tps_fan

There is one question that comes to mind above all else: Why is this thread even here?! Betsy Speicher not only has a place to post, she has _her own forum_ that she can control as she sees fit. Isn't that more than enough? If someone wants to see who said what at Betsy's forum, then they can and should go _there_. I want a place where I can engage with fellow Objectivists in serious conversation. Do I really need to explain why? At any rate, I know from past experience that a web site or forum can be sent on an endless tangent (via flame war) or it can even be hijacked (via trolling.) To the moderators: please close this thread and prevent similar threads from growing to the best of your ability. Thank you for your efforts!!!

I'm very familiar with the idea that good should be rewarded and evil should be punished. I always thought that accidents or mistakes should be set aside from this type of moral evaluation. Shouldn't accidents be viewed as action-oriented counterparts to errors of knowledge? Further, can any evaluation be made of someone who ridicules another person who has an accident or makes a mistake regardless of the magnitude of that accident? Are there qualifying circumstances that could change the moral status of either a person who has an accident or a person who ridicules another person who has an accident?

To clarify, I didn't (and wouldn't) suggest otherwise. I was responding to the specific context of the original post (in _this_ forum) where (presumably) 2 Objectivists were having this related argument. I didn't see anything in the original post that would cause me to not give these musicians the benefit of the doubt. Also to elaborate, in the course of a rehearsal or recording session, no one is going to change psychologically at root. (While it is often the case that musicians' tendencies can become exaggerated due to fatigue, frustration, or a sudden creative breakthrough for examples, those tendencies aren't going to completely betray the basic nature of the respective persons.) Several musicians have considered their albums as "snapshots". I think that they tend to emphasize the nature of the work in this regard, but it also so happens that the same "snapshot fixes them i.e. the musical personnel in time" as well. That is, the musicians' respective states of mind are reflected in their work as well as their mechanical abilities.

I started writing lyrics over 20 years ago, and I started studying Objectivism about 2 years after starting the lyric-writing. I've also received positive comments for my writing from a progressive rocker, a classical director, and two gospel singers... all professional music veterans of many years, so I would think that I'm qualified to speak to this general issue. I think that you are certainly on the right track, so I would suggest that you keep going with your "gut". Aside from _R.M._, I would remind you of the last chapter in Dr. Peikoff's _O:PAR_. Likewise, I'm getting a bit of "mileage" from A.R.'s _The Art of Fiction_. Further, I've read and heard some wonderfully pithy comments from veteran songwriters such as Jeff Lynne, Suzanne Vega, and Frank Zappa. Actually, the reference that might be more immediately relevant than any other is A.R.'s "The Simplest Thing in the World". ...so to start to address your questions 1 and 2, I would say that the one true sin for a songwriter is for him to subvert his creative efforts by raising _anyone's_ agenda over his own. (Obviously, if you are working in terms of a group or for a commission, then you have to attempt to either fulfill your cohorts' requirements or you have to find work elsewhere.) In other words, it is _your_ job to write your songs as you see fit. As far as the matter of how music listeners receive your creative ideas goes, that is the _patron(s)'_ business. You can be concerned with what your songs' consumers think, but their ideas can't be the primary motivating factor. In essence, you are being sought for your application of your mechanical methods. If your supporters are contracting with you, then they have to accept your work on your terms. While it may not be at the front of your mind or a matter of immediate concern, there's another aspect I must mention. The music industry has witnessed enough personal manipulation that you really need to remain on guard. Read Fredric Dannen's _Hit Men_ at the least for more on this.... Remember that while your bandmates may be the first to review your work, they (ideally) will be far from the last. There are A & R people, executive producers, music journalists, fans, et al. If you want to do professional writing, then you will need to recruit an iron-clad constitution for what's to come. As against all those aforementioned people, the person who ultimately must be convinced by your writing is you, the songwriter. To return to songwriting itself, as you likely recall, art has two major facets. One is the metaphysical or philosophical, and the other is the aesthetic or mechanical. The good or easy news is that both writing aspects can be consciously developed over time. The tough news is that, since your personal psychology is much more tightly tied to how you address metaphysics in general, the ideological aspect of your songs will be substantially harder to guide into a new direction. ...so as far as "negative" writing goes, you can _not_ simply will yourself to completely overhaul your writing approach. Also, depending on what your agenda entails, it may not even be good to try to change creative directions as an immediate high priority. Further still, there is "negative", and then there's "negativism". That is, you not only have to deal with the subject matter in your songs, you also have to deal with how they are presented i.e. what A.R. refers to as the "selective re-creation" aspect. As far as specific mechanics go, there are myriad techniques that you can use. In our current time of narrow-casted content, you can actually go to a local bookstore and find more than one magazine concerned with the specific art of lyric writing and song craft in general. This leads into one final mechanical concern that connects you with a given song-producing musical entourage. Unlike with poetry, lyrics aren't really meant to be read, they are meant to be SUNG. _That_ is where the power is delivered. If you aren't singing the songs yourself, then you will have to reconcile a given song's presentation with the singer as best as is possible. For mechanical examples, if I am thinking in terms of a writer's evaluation, then I would ultimately (and perpetually!) ask myself, "Is this _what_ I really want to communicate?" When I'm considering the terms of a singer, the focus shifts. I would ask myself, "Is this _how_ I want to communicate these ideas?" Obviously, these concerns greatly overlap considering that (ideally) the song which you write is to remain as the song which is sung. In other words, qua writer, your concerns are similar to a movie scriptwriter or a fiction book writer. On the other hand, in order to envision how a song is to be performed you have to be focused on musical constraints. There is a careful balance to be struck. Too much emphasis on a lyric's sound i.e. the timbral or textural aspect can lead to "sound candy" or even nonsense. On the other hand, too much emphasis on a lyric's content can lead to pedantry or even propaganda. Every music group fights over these issues. Only you can determine what creative limits you are willing to sustain based on your own personal values.

I was wondering if anyone has found good deals for flying into the "Gulch". Telluride is too remote for JetBlue. I might book my flight through Travelocity or something similar, but I was wondering if anyone has found a better deal. I know that with this season higher costs are too be expected, but it costs over 600$ for a RT from Southern California to Telluride? Ouch! (No thanks to the TSA either. )

(sees some crisps going flying into the cage and turns around) "Mommy, Mommy, they seem to like it!" (turns to kid's Mom) Maam, please explain to your child that we take care of _that_. Ohhhh, I see. Now she wants to know where the giraffes are? Oh yes, they're over there. (points across the way) Your welcome, maam. (smiles) (parent and child walk away) (looks down) Ah, what's that? (picks up carton) Ah, there's "a prize in every box". Fancy that. (tosses carton into a nearby bin and walks away) ------------------------------------------- (goes and waits for OO Admin team to do its thing) They've posted 4 threads in 2 days you know. (taps foot)

I'm not aware of anything of the sort that's in MP3 format in specific, but this is a gateway page to ARI's resources including lectures. You will have much greater access to materials if you do register with the website.

While you can concern yourself with several aspects of this newest relationship, I think that you should focus on understanding and applying your own values first. Romance can certainly be complicated and messy, but you (and your girlfriend) will be better off if you are pro-active and straight-forward. If you find that you have specific concerns that keep coming to mind, then those are the ones that you should talk to her about first. That doesn't mean that you have to "spill your guts." As long as you are honest about what you want and hope for, then you will be being fair and objective. You don't have to settle for the usual false choice of trying to hold back or, on the other hand, throwing caution out. In the course of learning more about yourself and her, you will get a better idea of what each of your respective values are, and then you can develop your relationship based on common values. I would be remiss if I didn't say that you are inevitably going to have problems if you wish to live as an Objectivist and at the same time try to have a serious relationship with someone of a religious persuasion. At the same time, I don't think you would benefit from perpetually waiting on romance since you are so young.

cmdownes, A few disclaimers: 1) I'm terrible with manipulating forum controls, so I might frame the quotes improperly 2) I know nothing about Pyrrhonist philosophy, so (at your option) you can claim an argumentative win by default (though I think I will have a thing or two to say that's worth considering) 3) I've only read the thread up to _this_ post that I'm responding to. I guess I agree on the level of interest. Arguments such as yours aren't frequently offered at the major Objectivist forums, so it's a nice change of pace if anything. Withstanding that I'm unlikely to elaborate enough to cut-off many counter-arguments, I would provisionally say that: Frankly, I would suspect that you're already conceding enough. It wouldn't surprise me if the Modern academics attempt to offer a substantive difference between valid logic and propositions. (I would suppose that they might make such an argument based on a side effect of the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy i.e. I would argue that many epistemic dichotomies emanate from the A-S Dichotomy, but then that's really for another thread.....) Unfortunately, I don't know enough history to offer a generalization to hazard a guess as to what Greek students would think. I _do_ think that there's a tenable risk in assessing Greek philosophy via Modern academia! Now, if you are coming to certain conclusions based on self-study of the Greeks, then that might warrant a wholly different type of response from me.... The quick answer regarding BrassDragon's quote is "yes, and yes". That is, without recalling/looking at what he was specifically responding to, I would likely agree with his sentiment. Let's put it this way, if the Pyrrhonians withhold judgment such that they aren't even willing to offer arguments on principle (regardless of motives), then they really have no business engaging in discussion for other interests. Granted, the value of the axioms can be referenced in more then one way, but their nature has to be dealt with in a single way. It simply must be conceded that for any discussion viz. for any axiomatic usage to take place, those axioms must be considered valid as a matter of course. This isn't the same(!) as saying, "Oh, the axioms can't be argued over." The point (in this case) doesn't fundamentally focus on content (of a specific argument.) It's the fact that an argument has taken place _at all_ that is at issue. (I normally don't respond in a piece-by-piece fashion, but I don't think I can even make much sense otherwise if I don't respond as such in this case...) I believe such a person i.e. a Pyrrhonian would be attempting to argue a non-argument. While it's _physically possible_ to write the above type of argument, I would counter that such an argument violates the rules of logical argumentation (assuming _also_ that my memory hasn't failed here.) Yes, in symbolic logic (and in computer programming) tautologies are used, but they are normally used for purposes such as refactoring terms. In philosophy, context _can not_ be factored out! Now discussing context is too great a subject to do more than reference here, but I will say that re-contextualizing an argument is _not_ the same issue as that of resorting to Subjectivism or relativism. (I don't mean to dodge this issue, but there are other forum threads that focus on context of knowledge, and Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have major works that elaborate the concept at great length....) Dictionary.com confirms what you've stated (unsurprisingly) without much of any elaboration. I have to say that the ataraxia reminds me of Eastern philosophy, but (of course) such a recognition isn't an argument. I would refer back to what I stated above, but I imagine that you would want more than that. I would start to further elaborate by contending that achieving piece of mind requires work. Here are something to consider that further specifies the context of our argument. We live in societies where we are offered various types of (other) arguments e.g. sports plays, legal contracts, romantic fidelity, and we must work to resolve them. Let us say hypothetically, that all involved wish to have the same sort of piece of mind (by any name). Recognizing context _does_ involve elaboration itself. That is, as we would seek to achieve social harmony we would ultimately have to come to greater knowledge viz. a much more _specific_ understanding of truth. This work is simply impossible to obtain without exchanging syllogisms. That is, (ultimately as I suggested before) it would be incumbent on the Pyrrhonians to make a valid normative counter-offer that is mutually satisfying for all involved. That is, the Pyrrhonians would have to offer a plan of action whereby people can come to an increasing understanding of their respective situations. How would this actually be achievable without logical argumentation? It would be (itself) a type of fallacy of equivication to refer to argumentation and dogmatism as exchangable. Put differently, given various natural conditions e.g. Man as fallable, Man as non-omniscient, et al., individuals simply can not altogether or indefinitely avoid argumentation. As at least a point of reference, I would have to mention that your original entry into this forum with a post further establishes the Objectivist position _because_ of your action (again, regardless of motivation). If what I've written strikes you as thoroughly redundant, then consider another approach: Try something along the lines of a Devil's advocacy against Objectivism like so: Try to imagine a world where people _try_ not to engage each other with logical argumentation _at all_. Obviously, the Western world in every possible respect would be completely eliminated. Further, I would argue that such an attempt would put Man in a state that is _sub-primordial_. (Neanderthals communicated.... even if in a comparatively inept fashion.... As evidence of this point, consider that they apparently developed tools, and consider what _that_ would entail.) Likewise, it would seem that Pyrrhonian skepticism is apparently a far cry different from _any_ sort of healthy or unhealthy Modern-day skepticism as is normally practiced, but then I trust that I've already given an indication why. The ascetics and Buddhists have failed to achieve a sort of ataraxia, I'm more than a little skeptical(!) of Pyrrhonians' ability in this regard. ;-D

I've only started to contemplate your response, but I'm willing to concede your basic point in a restricted sense. That is, I'm fine with abiding by argumentative constraints. Nevertheless(!), your argument still plays into the hands of an Objectivist. You want to claim logical agonisticism here. No problem! The above-mentioned reference to self-contradiction as illustrated by Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, et al. _still_ holds here. That is, by claiming that the argumentative burden is on the Objectivist position doesn't change the facts and context of the matter. (cracks knuckles) It's like this: 1) Existence and identity aren't mutually equal via sleight of hand but instead because they are what they are. How would you claim one without the other?!? By the same token, these sorts of Modernist arguments can easily be assailed by someone simply taking a positive action e.g. the act of speaking affirms _both_ existence and identity. Don't believe me? Check this: _I'm_ posting this message, AND I'm posting _this message_. Follow me? In other words, it is _I_ who is making this effort, and (likewise) this effort is _mine_. All the evidence in the universe works to Aristotle's favor in this regard. What do the Modernists have?: their opinions. Hoo-boy! This argument IS analogous to that of the "Ontological argument". In both cases, a false alternative is asserted: In both cases, the burden of proof being with the mystic is avoided. (Honestly, I ate my opposition's arguments like this for snacks a 1/4 of a century ago! ) C'mon man, get off the fence. (It hurts after awhile!)

Okayyyyyy, I would think that the main difference to mention is that this thread involves..... a what goes on _within a video game._ The simplest way I can concretize this difference is that: This isn't EBay!!!! It's make believe! For #@$&@$( sake! ...some people need to get a grip.

Metaphysics and epistemology amount to having a proper method of recognizing and acknowledging reality. On a related note, I think that the idea of "first cause" is tied to the fallacy of begging the question which (in this context) exists thanks to religion. (Mystics generally believe in a higher power i.e. supernature; Objectivists don't believe any such thing... because there isn't a reason or cause that gives rise to such belief.) Existence exists. Existence equals identity, and a consciousness can only recognize the things which exist. Dr. Leonard Peikoff cites page 942 of _Atlas Shrugged_ at near the beginning of his book _Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_, so you can read that part of _A.S._ and the first chapter of _O:PAR_ for elaborations. I think it's always worth going back to the scientific method which is a paradigm of induction. Yes, it ultimately goes back to observation.... Principles are derived from consistent natural patterns. The basic axioms are the most universal and abstract principles; they aren't reducible. Axioms are used to conceptualize and concretize. Why do axioms exist? They exists because men have stuff to do, and because men aren't omniscient, and because men are conceptual! In the softcover edition of _O:PAR_, LP says on page 8, "Axioms are perceptual self-evidencies. There is nothing to be said in their behalf except: look at reality." It's also worth noting that, "'Validation' I take to be a broader term than 'proof,' one that subsumes any process of establishing an idea's relationship to reality, whether deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, or perceptual self-evidence. In this sense, one can and must validate every item of knowledge, including axioms. The validation of axioms, however, is the simplest of all: sense-perception." That's also from page 8, of_O:PAR_. You would navigate an ocean with a compass or some other related device, right? A compass is a tool. Likewise, principles are tools for navigating reality in scientific and conceptual terms. Please read chapter 1 of _O:PAR_; it's really worth your time. It's a _very_ eloquent and easy-to-read overview of the general subject.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh... For Pete's sake, she's a well-known feminist... so no wonder... OF COURSE it's leftist writing!

Think about it.... apparently for that disclaimer to exist, there must be correlating legislation, which means... (shudder) someone in America used their latest movie rental as a plate for that night's mac and cheese. (closes eyes) "There's no place like home, there's no place like home...."

I think that it's worth mentioning that the argument can be pushed further. Don't forget what Dr. Peikoff stated at the end of _O:PAR_: "At the end of Nihilism is Nihil." These killer(s) were ultimately looking for an outlet for their frustrations to destroy values e.g. "rich kids", etc. If the very philosophers at Virginia Tech (and elsewhere) were doing their respective jobs, then they would have long since identified such killers for what they were. Considering that Modernist professors spend their time rationalizing on behalf of people who are willing to be so callous as to wipe out scores of people, is it any wonder that these incidents increase in frequency? Who dares to be surprised?!

Leaving aside that more (yet to be confirmed) details are coming in and will continue to come in for days, someone else already indicated in this thread that one of the shooters wasn't a student. Also, how are you going to attempt to substantiate the idea that "most of them are teens that took the gun from their parent's collection." ? This isn't exactly a premise that's automatically and widely accepted. This is a non sequitur fallacy. It's better to deal with the original premise in question before jumping ahead.... You are disputing that criminals would have better access to guns than other people would if there was a ban. Since when did criminals observe gun bans or other gun laws under any circumstances? Also, gun owners tend to be VERY aware of the related laws as well as weapons handling and care. Yet, it's the legitimate gun owners who have suffered the consequences from _both_ criminal behaviour and government regulations! Apparently, most developed countries are predominately Socialist/mixed economic where guns and other weapons are prohibited by law. Coincidence? "Most people don't have the connections to get black market guns." This is both naive and beside the point. If one person can get something on the black market, then I'm sure many others could if they wanted to. Likewise, that's regardless of their philosophy or police record. Still (once again), it's the law-abiding citizens who wish to defend against the initiation of force rather than cause it. Coincidence? The reference to handing out weapons to incoming freshman is part of a false alternative fallacy. Also, why _shouldn't_ students be allowed to protect themselves. Keep in mind that we are talking about a university not a grade school. Many of these students may be young, but they certainly are old enough to enlist in the military.

The only way that you could really discredit yourself is if you sold out the idea of selfishness e.g. by capitulating to a bad moral premise, by equivocating the term with something wholly different, etc. Think of it this way, you aren't doing yourself or other Objectivists any favors if you completely avoid the idea of selfishness when the idea's discussion is warranted. Granted, there is an art to how you present ideas. The key as far as that goes is that you have to take the context of the person who you are speaking to in consideration. In other words, you have to think in terms of your audience, but anyone who communicates should do that anyway. One of my standing orders is roughly this: You don't have to be the first one to discuss selfishness, but if _anyone you are communicating with_ does mention the concept, then at that point you can't let the idea (and by implication you!) be smeared without a counterargument. Further than that, you will also have to (quickly!) decide if the person is worth discussing issues with beyond certain points. This may be an issue if and when they argue over basic principles in a counterproductive way. That is, it also depends on how the other person(s) present(s) his/their arguments. For example, if the person in question goes into a circular argument. e.g. "Well, that's bad because it's selfish, and selfishness is bad....", then you might want to highlight that error in particular before going further. There would likely be other logical errors intertwined within a typical anti-selfish argument, so if you can separate those errors as well, then it might help. Of course, there is great use in getting to essentials. For example, you don't want to focus on just tangential elements of just one specific case if it means that an adversary thinks he can get away with smearing an entire Objectivist concept. I really think that Objectivists should spend more time reviewing logic for several reasons e.g. better error identification, more essentialized thinking, more concise speech, etc. Ultimately, you don't want to forgo either the relevant "forest" (abstractions) or "the trees" (concretes). (You can refer to what Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff say about Intrinsicism and Subjectivism vs. Objectivism aka the IOS trichotomy for more help.)

I not only think that lyrical songs can be written "lyrics first", but I think that _they often should be_ written that way. Considering that it's hardly likely that the state of pop music will change without some attention paid to the condition of lyrical ideas... Also, there's no maybe about it(!!!) since I've been doing it since over 15 years ago. More to the point, I think instrumentals should be written differently than lyrical songs. Certainly, some artists choose to write both types of songs "melody first", but that is NOT inherently ideal. Ultimately, I think the artist is to be mainly concerned with preserving and conveying an idea by any creative and rational means necessary. (That leaves a Hell of a lot of room for technique....) Nevertheless, there's an inherent mechanical difference... With instrumentals, there is next to no choice.... Hypothetically, someone could write an instrumental that was previously based on a lyric (and the lyric may subsequently be dropped), but that rarely happens. Since an instrumental has melody as its focus, melody "carries the burden" of the song. With a lyrical song, there's a division of labor between the melody and the lyric. In turn, a song can be properly written regardless of whether the melody came before the lyric or vice versa.

I can't resist responding to this thread again. It just so happens that I logged into meetup.com this week for the first time in months... I still think it's a viable site, but it is _really_ hard to find people interested in anything that isn't rather mundane via that site. Also, I don't regret mentioning Atlasphere at the time because I wasn't as aware of their questionable status, but... "Wow, hm. I haven't been to the Atlasphere website in a couple of years, since the Kelley/Buddhism/Libertarian thing does bother me. But still, I'm a little surprised and impressed that it's grown to the extent that there is a substantial amount of people one could meet up with in Canada. Are there a lot of Objectivists or even Libertarians in Vancouver?" What David said exactly... I have the same thoughts and feelings in that regard _these days_.... I still get e-mail notifications, but I haven't logged in there in months. I wish there was something better... As Dr. Peikoff once said in a somewhat different but related context, "It's slow as molasses." I'm still trying to follow how things are proceeding at myspace.com as far as how Objectivists and Ayn Rand fans group themselves. That place is so "everything but the kitchen sink-esque." Really random...

Yep.

I think it would be worth mentioning a couple of Objectivists who are professional psychologists who you could e-mail. Dr. Kenner has a website here. Likewise, Dr. Hurd has a site here. I do not know if they have experience in child psychology. After occasionally reading their material across a decade, I tend to trust them. I've only studied about a semester of psychology in college, and I've taken several courses with Objectivist intellectuals including Dr. Kenner. Still, I can only offer generalities as far as what I would do. Also, I am _not_ a parent. I think your second-guessing yourself about not wanting to offer traditional and seemingly safe responses is well-founded. It won't benefit your child to be deceitful about the matter. I'm certainly not expecting you to elaborate your situation here. My first question is: What gave rise to your child's interest in the subject? I would try to backtrack and find out more about the circumstances. Did this come from watching a TV show? ...from a playmate? ..overhearing something a relative said? I bring these questions up because you want to better establish the context of your child's fear. I'm not saying that you shouldn't discuss death, but death is a state of non-existence, so I would think that the conversation has to shift in order for you to be more pro-active. I think you should speak to your daughter in terms of (1) concretizing her fears (though not in a labor-intensive way of course) and (2) establishing the safety of her living conditions. For example, if she just heard about the concept of death in a vague way and her fear is oriented to just having the related curiosity about what that entails, then I would redirect her attention to what she _does_ have and what she _can_ expect in the near future i.e. a good and happy life. One way in which religion goes horribly awry is in attempting to undercut causality. If you were to answer her fears with facts e.g. you are providing shelter, clean and nutritious food, means for reasonably safe exercise, medical care if needed, etc., then she could better understand that she has less to fear. I have to think about this more.... I guess I can summarize by saying that you would do well to encourage her to focus on the knowable. Oh also, with experience comes confidence. If you reinforce the idea that you are supervising her, then she will be encouraged to focus on what she is able to do and what she wants to do. In turn, your indicating to her that she can continually refer to you for further advice establishes a place for greater physical and psychological freedom. I have to tell you now that this may be one of the more difficult issues I've ever tried to respond to so that signals to me that you would do well to get professional advice. In addition, professionals might suggest a particular direction and pacing for your conversations, and those are tactical issues which I don't feel confident enough to be certain of.

I took a survey of Asian philosophy class when I first went to college, so I'm familiar with some of the general concepts. One of the first things which I would have to take issue with is the Zen Buddhist view of ethics. As you likely know, Zen practitioners aspire to operate in the guise of "not doing" (as exemplified in the classic lit. on Zen archery.) My professor never really offered a virtuous gain to be had from such behavior, but that's precisely the point! "Not doing" is in direct opposition of the Objectivist idea of a value being something to gain and keep by way of virtuous achievement. Not only would an Objectivist archer completely eschew the directive of "not doing", but he would whole-heartedly go out of his way to practice his craft in an optimal fashion. That is, he would strive to be precise, fully conscious, passionate, and serious. In other words, he would be goal-oriented. Further, he would look to "cash-in" by taking his successful achievements as points of pride as well as potential sources for greater learning. The Christians may be explicitly opposed to "eating from the tree of Knowledge", but Zen Buddhists (and more broadly Asian philosophers) advocate the same vice. In turn, it's the very pursuit of greater self-esteem that all mystics seek to undermine (whether the related normative directives are made explicitly and pointedly or not.) (...starts to once again think about how utterly ridiculous it is for Christians claiming to defend America against radical Islam....)

This might normally go in a different forum section, but under the circumstances I think the following link could stand to stay in this thread. This came up via Yahoo news: Courtesy of NBC in Florida http://www.nbc-2.com/Articles/readarticle....&z=3&p= It doesn't take much for Atlas to shrug a little! Another thought... This is a situation which is similar to what was supposed to happen with the Y2K bug. Yet, that wasn't such a big deal from what I've read, and here we have Congress _intentionally_ pushing a set of circumstances that wasn't asked for or desired in the first place. There was no way to plan for such a consideration which means (as usual) that businessmen are caught having to counteract the effects of supposed "good government".

I would personally like this thread to be all-purpose (or at least multi-purpose) oriented. As the real world version has been used, people could post meeting dates for gaming sessions, announcements of upcoming events, dinner dates, etc. Personally, I would like to meet _musicians_ or at least other artists. Likewise, I am perfectly happy if such people want to contact me offline via P.M. Ideally, I would like to attempt to jam/rehearse/brainstorm in "Mr. Midas'" valley. Run with it...

To answer the question of whether Objectivists normally have your experience, I would have to figure that every Objectivist has had the experience to some degree (or at least they likely will eventually!) Based on what Dr. Leonard Peikoff has said over the years, both he and Ayn Rand were disappointed by what they found when they each came to America. (The country's reputation precedes the nation.) I think for Objectivists, they are more aware of the related issues _and_ the importance of the issues than other people normally would be. As evidence, I've _never_ heard a non-Objectivist ask your types of questions in that manner before, and I don't expect to either. As far as method goes, as the other two indicated, I think you are generally on the right track. You just have to be more concerted about it as far as you are compelled to follow through. It's really a matter of building up a database of interpersonal experiences and being willing and able to draw from that information. As a rule, as you are already finding, you shouldn't assume too much. You still can and should give people the benefit of the doubt, but as soon as there's evidence that something is awry with their respective characters, you owe it to yourself to note what you perceive. Still, you won't necessarily know the _motivation_ behind a person's behaviour... not without more context. To put it differently, I think it is good to be suspicious of people insofar that those early premises aren't taken as certain unless and until the needed evidence is summoned. As was already said, it takes practice. Likewise, there's no guarantee that you won't be mistaken. I think I should mention another lecture as well. It just so happens that Dr. Peikoff lectured on the general issue. I believe the lecture is called something like, "How to Judge Without being Judgemental." Maybe the Ayn Rand Bookstore might have a copy?