But do you honestly think self-identified Objectivists and other rational people should be prevented from making opposition and criticism,
I don’t think that. I responded to you without putting on my mod hat - I’m sure even Ilya grants the bizarre appearance of his ideas. The discussion is even related to the thread title still. I notice a lot of Hegelian type of thinking on Ilya’s part, which is where Marxism built from.
It doesn’t alter the fact that commentary here is going to focus on political philosophy. And as bizarre as it is, Faith-Logic has taken over this thread. I don’t think Ilya is aware of how strange it all appears.
I’m sure even Ilya grants the bizarre appearance of his ideas. The discussion is even related to the thread title still. I notice a lot of Hegelian type of thinking on Ilya’s part, which is where Marxism built from.
It is a strange thread, indeed, but, as I said before, it’s a challenge. If you would rather prefer nonchallenging content–well, I cannot help here. You also need to realize how challenging Ayn Rand’s works are. I am still in search for an adviser for my thesis, since seemingly everyone at my university is opposed to her challenge.
Also, I would like to discuss with you Disney’s cartoon Pocahontas. It is dreamy, but it has interesting qualities of individualist and collectivist integration on the grounds of unconditional love.
…I’m sure even Ilya grants the bizarre appearance of his ideas.
“Appearance”?
I am neither an expert on Scientology nor Faith-Logic, neither would I wish to be. Both are reject objective reality.
Scientology is insane, but even there are some interesting ideas. The problem of this discussion is that I am not an expert on Scientology, so I cannot tell you more about it or how it relates to our points of view.
But the very idea of considering either intellectual would comparable to accepting an invitation to have tea with the Mad Hatter.
Beautiful words, Repairman, as usual. I commend your skill of writing. Although I should realize your attempts to thwart me, I am still inclined to point out to your readers that I attempt to understand your point of view, but also share with you my own, since I also have a stance on everything like Objectivists do. What you consider madness is merely a conflict of our points of view. That’s what we are here for: to integrate them. I have abandoned Marx, so the integration is really of Objectivism and my Faith-Logic, as you correctly assessed. It is beneficial for both sides and will make them stronger once integrated. Calling names will not help in this.
I accept your gracious compliment for my writing, however, I will continue my attempts to thwart you until you provide a clear and comprehensive argument. So far, this has proved to be farce on an infinite scale. If in fact you understand my view, you find I have no conflict. Only conflict with you. My argument is merely commentary on what I view as unmitigated fraud. When one has a conflicted argument, when one uses subjectivity as argument, when one faces a conundrum, one’s premises are in error. Check your premises.
Indeed, the “Mad Russian” comment was a bit over-the-top. I will try to refrain myself in the future. But you do seem to boast quite a bit about the achievements of the Soviet Union, and Russians in general, as if you had something to do with their accomplishments by virtue of “being Russian.” No one will blame you personally for atrocities committed by Russians, as long as you likewise don’t try to take credit for their achievements.
So, integrate what ever you can. Don’t let me stop you. But remember: you can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
Not that I’ve seen it, but it’s a damned Disney movie; what did you expect!?
Also, I would like to discuss with you Disney’s cartoon Pocahontas. It is dreamy, but it has interesting qualities of individualist and collectivist integration on the grounds of unconditional love.
You really ought to start over.
I most certainly hope you are not the sole advocate of Objectivism at Chicago Northwestern.
It is a strange thread, indeed, but, as I said before, it’s a challenge. If you would rather prefer nonchallenging content–well, I cannot help here. You also need to realize how challenging Ayn Rand’s works are. I am still in search for an adviser for my thesis, since seemingly everyone at my university is opposed to her challenge.
Believe me, Ilya you are anything but a challenge. You are a source of amusement. But you really ought to read the non-fiction works of Ayn Rand, and perhaps Leonard Piekoff as well, before you begin making claims of knowledge about them. It would be to your benefit. Especially if you intend to write a thesis on it.
Eiuol, I realize you have humored Ilya on many postings. I am not attempting to analyze you. But do you honestly think self-identified Objectivists and other rational people should be prevented from making opposition and criticism, when, 1) this is a forum for Objectivists, 2) Ilya clearly has not made much more than a superficial study of Rand and Marx, when that should have been his first priority?
Granted, my earlier comments were a bit harsh, and I can’t promise you a less acerbic approach in the future, but if you look even earlier in this thread, my comments were quite respectful and constructive.
Both points are correct. However, I accept Objectivism (as should be obvious from my “haunting” and continuous returning to your forums). I will eventually read all of Rand and probably some of Marx not just to make you happy, but because I would like to learn more. I apologize if I joined these forums prematurely, as I was afraid of doing before, even though bluecherry mentioned that there is nothing here to be afraid of and that none of you “bite.” If you want to talk about the metanarrative of this thread, then consider Spiral Architect’s words from my other thread: “I have gotten into some pretty drawn out conversations here too (it can be quite fun and self clarifying which is cool)” (my italics). If your discussions with me help clarify your own ideas, then be my guest and let’s continue our discussions in peaceful and gracious manners.
I am neither an expert on Scientology nor Faith-Logic, neither would I wish to be. Both are reject objective reality.
But the very idea of considering either intellectual would comparable to accepting an invitation to have tea with the Mad Hatter.
I accept your gracious compliment for my writing, however, I will continue my attempts to thwart you until you provide a clear and comprehensive argument. So far, this has proved to be farce on an infinite scale. If in fact you understand my view, you find I have no conflict. Only conflict with you. My argument is merely commentary on what I view as unmitigated fraud. When one has a conflicted argument, when one uses subjectivity as argument, when one faces a conundrum, one’s premises are in error. Check your premises.
Indeed, the “Mad Russian” comment was a bit over-the-top. I will try to refrain myself in the future. But you do seem to boast quite a bit about the achievements of the Soviet Union, and Russians in general, as if you had something to do with their accomplishments by virtue of “being Russian.” No one will blame you personally for atrocities committed by Russians, as long as you likewise don’t try to take credit for their achievements.
So, integrate what ever you can. Don’t let me stop you. But remember: you can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
My premises, which you should already well know, are: extreme, opposite, critical point. Are they wrong? You only seem to deny the critical point (grey), which is subjective.
Oh, but please call me Russian. I associate myself with the Slavic race and the Russian traditions and culture. They are inherent to and inseparable from my being. And I am proud of achievements of Russians and Soviets. I do not think that you should group Hitler’s Germans with Stalin’s Russians, though. Sure, Stalin killed many soldiers and generals in order to prevent a retreat, but if he hadn’t done that, Russia would had fallen.
Please, tell me where I ignore reality. I do not ignore any realities out there. Instead, I allow space for all possible realities, including our own. Please, keep in mind that there are more realities than your own.
“The space inside the house is a part of the house . . .”
This is basically where we started with this branch of the conversation. You claim space inside stuff is part of the stuff and I claim that this is not necessarily so. Insides of an apple? Yep, part of the apple. The apple is not hollow. Me in the house? Not part of the house. The house is hollow. Suppose I put some gum in a rat’s mouth. The gum is immediately now part of the rat? Now suppose I take the gum out of the rat’s mouth and wrap the rat in it. Is the rat now part of the gum? I really want to say that location should not determine the identity of something, that it should be the same thing even if you move it around. However, you started off claiming location to be part of the thing/part of it’s identity, so I expect you’ll just say that the location does determine the identity. Whatever is on the outside at any given moment is the main object and everything and anything inside is part if that main, outer object is what I’m getting from what you’ve been saying. If this is what you believe, then I think this branch of the conversation has hit a dead end. There’s nothing else I can really say to the whole “inside something = part of something, location changes/determines identity” thing except, “Nope, false.”
Your very concept of identity seems to be flawed. Correcting a flawed concept of identity is something very difficult. I’m not sure I personally would know where and how to start since “identity” is on of the things in Objectivism known as an “axiomatic concept.” An axiomatic concept means you can’t keep breaking it down into further concepts it is composed of because this concept is one of the very bottom ones, it’s part of the base upon which all other concepts are built, there is no further down to go. The only way to learn axiomatic concepts is through observation of things in reality and undergoing the process of concept formation working from those observed things in reality instead of just working off of other concepts.
These two pages talk a bit more about axiomatic concepts and concept formation. They only contain some passages from Rand’s non-fiction writing, so no spoilers. I was going to link to the page for “identity” too, but that one does have spoilers.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/axiomatic_concepts.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/concept-formation.html
“So, when there is the yellow light, do you not feel like you should be stopping when you speed up?”
Actually, if I’m already in the intersection when it turns yellow, stopping is a terrible idea and I would indeed want to speed up to clear out of there asap. Also, I said to begin with “one may go” and “one may not”, not “stop.” Green also doesn’t mean “go fast” specifically either, just that one may go, period. It doesn’t dictate what speed you go at. Speed limits dictate that. Yellow is still just a form of “one may go”, it isn’t saying one may not go right now.
“You missed a part of my reply.”
Oh! Sorry about that. I really thought I had looked it all over. Anyway, could you please elaborate a little by specifying what is the standard by which “excessive” is determined?
When I looked up a definition for “rapacious”, just to be thorough since you said excessive or rapacious, I got this:
adj. Taking by force; plundering.
adj. Greedy; ravenous. See Synonyms at voracious.
adj. Subsisting on live prey.
Taking things from others by force is already something Objectivism does not support. Also, such taking by force isn’t inherent in wealth nor is a desire to take by force inherent in wealth. The second definition is a synonym, so, useless. The third definition is clearly not relevant here.
“Appearance”?
As in from Ilya’s perspective, he’d agree that it looks bizarre. I’m not implying I think he’s right, just that how it looks doesn’t matter. What matters is where the error is.
Ilya, you replied to my previous post with:
“I do not differentiate between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ (they are a dynamic) but what I take from Marxism is a belief in society. Let Society be undefined until we find what suits both individualists and collectivists. This is the new direction of the thread.”
So you define your terms according to popularity- and would like me to do the same?
Your prophecy is accurate and I would like to thank you for that prompt; that is the direction I intend to take this. You continued:
“What an individual strives for is wealth. What a collectivist strives for is a healthy society. The unresolved conflict is between wealth and health.”
That much is true, in a sense; the psycho-epistemological conflict which underlies and frames all human choices is between cost and benefit or, more directly, fear and greed. So you are actually correct there, in that one aspect; the rest does not merit comment.
Speaking of greed, I took the liberty of perusing this thread in greater depth, and found some other things you’ve said:
"The problem with socialistic countries is that they do not allow the freedom of greed for the general populace. Capitalistic countries allow such freedom. To me, greed is a childish freedom. . .
The idea is to transmute greed into thinking about society."
Which is one Hell of a confession. And there it is again; that undefined ‘society’ thing which is clearly the conceptual fulcrum of this endeavor.
So what have you said about ‘society’?
"Society. . . is global communism, to me. . . A society, for example, is Objectivism. Softwarenerd, in this respect, being the organizer (and more) is similar to a speaker of state of a global communism. . .
He is allowing us our freedom to exist within the context of this community."
“Equate economics with a society’s soul, its materializations as its circulatory system, and government equate with society’s mind, its materializations with a nervous system. . . I am simply asking our egos to expand beyond our bodies. . .”
“If an ideological interface of a society is broken. . . individuals will fall apart and nothing will help to restore a society back to norm.”
Now, in the above we can see you denying the existence of your own consciousness over and over again. But why? Why would you attribute your own thoughts and ideas to the presence of other people?
You admitted that thusly:
“. . . I like to experience a spectrum of emotions and derive equal pleasure from love and hate, joy and grief, happiness and depression, etc.”
“A problem with Objectivism, you ask? . . . Do you think that happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient? A mental picture of happiness is but not the experience itself because, to experience an emotion, one needs to express that emotion. . . I always thought that people enjoy emotions with others. That’s how we connect, isn’t it?”
So let me get this straight.
You’ve come here to aid your own thesis paper, on integrating Objectivism with Marxism. To that end, rather than thinking about it, your first impulse is to talk about it (and without even a minimal amount of research in advance).
You believe they can be integrated because, after all, they’re only ideas.
But you don’t actually want to “integrate” anything, do you? You want to disguise your own philosophy (which I doubt you can explicitly grasp) beneath a bunch of Ayn Rand’s ideas, because you believe that such could endow some semblance of truth to your own panderings.
Do you sincerely believe that by amputating selfishness and greed from Objectivism, you could leave its logical structure intact?
Repairman: Thank you for the observation; I’m glad I took a step back before actually plunging into this mess.
Ilya: There are no other “realities” than my own, which is also yours. Your request to “remember that there are other realities than your own” strips the root of this issue naked and, if you actually care about the truth or falsehood of a single damn thing, you’ll analyze that on your own time.
Objectivism and Marxism cannot be integrated because they are logical contradictions. Ilya wants our help in integrating a contradiction because of a fundamental, intellectual ‘flexibility’ (which Rand had other words for).
To continue this discussion is to try to prove that black is not white to someone who wants implicit permission to believe otherwise.
Live long and prosper! 
“The space inside the house is a part of the house . . .”
This is basically where we started with this branch of the conversation. You claim space inside stuff is part of the stuff and I claim that this is not necessarily so. Insides of an apple? Yep, part of the apple. The apple is not hollow. Me in the house? Not part of the house. The house is hollow. Suppose I put some gum in a rat’s mouth. The gum is immediately now part of the rat? Now suppose I take the gum out of the rat’s mouth and wrap the rat in it. Is the rat now part of the gum? I really want to say that location should not determine the identity of something, that it should be the same thing even if you move it around. However, you started off claiming location to be part of the thing/part of it’s identity, so I expect you’ll just say that the location does determine the identity. Whatever is on the outside at any given moment is the main object and everything and anything inside is part if that main, outer object is what I’m getting from what you’ve been saying. If this is what you believe, then I think this branch of the conversation has hit a dead end. There’s nothing else I can really say to the whole “inside something = part of something, location changes/determines identity” thing except, “Nope, false.”
Your very concept of identity seems to be flawed. Correcting a flawed concept of identity is something very difficult. I’m not sure I personally would know where and how to start since “identity” is on of the things in Objectivism known as an “axiomatic concept.” An axiomatic concept means you can’t keep breaking it down into further concepts it is composed of because this concept is one of the very bottom ones, it’s part of the base upon which all other concepts are built, there is no further down to go. The only way to learn axiomatic concepts is through observation of things in reality and undergoing the process of concept formation working from those observed things in reality instead of just working off of other concepts.
These two pages talk a bit more about axiomatic concepts and concept formation. They only contain some passages from Rand’s non-fiction writing, so no spoilers. I was going to link to the page for “identity” too, but that one does have spoilers.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/axiomatic_concepts.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/concept-formation.html
“So, when there is the yellow light, do you not feel like you should be stopping when you speed up?”
Actually, if I’m already in the intersection when it turns yellow, stopping is a terrible idea and I would indeed want to speed up to clear out of there asap. Also, I said to begin with “one may go” and “one may not”, not “stop.” Green also doesn’t mean “go fast” specifically either, just that one may go, period. It doesn’t dictate what speed you go at. Speed limits dictate that. Yellow is still just a form of “one may go”, it isn’t saying one may not go right now.
“You missed a part of my reply.”
Oh! Sorry about that. I really thought I had looked it all over. Anyway, could you please elaborate a little by specifying what is the standard by which “excessive” is determined?
When I looked up a definition for “rapacious”, just to be thorough since you said excessive or rapacious, I got this:
adj. Taking by force; plundering.
adj. Greedy; ravenous. See Synonyms at voracious.
adj. Subsisting on live prey.
Taking things from others by force is already something Objectivism does not support. Also, such taking by force isn’t inherent in wealth nor is a desire to take by force inherent in wealth. The second definition is a synonym, so, useless. The third definition is clearly not relevant here.
The inner gum is immediately a part of the rat’s space, but considering that a rat does not constitute only space, it is not a complete part of the rat (in other words, there is little interaction between the two). Think this way: All the levels of the model have their own spaces. Hence, starting from particles and ending with auras, all of those entities become a part of you at least on the characteristic of space. Now, what you suggested as wrapping the rat in the gum (on a permanent basis) is the same as wrapping anything organic into anything inorganic. It’s like you are wrapped by the house without ever leaving it. Do you see a problem with this? You keep viewing space as bound locations, but space is a lot more than that. Einstein integrated Space and Time and now we have a spacetime continuum. Also, what I meant by Environment is a dynamic relationship that you experience with it, not something that restricts you in any way. In other words, space is not only a location but a distance traveled. Seemingly, Rand never integrated Einsteinian relativism into Objectivism. This is something that needs to be dealt with.
I am not breaking down the concept of identity. I am breaking down the concept of human identity (i.e., what makes us human) and an identity of anything already identified. The form remains.
I never prohibited a freedom to risk your life at an intersection by ignoring the yellow light. I don’t understand what speed has to do with traffic lights. Under yellow light you can do whatever you want, just as under any other color. Following “social contract” of road rules is not like being subjugated to a dictatorship. But notice the problems that result from always driving through the yellow light, as you pointed out earlier.
Taking by force and a desire to take by force is inherent in wealth, just as greed as inherent in wealth. Look at how early magnates, such as Carnagie and the Rockfellers started. Look at Russian oligarchs. Force does not have to be direct; it’s simply intended to take something from others. Remember that greed affects all people, not just Objectivists, and even though Objectivist perception of wealth may not involve greed (although still arguable), Objectivists are not ruling the world and not seeing how greed affects capitalists. What’s a point of spreading Objectivism if your definition does not include people who are already existing?
Also, I created a new thread on this discussion in Political forum, so please refer to it. It’s called “Integrating Wealth and Health.”
<sigh> Since you, Harrison Danneskjold, among potential newcomers to the thread, misunderstand me so much and do not see the dynamics that I see nor separate your Environment (which you see with your own eyes) from other Environments (seen by others) from Nature (seen by the collective of humankind) and for many other reasons that would hopefully lead to a peaceful integration with the black&white Objectivism, I created a new thread in the Political forum under the name of “Integrating Wealth and Health.” This thread, as pertains to the political integration of a specific individualism, viz. Objectivism, with a specific collectivism, viz. Marxism, I deem closed.
This thread, … I deem closed.
I deem this thread absurdum ad nauseum!
“You keep viewing space as bound locations . . .”
because isn’t that what it is? 
If that is not what you are talking about, then we aren’t talking about the same thing when we say “space”.
“but space is a lot more than that.”
Go for it, what is the additional or other stuff you refer to when you say “space”?
“Einstein integrated Space and Time and now we have a spacetime continuum.”
Pretty sure that the claim is he discovered that they were already integrated, not that he integrated them.
“Also, what I meant by Environment is a dynamic relationship that you experience with it, not something that restricts you in any way.”
Could you give me an example or two of what you would consider to be “restricting you” and what this “dynamic relationship” would be like?
“space is not only a location but a distance traveled”
Wouldn’t that distance traveled still just be made of a bunch of locations?
“I am not breaking down the concept of identity.”
I didn’t say you were. In fact, I was saying it can’t be done. That it can’t be done makes it harder for me to try to deal with any misunderstandings of the concept of “identity” than dealing with misunderstanding of other concepts which can be broken down further into other concepts they are composed of.
“I never prohibited a freedom to risk your life at an intersection by ignoring the yellow light.”
Just to be clear, I started off mentioning a case where stopping would be more dangerous than speeding up when the yellow light came on. I wasn’t suggesting recklessness.
“I don’t understand what speed has to do with traffic lights.”
I thought you were interpreting “going slow” as the third option that the yellow light represented between green and red. Otherwise, I have no clue how you think yellow lights are neither/both “one may go” and “one may not go”. All the yellow light is is “one may go” with some additional information about when it will become “one may not go” in the future. That additional information about not going is not making the light somehow be “A” and “Not A” at the same time and in the same sense nor is it making it neither “A” nor “Not A”. Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but you seem to consider anything given in addition to “A” to become a new thing which is neither “A” nor “Not A” (or maybe both?), like if I had a teddy bear and a rubber ducky and a teddy bear with a blow torch in its hand I would have “A Teddy bear”, “Not A Teddy Bear”, and then something that is neither a Teddy Bear nor not a Teddy Bear/both a Teddy Bear and not a Teddy bear.
The definition of “greed” has still not been sufficiently clarified for me. I still need to know what standard something is being judged as “excessive” to. In excess of what?
“Taking by force and a desire to take by force is inherent in wealth,”
Oh really? So if I can come up with even one wealthy person that isn’t a thief or aspiring thief you would admit you were wrong? Or would you simply claim that you believe they secretly really wanted to be thieves in spite of having no evidence?
“Force does not have to be direct; it’s simply intended to take something from others.”
I’m already counting lying to trick somebody into buying something they otherwise would not have bought and making threats of coming along and violating a person’s rights if they don’t buy something under the things Objectivism does not support and which are not inherent to wealth and/or free trade. Now, if you mean something else, like calling anything at all that results in one or more people handing something over to another one or more people no matter what the reason they handed it over “force”, then we’ve got a problem. Your use of the term would include both things we already do not support (theft, fraud) and things we are not opposed to. We know why we oppose theft and fraud already, but you’d need to explain why you believe all those other things are bad too.
Yup, I’ll check that other thread out. This thread is still for discussing all the other stuff that has come up, right?
“You keep viewing space as bound locations . . .”
because isn’t that what it is?
If that is not what you are talking about, then we aren’t talking about the same thing when we say “space”.
“but space is a lot more than that.”
Go for it, what is the additional or other stuff you refer to when you say “space”?
“Einstein integrated Space and Time and now we have a spacetime continuum.”
Pretty sure that the claim is he discovered that they were already integrated, not that he integrated them.
“Also, what I meant by Environment is a dynamic relationship that you experience with it, not something that restricts you in any way.”
Could you give me an example or two of what you would consider to be “restricting you” and what this “dynamic relationship” would be like?
“space is not only a location but a distance traveled”
Wouldn’t that distance traveled still just be made of a bunch of locations?
“I am not breaking down the concept of identity.”
I didn’t say you were. In fact, I was saying it can’t be done. That it can’t be done makes it harder for me to try to deal with any misunderstandings of the concept of “identity” than dealing with misunderstanding of other concepts which can be broken down further into other concepts they are composed of.
“I never prohibited a freedom to risk your life at an intersection by ignoring the yellow light.”
Just to be clear, I started off mentioning a case where stopping would be more dangerous than speeding up when the yellow light came on. I wasn’t suggesting recklessness.
“I don’t understand what speed has to do with traffic lights.”
I thought you were interpreting “going slow” as the third option that the yellow light represented between green and red. Otherwise, I have no clue how you think yellow lights are neither/both “one may go” and “one may not go”. All the yellow light is is “one may go” with some additional information about when it will become “one may not go” in the future. That additional information about not going is not making the light somehow be “A” and “Not A” at the same time and in the same sense nor is it making it neither “A” nor “Not A”. Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but you seem to consider anything given in addition to “A” to become a new thing which is neither “A” nor “Not A” (or maybe both?), like if I had a teddy bear and a rubber ducky and a teddy bear with a blow torch in its hand I would have “A Teddy bear”, “Not A Teddy Bear”, and then something that is neither a Teddy Bear nor not a Teddy Bear/both a Teddy Bear and not a Teddy bear.
The definition of “greed” has still not been sufficiently clarified for me. I still need to know what standard something is being judged as “excessive” to. In excess of what?
“Taking by force and a desire to take by force is inherent in wealth,”
Oh really? So if I can come up with even one wealthy person that isn’t a thief or aspiring thief you would admit you were wrong? Or would you simply claim that you believe they secretly really wanted to be thieves in spite of having no evidence?
“Force does not have to be direct; it’s simply intended to take something from others.”
I’m already counting lying to trick somebody into buying something they otherwise would not have bought and making threats of coming along and violating a person’s rights if they don’t buy something under the things Objectivism does not support and which are not inherent to wealth and/or free trade. Now, if you mean something else, like calling anything at all that results in one or more people handing something over to another one or more people no matter what the reason they handed it over “force”, then we’ve got a problem. Your use of the term would include both things we already do not support (theft, fraud) and things we are not opposed to. We know why we oppose theft and fraud already, but you’d need to explain why you believe all those other things are bad too.
Yup, I’ll check that other thread out. This thread is still for discussing all the other stuff that has come up, right?
Here is a definition of space in Mathematics: “a system of objects with relations between the objects defined” (dictionary.com). In other words, space is not a point but at least a segment that consists of two points. Einstein discovered but also integrated spacetime in our minds. Besides, he discovered it by a thought experiment and was later proven correct by physical evidence. An immovable particle (think of a point) has a location but does not have space. Once there is a distance traveled we have space, and imagine how much of it is in our bodies.
Concerning dynamic relationships, Body takes in many things from its Environment. We consume liquids and solid food (whether minerals, nutrients, carbonaceous or some other organic compounds, etc), we breathe in air (oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, argon, etc.), we absorb reflected light (photons), and we share in electromagnetic fields and spacetime (including gravity). These are the types of interactions we have with our natural environments. Artificial environments restrict us because we are not getting the aforementioned interactions directly from our own natural environments. Hence the restrictions of civilization that ultimately will transform humankind into artificial transhumans.
The reason I say that yellow light is neither “go” nor “not go” is because under different conditions there are different answers. You started by saying that it is “go,” and my grandpa said that it is “not go.” Who is right? Neither one specifically, but both. You are correct in considering that anything in addition to “A,” if it’s inseparable from it, is also “not A.” But this logic breaks down in this area, so integrating it cannot be done by a black and white identity mechanic. It is grey because once you try to separate the colors, you get gibberish, like in your teddy bear example. Although the teddy bear example is taken to an extreme, let’s still try to solve it. I use identity associations. Here is how I look at it: you have a teddy bear, a rubber ducky, and another teddy bear with a blow torch, and they are all toys, but two teddy bears are more similar than a rubber ducky but they are different at the same time. There is no continuum here like in a color spectrum example, so there is nothing to integrate, just to see how things are the same and/or different at the same time. However, if the second teddy bear held a smaller rubber ducky, which we would give an equal importance as the other rubber ducky, we could then say that that teddy bear is both “A” and “not A,” but I don’t see a point in doing these types of examples unless to go insane.
Wealth divides people and thus divides the whole world. You cannot make wealth (energy) out of nothing. There is always someone who suffers for it because of your taking. The perpetuation of wealth (greed) only leads to more energetic imbalance worldwide. America is #1 not just because it is the best, but because it is the best at taking energy and resources (including humans) from other countries. It is a form of vampirism. The new thread on this topic is posted in Debate Forums: Integrating Wealth and Health. You can still use this thread for the other stuff, but I would advise against it, since discussions with me are somewhat taboo on these forums, and although you don’t get any of the negativity - I do, and all the repugnance directed against me does hurt me inside, so that I try sometimes to avoid your forums and wish that you would not reply, so I don’t have to. You see, I am as if cursed with all my opinions and beliefs because I know that people hate them, but I cannot let them go because that’s how I feel - I feel that they are right, and if I lose the feeling, I would be very unhappy.
It’s alive, _it’s alive, it’s alive!! _
Wealth divides people and thus divides the whole world. You cannot make wealth (energy) out of nothing. There is always someone who suffers for it because of your taking. The perpetuation of wealth (greed) only leads to more energetic imbalance worldwide. America is #1 not just because it is the best, but because it is the best at taking energy and resources (including humans) from other countries. It is a form of vampirism.
Ranking America as “#1”? By what standard?
Indeed, the United States of America draws resources and talented individuals from around the world for many reasons. Drawing the life out of other nations is not one of those reasons, as believed by the “Blame America First Committee.” There is a saying: People vote with their feet. Literal translation: When free people have reason to move, they move. The creator and primary contributor to this thread has willfully admitted that his origins and place of birth are the (late) great people’s Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. Furthermore, he seems to believe that some of the scientific and technical achievements of the Soviet-era are justification for hundreds of millions of deaths to his fellow Russians, less-than fellow Ukrainians, as well as non-Slavic ethnic minorities within the reach of Soviet-era authorities. And heroes of the USSR? Let us not forget one the most revered and brilliant Soviet scientists: Andrei Sakorov. His reward for developing his nation’s hydrogen-fusion weapon, as well as numerous other scientific advances, was to be shut-up and treated as a threat to state authority. His crime was attempting to speak the truth.
When a state controls science, science will be subject to the wishes of men with war on their minds. Granted, the Soviet Union had every reason to wish to protect its borders, as do all nations. Within those borders, horrors no less horrifying as those of the Third Reich were pursued as only Soviet-statist monsters could perpetrate. A brilliant scientist, or even a humble small-arms designer, such as Mikhail Kaloshnikov, uses the creative power endowed by his gifted mind, and produces for the state. Then, he wonders: What have I done? The recent passing of Kaloshnikov (sic) allowed a cleric in whom he trusted to reveal a letter he wrote, expressing the regrets he had for all of the destruction resulting from his creation. I personally believe he was guilty of nothing other than his own personal behavior. But the total control of people through the state is the greatest danger confronting us now, just as it was in the Cold War.
America: #1? By what standard? Certainly my nation has committed crimes of immorality, not least of which was enslavement of peoples abducted from slave-ships and their homelands in Africa. Many were worked to their deaths, and no apologies can undo the damage. The sins of our past are only one part of our conundrum of the present. In time, this too shall pass. And all Americans will understand the freedom to build a better future through capitalism. It is our principles that make this possible. Among those principles is the right of every man and woman to raise themselves to what ever levels of success their talents and tenacity permit them. The state be damned.
You talk of absorbing the resources of other peoples, as vampires? Those other peoples are compensated with mutual consent. If their nations’ leaders are controlling their resources, rather than private companies, blame their socialist leaders, not America. Better yet, go to those nations and demand better treatment of their common people. Right-like that’s gonna happen! If you went to Putin’s Russia, you’d be dead on arrival.
You are alive; you have consciousness. In America, you may use it anyway that doesn’t violate the law. When the day comes that we have a fully-functional capitalist society, all individuals will pursue their dreams, hindered only by market forces. But for those who decry America as a heartless engine of destruction, merely for engaging in commerce, I take great pleasure in driving the proverbial stake through your argument.
(apologies for any misspelled Russian names)
There will be no total control of people. We are past that. It’s history. Just let it go.
America is #1 in the size of the economy, Communists are #1 in the growth of their economy, if I remember correctly.
Vampires do not hurt people, they simply create an imbalance of life forces. Big fish eat small fish. No one fish is wrong, only the actions are. In free market capitalism that vampirism will be mutual. Let’s live and see how it would work out for everyone, not just for you and me.
bluecherry, I could not find the area of debate among Objectivists that you mentioned earlier, but, in light of my explanations of greyness, do you find anything grey in Objectivism or would you reiterate what you mentioned earlier?