already elaborated on various parts of the article which you did not reference. I have not made an arbitrary assertion. I shouldn't be surprised that you have selectively quoted my posts as to avoid dealing with some of my points as you have similarly selectively quoted Ayn Rand and Dr. Peikoff. You have dropped context without properly reintegrating context. As I already stated, the essay which you quoted from was written in reference to Barry Goldwater. She also makes cursory references to Richard Nixon and Gov. Rockefeller, but (to be more specific) the article is _overwhelmingly_ in regard to Goldwater's campaign. As I already indicated, this in turn means that Ayn Rand was speaking of a _specific type_ of Republican i.e. one who is pro-freedom on philosophical principle. She clearly did not consider him to be a Christian conservative. In post #60 of this thread you said: Do you have any citations to substantiate her support for multiple religious candidates, _and_ how do you reconcile your statements with the quote I gave in post #84 of this thread: You will note that she used the term "conservatism" which isn't just a matter of principle; it's a philosophy. Also, in the same essay you quoted, A.R. stated this: "The degree of evasion required to permit modern intellectuals not to see their ultimate goal -- in the light of the historical evidence of the past fifty years -- is almost inconceivable. It is Pragmatism that has made it semi-possible for them, by granting them permission to be unprincipled on principle." Note that she refers to "Pragmatism" (with a capital p no less); this is also a consideration for an entire _philosophy_. Apparently, I also further need to point out that 1) A.R. did not view principles as completely extricated from philosophy altogether, and 2) she never indicated in the quote that you referenced that a voter _couldn't_ consider more than political positions. In fact, one of the major points which she makes in the essay which you quoted is that anyone who treats politics in a disintegrated manner should be castigated for that approach. As I already indicated, there hasn't been a Republican Presidential candidate synonymous with Goldwater since Forbes made his attempt. I also indicated that he capitulated to conservatives with his change in his stance on abortion, so it could even be argued that there hasn't been a Republican Presidential candidate who is for laissez-faire since Goldwater himself. Also, _you_ are the one asserting that Dr. Peikoff has contradicted Ayn Rand. You need to support that claim. I have now asked some of these questions of you more than once. I would appreciate it if you would respond to all of my questions in this post. Edit: corrected to add italics.

Kendall, I found one of the references which you were likely thinking of: The Objectivist Forum, June 1980, _Interview with Ayn Rand (part 1)_ Q. Would you please (elaborate)? You have said many times that you are not a conservative and you are not an admirer of Ronald Reagan who seems to have, in a sense, preempted the "right" in this country. Can you explain? A. Yes, certainly. I am not an admirer of Ronald Reagan, and I will not vote for him, because he is the representative of the worst kind of conservatism. I am opposed to him on the same grounds as I am opposed to conservatism, that is, to the mixture of religion and politics. I am, as you know an atheist. I do believe in a man's right to believe a religion, if he wants to. But he has no right to bring his religion into politics, which means to impose it on other people by force. Political power is the power to initiate the use of physical force. If you bring religion into politics, it means that you are forcing religion on people at the point of a gun, and destroying the intellectual freedom of your citizens. The combination of religion and politics is the worst possible combination in our society.... (Edit: I corrected the capitalization of a word.)

Betsy, I have seen you cite that Ayn Rand essay at least 3 times, and while I don't at the moment have a direct link to the first time you used that quote, I recall that you did not maintain the full context and intent of that essay. That is once again the case here in this thread. Also, Dr. Peikoff has not only _not_ contradicted the content of that essay, he has explicitly reiterated the idea which you have been citing. Again, people can go read what is being said about Dr. Peikoff and his ideas on Betsy's forum if they doubt me. On top of that, (via that quote) you have indicated what _not_ to evaluate when considering a candidate. Here's some of what A.R. said in that same article as to how a candidate _should_ be evaluated: "It is only in terms of principles that a candidate can offer us a program and indicate his future course..." (In turn,) "a political campaign conducted in terms of concretes means a candidate's demand for a blank check on power." She goes on to elaborate on how the then current state of politics became more disintegrated. This certainly coincides with the current Presidency. She then refers to Barry Goldwater i.e. a Republican candidate for the U.S. Presidency which we haven't even remotely seen the likes of since seeing the Steve Forbes candidacy.... and (wait for it) Forbes caved into the Conservatives on the issue of abortion. Go read what Ayn Rand said about abortion while you are at it. ...and if I recall correctly that was precisely the campaign that turned Dr. Peikoff from the Republican Party. Small wonder. ...but what Ayn Rand _could NOT_ have known is that: The current President has _explicitly and manifestly_ affected government via religion e.g. faith-based initiatives among other approaches. That essay of A.R. was published in 1964, this was almost a couple of decades before Ronald Reagan even became President. Of course the biggest "gorilla in the room" is in regards to the conceptual and historical nature of religion itself. If an Ayn Rand essay is going to be used as evidence (and presuming that it's consistently true), then it would be wise to attempt to read the _entire_ essay, maintain the essay's _entire_ context and then _fully integrate_ those ideas with the world we live in _today_.

I know that it would be ideal for me to definitively say "Yes" or "No", but since I have several (central and tangential) implications to think about, I will say: Yes... probably. I still have one other last question left though, and that relates to Post #1. "An individual can introspect and know for sure whether he has made an honest error or evaded, but it would take mindreading or the other person's reported -- and reliable -- introspections to know if someone else is mistaken or evading. When it comes to judging others, all we can do, and what we should do, is judge whether their actions and statements are (1) true or false and (2) good for us or bad for us." This doesn't make sense to me. For example, I have no problem judging the President at some level even though no one can read minds. I fail to see how the President could determine that _diplomacy_(!!!) is the best course of action for dealing with Iran.... based on an error of knowledge?!? Betsy, if your position in its simplest form is that: "We can judge people, but we can't read their minds.", then I concur. ...but then I don't know who wouldn't agree with that (and now I'm wondering whether I should go find and (re?)read the original thread that this one was de-linked from.)

Yes, the former. No, it isn't a different point; it shouldn't be split off because it is entirely relevant. I'm not interested in an evaluation of Bush for myself since I already know what I think. I need the question for the purpose of clarifying what Betsy meant. Here's what Betsy stated in post #1: I want to know how Betsy can reconcile her previous statement given the context of my recent posts.

Betsy, While I appreciate your recently-posted clarification as to what you mean by "certainty", I would much rather prefer that you respond to my question. I picked that question for more than one reason. While it is beyond the scope of this thread to discuss Dr. Peikoff's D.I.M. hypothesis or his views regarding America's political future, various people have taken great issue with those ideas. (That is, they have _judged_ him.) I submit the following facts: 1) The President obligated himself to operate in order to protect the American citizenry _throughout_ the entirety of his terms. 2) The entire world was put on notice when Bush gave his speech following the Sept. 11th, 2001 attacks on America. That speech named Iran as one of the 3 nations comprising the "axis of evil". 3) Up to now in his two terms, the Bush administration has failed to eliminate or even mollify the Tehranian administration. I will broaden the evaluative scope of my question. Betsy, do you think that President Bush mislead Americans with his "Axis of Evil" speech given _any_ rational standard? (Please use and specify whatever standard that you would like.)

This is an exact quote from Betsy: "The only person whose honesty you can know about with certainty is your own." ...so I can't know for certain that Pres. Bush, Jr. mislead the American people when he 1) named Iran as part of _his_ "Axis of Evil" and yet 2) in two terms, he has failed to take decisive and overwhelming military action against Iran (even despite the evidence that Iran is supporting the forces in Iraq that kill American soldiers on a regular basis AND despite the fact that he did use great (though deficient) military force against Iraq during the "shock and awe" period?) I dare you to say that this is a case where President Bush has an error of knowledge (keeping in mind that anyone who has followed the news knows that Iran has been at war with America for decades.)

David Harriman is writing a book on Physics through Induction which uses Dr. Peikoff's work on Induction. In other words, the two men have informed each other's work, but the Physics book is now Harriman's project. At another time of the conference, I personally asked Dr. Peikoff what I should use to study induction. He laughed (probably to acknowledge that I was asking such a broad-based question at the last minute), and then he said, "Read David Harriman's book." A sheet from the conference lists the 2007 conference version of the DIM Hypothesis at 140$ (post-conference pricing.) By the way, Dr. Peikoff also mentioned that the D.I.M. book which he's working on would likely be his last philosophy book.