About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Saturday, October 13, 2012 - 12:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My eyes started bleeding after about 30 seconds of reading that mystical mind shrinking drivel, did they possibly mean that if you could somehow finish reading the whole book and emerge unscathed you may become enlightened?

If the "average joe" reads this and jist absorbs it as truth, we are all fuxored!

I contemplated leaving a comment there but I feared my skin would catch fire if I lingered too long!

Post 1

Saturday, October 13, 2012 - 9:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Relax guys, this just an old and cherished religion popping up in some brand new clothes. The clothes are different, so you may not recognize the person, but the person is the same person that you knew before (that you've known all along). I read what Kyle wrote above.

Kyle described Buddhism, specifically the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism. While Buddhism isn't as cool as Objectivism (1), my favorite part of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism is the Noble Eightfold Path -- the 8 things you can do to make a better life for yourself. They're listed here on Wikipedia:

right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration
Interestingly, the Noble Eightfold Path sounds like it was inspired by Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics! (2)

Ed

(1) Buddhism is more concrete-bound and pain/fear/retreat-based than Objectivism, which is more abstract and more love/growth/approach-based than Buddhism. I intend to elaborate on this in my upcoming book: Being Human.

(2) Here's Aristotle (in Nichomachean Ethics, 1106b) saying something similar:

Excellence ... is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect; and again it is a mean because the vices respectively fall short of or exceed what is right in both passions and actions, while excellence both finds and chooses that which is intermediate.
Keep in mind that the Golden Mean to which Aristotle is referring is actually a balancing act involving at least 4 things: the finding, the choosing, the passions, the actions -- rather than merely being a call for "moderation" (as when a parent says to their child: "Don't drink too much at the party!"). Aristotle's Mean is not about moderation in that simple sense.


Post 2

Saturday, October 13, 2012 - 9:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jules,
we are all fuxored!
What in the heck?!

:-)

Is that ("fuxored") really a word, or did you just make it up? Either way it sounds cool and is a great zinger.

Ed


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, October 13, 2012 - 2:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Haha yes I made it up! My own way of saying "royally fucked" with out actually swearing!

Post 4

Monday, October 15, 2012 - 8:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That is a great word:

fuxored: royally fucked, as if by a sword.

"America will be fuxored next month if the Participation Tropky President gets a second term."


Not to be confused with:

fuxled: slightly fucked as a result of a mild state of confusion.


"I got in line behine a truck, and by the time I realized I was in the EZPASS ONLY line, I was fuxled."

Post 5

Monday, October 15, 2012 - 8:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Haha my greatest contribution to Objectivism!!

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Monday, October 15, 2012 - 9:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I find most of it confusing. Some of it is, however, thought inciting at the very least. Take for example:

"Word/life: Your five life senses sense life. Your mind produces and sends you things that do not come from life; it sends you things it makes up itself. It creates and sends you emotions, desires, thoughts, guilt, fears and worries etc. Your mind blocks most of the life coming to you, and what it does not block, it converts into thoughts and feelings; it turns life into its mental code for life.

Your mind attempts to reduce all of life to words, feeling, and abstract thoughts or bites of data. Example: Your sense of sight sees a rose. Instead of coming to you directly as all that a rose really is, it is turned into the word “rose.” It is then disregarded or filed away as a memory without letting you experience it."

It's a reminder of that old "thing as it is"-thing. It goes on to say that, basically, your mind edits your life and, once a concept has been understood, it's put in some archive and it loses all worth. Some of it is quite ugly. Take for example:

"Two ways: There are only two ways to experience life: through the mind or not through the mind. You have two choices in every moment of life: to be with your mind or to be with life. The choice is yours."

Or:

"True life is everything except the mind’s illusion of “reality.”"

So yes. I've browsed and took the bother to finish it, and I can only say it's blurry.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Monday, October 15, 2012 - 11:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alexander,

This whole thing has the markings of Kant's legacy i.e. true reality can't be experienced through reason or perception, it can only be experienced through divination, revelation, etc.

What interested me in "The Truth Contest" was that it was mentioned in the comments of a few Youtube videos which dealt with religion.

What further interested me was the content of the aforementioned comments. The content suggested that "The Truth Contest" was some alternative to religion when in fact most of the ideas rely on faith, not reason. Ironic.

Ed is right. It is simply mysticism repackaged under the banner of "Truth". I was disappointed.

This repackaging reminds me of that Zeigeist Movement thread I created a while back. I can't believe it has been over a year and a half since I joined this site.



Post 8

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - 12:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Indeed. What interested me was the general concept about it. That is, let's find out a general explanation to life. But it relies too much on reincarnation, and all the while it tells you that the mind is evil, without even saying what the mind is. It all boils down to "reality is whatever the mind doesn't make.", it treats life and mind as opposites and enemies.



Post 9

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - 7:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oops! I forgot to welcome you to the site, Alexander.

Welcome to Rebirth of Reason!

I hope you will stay around for a while. It's always nice to meet another analytical and, seemingly, passionate person.

Post 10

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - 8:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you very much for your welcome. I rushed to posting because I happened to be reading the actual site we were just discussing, so seeing it being discussed in an objectivist forum couldn't be better!

I hope to stay for a while, as well!

Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Thursday, October 18, 2012 - 6:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kyle:

This whole thing has the markings of Kant's legacy...


Kant was a continuation of the same template. (He should have, in all fairness, been named "Kan.")

As in, when it comes to "the difference between a thing and itself" , trust Kan't, there really is that difference. You can't see it, of course, but he ... do I have to actually say it?

It's an application of the same formula, the political intent of which is to knock your intellectual legs out from underneath you, making you ripe for deconstruction and reconstruction as a properly fitting cog.

How does one assert that there is a unmeasurable and undetectable difference between a thing and itself without measuring or detecting that difference? And if it is measureable or detectable, then it is no longer unknown or unknowable.

Kant was a gibberish vendor.

Trust him; he Kan see what we mere mortals Kant.

Same old same old.

Unseen Magic SPirits In The Sky.

Conciousness of all consciousness.

The collective unconscious.

The impenetrable veil of ignorance...except by Rawls, who has no trouble piercing what he hypothesized was impenetrable, for the incurious purpose of conducting loaded political polls; we see Rawls descendents in the hawkers of modern political polls.

The Common Good.

The Nation As A Whole.

"S"ociety.

The (singular) Family, spoken for a s a whole.

The (singular) Children, spoken for as a whole.

The Phlegm of Collectivism is coughed up all around us; careful where you step.

regards,
Fred





(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 10/18, 6:15pm)


Post 12

Thursday, October 18, 2012 - 7:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred, you are a treasure!

This should be given a label like was done with the stolen concept fallacy. What about the 'fallacy of the knowable unknown,' or maybe 'The Barlett Wizard of Oz fallacy'? Whose got a good idea for the name of this fallacy?

Post 13

Friday, October 19, 2012 - 5:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One thing I see a lot of the time when it comes to spirituality and buddhism and things of the like, is that their logic goes like this:

"Your body is part of you, but not all of you. Therefore, you're not your body. Your mind is part of you, but not all of you, etc, etc."

It's made quite clear by the entry called "The Present". It goes like this: "You are not your mind, because...what is it that hears your thoughts? It clearly isn't your ears, because your thoughts are in your head...soooo if must be your spirit!". And from that little conclusion...you've got a lot of room for messing around!

Post 14

Saturday, October 20, 2012 - 7:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

I know what you are saying. Fred is a real treasure. This man deserves 'immortalization' and we are just the type of people (philosophic sentinels) who can bestow such a thing onto others. Let's all come to agree on a name for the aforementioned fallacy. I nominate the following name:

The Bartlett 'Ignore-the-Man-behind-the-Curtain' Fallacy

:-)

Ed


Post 15

Saturday, October 20, 2012 - 7:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A possible name for this new-fangled notion of the "Truth Contest" is: New-Age Oriental Mystico-Existentialism (NAOME).

:-)

There are 3 simple steps to follow on this bold, "new" path to enlightenment:

1) Everything is balanced, so resign yourself to passively take the good with the bad -- remove all ambition from yourself, don't aspire to any heroic achievements (and don't judge others, such as various totalitarian dictators who may seek to violate your rights; their guns and thugs are merely part of the sacred balance)
2) Quiet your mind, because it is evil -- your mind and your thoughts are your real enemy (in other words, don't judge others, such as various totalitarian dictators who may seek to violate your rights)
3) Experience Nirvana!

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/20, 7:51am)


Post 16

Saturday, October 20, 2012 - 9:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A Buddhist I know at NASA and Toastmasters gave several speeches on the history of his religion. He holds a doctorate in both meteorology and law. He worked in south Florida for several years as a state prosecutor under Janet Reno before coming to work at NASA. He did a speech on her that sang her praises. He said that back in the 1960s he was heavily into Libertarianism and Objectivism. As you might guess, there were times I warmed to him and other times I turned completely cold to him. After a big blowout on e-mail with him about the merits of anthropogenic global warming, I finally told him not to talk to me about anything unrelated to work or Toastmasters. He told me later that my words hurt him deeply. Oh, well. That was the price he paid for asking me in a condescending way if I was a "true believer" in Objectivism.

Sometimes the smartest people can say, do, think, and be the dumbest things.

Post 17

Saturday, October 20, 2012 - 12:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

I like that - good name.

There are variations on this fallacy. There are claims to be able to see the unseen, claims to speak for groups that don't have a single voice, and claims to know about a collection of things that can't in fact be discussed as if it were a single thing.

Usually the fallacious statements aren't making an explicit claim to special knowledge but rather that is what is logically implied. It usually isn't "I know what is behind the veil of ignorance and you don't," but rather, "Reason reveals the truth behind this veil of ignorance and it is..." I.e., It is made into a puzzle that the speaker appears to have solved and revealed and now everyone knows.

The heart of the fallacy is to make up some entity or condition that doesn't exist, at least not as posited, and to make it unknowable to some degree, while at the same time put forth special knowledge of it. Seen like that, this could be called the "witch doctor's fallacy."

An unknowable is disguised to look as if it could be known and then is used like a Trojan horse to smuggle in the argument that would be attacked if it tried to pass the gates of logic on its own. I'm thinking that is always the purpose behind the fallacy.

Here is an example: "The economy is rebounding," says the progressive during the campaign season and they have a few end-of-the-week stats that show improvement. "THE Economy" is the Trojan horse, and they want to smuggle in the arguments "you don't need to elect anyone else, everything is improving." If the stats are accurate, then the argument looks good until you realize that they only apply to a subset of anything resembling the entire economy - whatever that might be. So, they needed to hide the fact that their stats only apply to a tiny and perhaps temporary part of our economic life. If they had said, "Housing starts are improving and the unemployment numbers improved, so there is no need to change leaders," the huge gap between the significance of the stats and the conclusion they leap to would stand out in sharp contrast. So, they hide that relationship within the Trojan horse.

It could also be know as the "unknowable but to me" fallacy. Or the "fallacy of the magical insight."

Fred, chime in here and let me know where I'm on track and where I'm not.

Post 18

Saturday, October 20, 2012 - 10:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,
... this could be called the "witch doctor's fallacy."
I love that name!

:-)

Ed



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Sunday, October 28, 2012 - 11:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve:

You're spot on. "The Economy" is something that has been shoved down our throat for so long, we actually believe 'it' is real(in the sense of a singular, animate entity.) We take 'it' as a given, absolute fact of reality...as an 'it.'

Of course in some sense there are economies; all kinds of economies, at all kinds of overlapping scales. Where the voodoo jump is made(easily forgiven, because the concept of multiple overlapping economies is so confusing)is when we let economists wave their hands and aggregate them all on a macro sense to an actual entity, an 'it', something called 'The Economy.' The implication is that they understand 'it' as an 'it' and can control 'it.'

The Gods of Macro clearly have clay feet; there is no evidence that they understand 'it', can control 'it', or even, have the first f'n clue. And yet, controlling 'it' is front and center in our politics.

They can barely agree on what long ago already happened to 'it.' They can't agree at all at what is happening to 'it,' and they for sure have no prayer at all of predicting what will happen to 'it.'

Macro economics is politics dressed up as Feynman's Cargo Cult Science. It is begging with charts, by voodoo priests seeking political power over The Tribe.

And, that view I've just expressed is so fringe in this nation as to be non-existent, among people paying attention as well as among people barely paying attention; as a Tribe, we've caught 'The Economy' fever, big time.

Harumph, Harumph, Harumph...here is this complicated thing called 'The Economy.' Lots of charts, and percentages, and initials like 'GDP' and terms like 'fraction of GDP' and God Help us, 'Quantitative Easing.' (If more than 1% of the population actually understands what the term 'Quantitative Easing' means and can explain it in understandable terms, I'll spend the next year buck naked on my front porch singing the International.) Who gets the funny money? Who takes on the debt? Private debt is primarily taken, not given. The government can't 'give' debt to private entities who are not taking debt. So the trillion dollar question is, what types of actors are taking debt in this environment, for what purposes, and what actors are refusing debt in this environment, for what reasons? Because that matters more than anything else; those reasons are exactly the engines, plural, that drive economies, plural.

But trust our politicos and their hired gun economists, they actually understand how to pull the levers and push the buttons and control 'it'...except when they don't. And a fatigued nation shrugs and throws a dart and hopes for relief from an out of all control tribal leadership machine that is taking on too much and attempting too much control and bleeding the nation dry while struggling to do what it can't do, what has never been done, what drove the Soviet Union into the ground, what is driving Greece and much of Europe into the ground, and what will, guaranteed if we don't about face and sprint from the abyss, drive America to the ground....

I took my family out to dinner the other night, met my oldest son in Brooklyn at Destafanoes ('steaks and chops') and had a fantastic birthday celebration meal for my wife. Great little restaurant, great meal. On the way, my wife tells me that one of my favorite restaurants in NYC, Gallaghers, is closing ... after decades.

Here is the plain truth about "The Economy" and those who would attempt to run 'it' from afar; Gallagher's survived The Great Depression, but could not survive the Obama Recovery.









Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.