william.scherk

Perhaps. But my politics are somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. I view the issue as a primary example of free association, in the most personal and individual sense of free association; the choice of one's life partner. [...] So, we all have our theories about the choices of others. Such as, where the deep seated need to crusade against the nobodies business but their own choices of others that has over-run the insane GOP comes from. regards, Fred right wing public secularist advocate of individual liberty and freedom Greg's Kooky Kitchen relies on a simple recipe for homosexuality of all kinds. As he has told it more than a couple of times, to get a homosexual, you only need three things: 1. An adult who sexually abuses (molests) a child of the same gender 2. A child who is subject to the abuse at 1 3. An anger at the molestation/hatred for the molester That's it. If the abused child is angry about it, she will become a lesbian. If the abused child grows up angry at being subject to unwanted sexual touch ... then he will be homosexual. It doesn't get much simpler or more weakly supported. Greg has let us know that he has never tested this Homosexuality Theory against reality -- his unique opinion is based not on rigorous manly hard inquiry, but on a soft knit of notions and fancies. He doesn't ask homosexuals/lesbians about their history of molestation. It's not important. In his limp-wristed, feminized knitting of nonsense, he knows better just because of intuition. He doesn't accept that gay men who post to OL have answered him that they had not actually been molested as children, nor had they committed crimes against children themselves. Such strong real-world refutations are not interesting to Greg, in that he does not believe his intuitive theory could possibly be wrong ... which is funny/sad/pathetic. If his unique feminized hypothesis were true it would reflect brightly in reality. It would be a hard rule, a fact. It would be strongly evident in homosexual life histories. It is not, of course. So, what explains Greg's persistent feminist insistence on preposterous theories of sexual evil? What explains his weakness in argument and his non-masculine fumbling at self-correction? Why does he insist he is the expert on the genesis of homosexuality? One suggestion was made by PDS that Greg's feminized attainment of knowledge of homosexuality/molestation derives from Greg's own torments: "I often get the impression that your "you get what you deserve" mantra is a cover for your having been subjected to sexual abuse as a child." I think this is arguably as warranted as Greg's Objectivish Gays Were Molested, Molest Kids In Turn. Paralleling his own thesis, Greg was likely molested by a man at some point in his childhood, but he wasn't angry about it, so he then turned out to be heterosexual. I mean, it's obvious, and based on the same feminized non-logic, the same soft, flabby intuitive avoidance of reason: it explains the gestation of his unique postmodern female 'special ways of knowing' theories. So, Greg was surely as sexually molested in childhood as Greg thinks Reidy and Stephen and I were molested, but he did not get angry about it. He came to terms with the molestation. He by virtue of turning away from anger transcended the unwanted sexual contact and now has no hate in his heart for the homosexual child-abuser who tried to enlist him.** Reidy set out the hard, masculine, virile test of logic and reality that Greg's feminized intuition is too weak to counter: Lest anyone think I am too hard on the passive fancies of Greg the Sexologist and probable former victim of child sexual abuse -- the not-too-hidden premise of his Theory is that homosexuals must recruit via molestation. It's the only way this scourge can continue. That's how they reproduce themselves -- the only way. So, in Greg's flaccid feminist anti-freedom mode, every homosexual is a suspect at extreme high risk of offending. The nature of a molester grows inside them, they become what they hate, and they go on to molest children. In other words, Gays Molest Children. If anyone else finds this to be nonsensical and malign, they may excuse my speculation/surety about Greg's sexual molestation history. His bad faith on this issue invites scorn. His founding assumptions are stupid, mean, and wrong. _______________________________ ** of course it could be that Greg was molested as a child by a female adult, and then got really angry at the person and the molestation, and never dealt with the hatred, and so ended up heterosexual.

That's a pretty feeble effort to ground your incantations in reality. I hope you understand now how the law actually stands up here, and that the Toronto Defense lawyers' two lines led you astray. Give the man one point for showing the Statute, actually, to read "force", not "touch". Thank you. Everyone gets prizes. Seriously, I could have done better with my objections. It wasn't clear in my initial jeremiad that 'force' is in law, and that the Toronto defence lawyers mischaracterized our laws. Objections to blurring concepts, frivolous civil lawsuits, subsuming under 'sexual assault' what could be normal non-forced mutual pleasures ... these are all fine objections when made in reference to real practice or actual horror-stories of 'rape culture' hysteria. It is too bad that that two excerpted lines from the TO folk were accepted as accurate. I apologize for turning on the rhetorical afterburners in my mad tendentious way ... I knew it was a misreading, but no -- I didn't immediately dial up the Criminal Code. I was definitely aware that Adam and you considered it proper -- and that each of you were apparently willing to assume the charges against Ghomeshi were some trivial 'sexual touch' confections. I assumed neither of you had checked the premise that Canadian assault laws were accurately described. Now I see that your several conclusions could be true -- although not warranted by the Ghomeshi case or the Canadian Criminal Code, instances of egregious overreach on campus, or particular travesties of justice could provide support. Everyone gets extra points for a better understanding of the law in Canada. If and when Ghomeshi comes to trial, we will all be better positioned to offer informed comment. Decoupling the element of force from definitions of assault can happen when we accept a couple of inaccurate lines from a blog as good authority, nu? But you hit upon a heretofore unspoken subject -- that of empathy. In the Ghomeshi case I have empathy for him, and I have empathy for the people who will testify against him. In the wider scheme of things, I bet each of us here does understand the general dynamics of sexual abuse and assault -- and thus has empathy for those forced or coerced into unwanted sexual activity -- be it extremely grave (torture, injury, bodily harms) or of lesser but still grave offenses against an individual. We all of us here have empathy for the child who is subject to sexual interference by an adult. In that case, we do not attempt to redraw or reframe the motivation to 'empathize' with the adult. It does matter to us that the acts might be described as 'accidental,' friendly, innocent, habitual or warmly meant or simply a gently attempted kiss. IF the intent was to gratify the adult sexually, we can consider many 'gentle' acts to be crimes. As Jules noted above, the effects of child sexual abuse can be long-lasting. With a different scope of interest, we can extend our empathy for the child. If the person subject to a sexual assault (by Canadian definition) is a relative, a daughter or son, a partner, our empathy is with them. On the larger scale of 'what about possibly falsely accused men and women,' my empathy is also engaged. I am a veteran of the mid/late 90s 'memory wars,' and have always been sensitive to the very real effects of contamination, confabulation, moral panic, etc., which can give rise to false accusations. I am sensitive to the immense damage done to the falsely accused. Back to where we agree, Tony. I don't like Mother Grundys (or defense lawyers) who distort the meaning of "sexual assault." But as to whether, as you suggest, "Women and men should be big enough to handle such minor instances themselves" -- we have to do the diligent work to separate 'minor instances' brought to court or the court of public opinion from serious criminal acts. Which brings me to 'what about Cosby?' Here I only know that more than one woman has alleged that Cosby administered some kind of sedative or hypnotic in order to have sex with a compliant body. These allegations conflict with what I thought I knew about Cosby. I wish that the allegations could be disproved, and that the false allegations, if any, are repudiated. In the possibility that Cosby actually did have a habit of administering drugs to women to make them compliant for sex, then I am sad for all. Why would anyone stoop to this behaviour? I can't calculate any of the probabilities from the possibilities. I can simply adduce, however, that the worst way to deal with Cosby allegations is trial by media. As for Allred, her suggestion sounds insane. Since the Cosby allegations will none of them likely end up in court, he appears to have no redress. This leaves everything unproven, and leaves a taint on Cosby. The women are also tainted, if only by an implication that they are all liars, extortionists, sluts/bunnies, or otherwise morally squalid creatures.

You are quite right, Brant. The excerpt from the Toronto defense lawyers's page on Ghomeshi did not accurately reflect the Criminal Code. What that brief article recounted is not true. Here is the text of the Criminal Code covering assault. I have underlined the phrases that are importantly different from the TO folks brief and misleading article: 265. Assault 265. (1) A person commits an assault when (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or © while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs. Application (2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault. Consent (3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of (a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; © fraud; or (d) the exercise of authority. Accused’s belief as to consent (4) Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused’s belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief. Now, I had the benefit of knowing that the Criminal Code does not reflect this line: "Any person who intentionally touches another person without their consent commits an assault." It's not at all accurate. Tony did not know this, and so his argument was poorly grounded. He was and is still, apparently, basing his commentary on inaccurate information. So, what does reaction look like in light of better information? It's the very definiition of sexual assault that includes -- you now know if you have read this far -- FORCE. This is an ocean away from what constitutes sexual assault in Canada, and it also trivializes the offences charged against Ghomeshi. What is 'gently attempted' about 'overcome resistance -- choking'? What is the difference between your happily consented sexual contact and what sexual assault means in Canada, Tony? The very element dropped by TOdl in its brief notes -- FORCE and threat of FORCE. Who is the Mother Grundy in this thread? And who has distorted the meaning of sexual assault -- you, the defense lawyers of Toronto, or me? It disturbs me that you throw in 'Cry Wolf' in relation to Ghomeshi's alleged crimes. What do you actually know about the case to have judged it so -- to have judged the complainants as crying wolf? Does this have anything to do with the types of charges against Ghomeshi? 'Such minor instances' of a stolen kiss, a nice young man's hormonal grappling with a sweet lass, or a suite of nice, friendly, warm interpersonal touches -- are you contrasting this kind of behaviour with actual sexual assault as charged in re Ghomeshi? Jeepers. Now you are sailing on the wide Sea of Generalities. Can you apply these nostrums to Ghomeshi now that you understand the law better? At root is that Ur-Objectivist redline on initiating force. The essential aspect of assault is force. It's in the law of my land and likely in your land South Africa too. That's a pretty feeble effort to ground your incantations in reality. I hope you understand now how the law actually stands up here, and that the Toronto Defense lawyers' two lines led you astray.

By those standards most men have been sexually assaulted (ahh, I'll never forget the trauma!)† What a tediously proper world it's becoming. I think when words lose or blur definition, the genuine instances of assault and rape will lessen in significance by getting painted with the same subjective brush. Man, Tony, you are on a roll! This is the marxist dream where they interpret the blur and worse than interpret, they indict you, try you, convict you and punish you. This is the land of the Queen of Hearts trial procedure. Look at the word "torture" and how "proper boy" Gary just throws all his agenda items into the cart of torture. Racism is another perfect example of blurring. I find it hard to square Tony and Adam's comments with an aspect of Objectivsm I call 'do not use force' ... do not lay on hands without invitation ... do not punch without invitation ... do not jam fingers into a vagina without invitation.** Most facts about Ghomeshi will be encountered at trial, but the CBC's statement on why Ghomeshi was fired referred to digital photographs Ghomeshi showed to his bosses. If you aren't already in possession of this info, Google 'ghomeshi bruise' ... What is to be decided in court are the actual charges brought. I am quite surprised to see such derision for Canada's sexual assault laws, and such wholesale boys club assumption that charges against Ghomeshi are specious because of a defect in law or definition. It is striking to me that Objectivish folks bias toward the male and thereby approve a putative Ghomeshi aggression in sex, complainants be damned. A little reminder from the TO defense lawyer site that Ghomeshi's charges have not yet been tested in court, that the presumption of innocence is accorded him -- that is of course necessary, and sobering. A note and link to the criminal code is also necessary -- it makes the matters at law come into focus. The TOdl material points to the issues of consent and violence that will be decided. From there to smirking about murky-on-the-details hot stuff acts (with obvious consent and pleasure) is a jump for me. Is that the best an Objectivish guy can offer on R v Ghomeshi? To go blank on consent? -- re the notion that all that hot stuff the hardy men folk wished did not happen (Oh, but the acts were welcome and pleasurable, d'oh) has somehow become an assault in the eyes of the law, it isn't good enough to posit some murky analogous encounter. You need to argue that Ghomeshi invoked the same pleasure principle as did the person/s who 'assaulted' you. The other irrational assumption is that general instances of 'Tony's Encounter' are prosecuted under Canada's criminal code. This needs facts to back it up. You need to show the courts are clogged with frivolous Tony's Encounter trials ... I cannot otherwise explain the derisory comments by reference to Rand -- not while the comments assume facts not in evidence. A generalized sneering at victimology seems malicious rather than objective. What purpose does it serve to assume that the Crown is utterly mistaken to bring charges? What rational purpose does it serve to denigrate the actual claims of the complainants? ______________________ ** do not slap me ... push me to my knees, etc. † I give you access to my body, I invite you to touch me, I want you to strike me with passion, I enjoy to be slapped and punched, I consent to you hurting me, I enjoyed the bruisings you inflicted on me. I want to be choked into submission in my fantasy play with you. -- here I also assume facts not in evidence. Which is why I generally stay out of the Cosby/Ghomeshi/rape discussions. By Tony's hop and skip past the plain qualifier 'consensual,' he drops the most important standard at issue and mistakenly concludes that he too, and most men must have had the 'pleasure' of being sexually assaulted ... It is quite possible to rationally argue -- even forcefully -- in Ghomeshi's defence. Several arguments of this type have appeared already. They discuss the fraught issues that underly the case, the bias against him, the trial by media, the overwhelming social punishment already inflicted upon Ghomeshi. I can recommend Shannon Kari's analysis in the Globe and Mail, as well as Drew Hasselback's article in the National Post. It is important to consider the serious matters at law and consider the actual state of jurisprudence, previous cases, limits to consent, all concerning real-life harms. There's gotta be a better way to discuss a pending case that involves serious charges than a lazy attack on the usual suspects. I mean, without argument by analogy and vague anecdotes of pleasures to be had via 'sexual assault.' Without belittling or denigrating the unnamed bad actors ...

Quick skin and bones of a Tony/William understanding: I don't see why the word itself needs a replacement. ... I am atheist. I have no faith in the supernatural. I have never accepted that there is a supreme spirit 'god.' Do you require another term to understand what I mean? I don't think so. Not the focus of Tony's response, but so what? Here he answers the essential objection in brief. Thank you for your suggestions. Nothing I haven't considered. Atheist it will have to stay. So, points given for saying we must have a new word for Atheist/ism, points given for objections, and points given for a rational response. Everyone gets prizes.

Greg, with a helping from feminized libertine logic, merely swaps a word in to deflect. His pretense of 'knowingness' is the same empty verbal gymnastics I expect from the left feminist archives: "Different ways of knowing." It is postmodernist praxis to swap out words or equivocate on their meaning. Knowledge, in this feminized logically-libertine cul de sac, is something one proclaims, but not something that can be shared. This is such a weak, feminized, anti-science superstition wrapped up in a trite pink bow. Greg has quite a progressive left feminized relativist habit of proclaiming his discussion partners of belonging to the devil's party. Not for him the robust masculine knowledge that has been tested, tempered, and found strongly in accordance with reality. No, he prefers a solipsist inner wind of feminized superego. Why does he so easily fall into the female thought pattern of needing a spirit? Perhaps equivocating on knowledge, aping a feminist historian of science such as Sandra Harding, he can subtly position himself as an expert guide to the ineffable. All anti-rational bullshit, all with the same end. Anti-knowledge, anti-Man, anti-reason. Such a soft, weak, limpwristed, feminized passive travesty of hard-won knowledge.

There are plenty of words that share meaning with "Atheist." But I don't see why the word itself needs a replacement. "Theist" similarly has many cognate terms, but its meaning is readily apparent. I am atheist. I have no faith in the supernatural. I have never accepted that there is a supreme spirit 'god.' Do you require another term to understand what I mean? I don't think so. Well, I disagree entirely. The word roots merely bring you back to the same thing/concept.** I liked the way that (agnostic/atheist) Karl Rove was purported to have said: "I am not blessed by faith." -- if you need a new word or phrase to adequately express your beliefs or lack of beliefs, I'd say don't get bogged down in scholasticism or pettifogging. I suggest not fussing with words to gain a perfect neologism. It doesn't pay any dividends in conversation, in my opinion. "Godless" implies that the person does not practice any religion. It also implies that the person has no religious beliefs. It's a cousinly cognate to 'atheist' but it can have slightly different meanings. It is generally either a stand-alone epithet or joined to other words in a phrase: godless atheist, for example. Godless also adequately mirrors 'without god' in straightforward English. So, Tony, the challenge is for you as much as any other atheist here: What is your 'godless state of mind? What does your 'godless state of mind' stand for? Why are you asking non-attentive others to do what you can do easily? Nope. You better ought "show your work" and provide to your readers the actual reasoning that resulted in this confusing conclusion. The default position of ... well, what? Your sentence is relativelyt devoid of an active subject. Looked at sideways by whom? The default position for whom? Rewritten to make clear the subject and object: "'Without God' is [my/Tony's] automatic default position [statement of faith/non-faith]. [i/Tony] looked at the phrase sideways and objectively." Your arguments would be better understood, I think, if you considered the reader, and that occasionally there is a missing actor in your sentences. You could say with more economy and precision just what your opinion is. Do you mean that every child starts out 'without god'? -- that at least in infancy, and before any parent or guardian begins to instruct the child in the family's religion, there is a child Without God? If so, I do agree. But you have not made clear what age or what context this 'choice' is to be made. Perhaps you are talking about your own process or history in dealing with the concept god. This seems to say something like this (with subjects and objects made clear): "William, you had/have a choice to be atheist or to believe in god. You can also choose to be agnostic -- which means that you know nothing." I don't and didn't make a conscious choice ... I do not find the alternatives you note to be operative in my real world. -- I suggest that it will be easier for you to use the common term 'atheist' for those do not believe in god or gods. In this sense, even Christian believer Greg can be affirmed to be an atheist. Greg does not ascribe supernatural reality to Thor, Mithra, Jupiter or other gods in the pantheon. (interesting is Greg's fussiness about faith, belief and knowledge. I think that he claims 'gnosis' rather than faith. But this is just a poor man's scholasticism, a libertine feminized argument for sure) ___________________________ ** if you trace the etymology of the word 'atheist' you will find that it was borrowed from French with its roots in the Greek word 'atheos' -- and that its meaning is 'without god.' In other words, godless == atheist == without god. So, if you are 'a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods,' then I can honestly and truthfully refer to you as an atheist. However, if you dislike using this common word and have misgivings about its common meaning, then there is a buffet of choice for you of synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, pagan, skeptic, heathen, infidel, freethinker, irreligionist.

Our Greg equivocates on the meaning of 'soul.' It can mean 'animating spirit' and it can mean 'inanimate spirit,' and it can mean a few other things, like a basic cookie dough with additions: "immortal," "incarnated," "separable from 'mind,'" "imbued with the Holy Spirit." If he meant 'immortal soul,' then his Objectivish/Rational peers here without faith in a discarnate spirit world will see his saying as sloppy spiritualism/opinion. I certainly behave as if I had an animating spirit. It can seem at times that this spirit lives on outside me (in my leavings of written language, songs, speeches). I can happily conflate my mind with my 'soul,' and be happy enough when my mind sleeps. I can be perfectly happy believing my soul/mind expires at death. But I think Frediano has extracted the meaningfulness from Greg's apothegm. Despite the passive-aggressive pissing on atheists and agnostics (always welcome at Christmastime!), I think Greg is making a valid point. He is not like the other people here. He believes in God, a divine Jesus, hellfire, heaven, whereas the bulk of us do not. Having established this astonishing-to-him fact, now what?

To all my pals at Objectivist Living, my very best wishes for the New Year. I'll add a Feliz Navidad, a Joyeux Noel, a Happy Christmas, with the same sentiment. May this day be peaceful, orderly, objectively kind and sweet. May you enjoy the good fortune that comes from love and diligence and honesty.

Thanks for this spare and straightfoward recounting, Derek. My heart aches sometimes looking at America next to its glorious ideals. I think the moral imbalance at root is persistent racial segregation, which multiplies in knockon effects of social exclusion. Two heads of state in Ottawa, sharing a joke on the tarmac in 2009:

Thanks for the kind assessments of my research abilities, Greg, Deanna, Adam, Jules. It's very pleasing to get that kind of acknowledgment. I wasn't sure if Greg was serious in his question -- there were links embedded in the post he wondered about, so I thought he ought go back and read at the sources provided, and then ask about any particular bit of information in my post he found dodgy or questionable or of uncertain origin. I cited books by Bachrach and Sabon, and gave a link to the Pam Reynolds Lowery page at Wikipedia. I also gave a link to the Keith Augustine page from which the blockquotes came. There is a certain amount of interpolation of things I had already discovered or become familiar with. I didn't include links, for example, to GM Woerlee's "Near Death Experiences" site, though it has extensive, excellent resources and a thorough analysis of the Reynolds case, among others. Most of the information I gleaned from Woerlee's work was adequately represented by the excerpts from Augustine. I have long been familiar with the types of claims made in the literature (yes, there is a Journal of Near Death Studies), and so I understand why someone would ask "how do you know that"? Greg, if there is something in particular that wasn't covered by the links and references given, please ask. I thank you again for providing the right clues to discovering the story you touted was a garbled rehash of the Reynolds case. You might be interested in the massive site of the International Association of Near Death Studies. This site accords with your bias (the 'afterlife') and the spiritual values of the majority of (non-agnostic/atheist) US citizens. Belief in an afterlife, an immortal soul, angels, hell, heaven, Satan, miracles -- these are held by a majority. So you are in a large company, Greg -- though you must surely understand most OLers do not share these beliefs whatsoever ...

Here is an example of a piece of Fine Art sculpture that could serve as an object of analysis. Tony -- the promoters of this piece celebrate Romantic Realism. Without going down the rabbithole of 'mixed premises' that infest a 'mixed economy' like the USA, can anyone test this artwork against Kamhi's criteria? So, yeah, guys -- is this piece of work morally influential or morally insignificant? We can't, according to Tony, have it both ways. It's one or the other.

Is the concept of 'intelligibility' unintelligible? Do you William, know exactly what you're seeing here -- in human-value terms? Is the concept of 'intelligibility' unintelligible to me? No, I don't think so. Do I know exactly what I am seeing? Yes. In terms of human-value -- do I know what I am seeing? I think I do. However, I came across this and other images by the same artist in 'cultural context' -- so I have a bit of an advantage over your cold reading. Brant had the quickest and surest response -- these are images derived from biology, "real" things of the world that are reconstructed by the artist. Following Kamhi's definition, this artwork: is indeed made with special skill and care/not the product of mere whim or chance.is indeed representational, consisting of two-dimensional images of actual or imagined places and objectsis quite intelligible and emotionally meaningful within its cultural context.has recognizable forms, ideas and values that are not only of personal significance important to the artist who created them but also has the potential to interest and move others.Perhaps the fourth criteria shows the weakest link in the 'fine art' chain of necessaries; from your reaction, Tony, this image does not seem to have the potential to move or interest you. Well, which of the criteria has failed to be demonstrated, to your eyes? Are you issuing a judgement that this piece is Not Art (or not Fine Art)? It is not a photomicrograph. It does depict (is a selective recreation of) an organic structure, a structure that each of us humans depends upon. It does illustrate -- in a novel manner akin to oriental Sume-E style serigraphs** -- something that is difficult to see with the naked eye. So, it may appear to be an abstract painting, or an abstraction of well-studied slice of anatomy ... I really don't understand how you personally interpret this image as espistemologically confusing. Moreover, I do not understand how your confusion compromises any consciousness. Nor do I grasp how your confusion compromises a rational morality. Not at all. This point is not yet intelligible to me -- or rather the image does not shout 'immorality' to me in any way. Sure, it is interesting, or rather intriguing to me that this particular image is seen as backing away from admitting anything (what can a piece of art admit?), let alone having power and influence over societies. Does this item of artwork 'mirror society's dominant philosophy'? Sometimes your phraseology is a bit opaque or overloaded with signifiers. Well, first I would have to understand that you are writing off this example of art as an "incoherent abstract." Do I understand you correctly? You tell us, Tony, please. The artwork above is "morally influential"? Or is it "morally insignificant"? Okay. We can only have it one way -- the correct way -- and since you hold that you can properly and correctly denote this artwork as allied to extreme statism, the ball is in your court. So far, I can glean that you do not think this thing is art. How this non-art accomplishes its terrible work of undermining society and acquiescing to immorality -- I would be interested in a fuller analysis. I put below an image that follows a style of artwork simllar to the first I posted. It would be interesting and perhaps revealing if you could use the same tools of analysis to this second piece as you did with the first. _________________________ ** here's just one example of the style:

I can't argue with the spirit and temper of your response, Frediano. I think a key area where we would find greatest agreement is in considering evolution in living beings and evolution in analogical 'structures' produced by human culture (as enumerated above). Just considering them is fun for me. I remain skeptical that the human organism will evolve 'new' senses in the body-plan even if a million years passes by. Perhaps that is a limitation of my imagination: I can see an evolved/devolved sense of smell (and automatic auxiliary non-conscious pheromone circuits). I can see a greater reach or density in certain kinds of proprioception. I can sort of sketch out a future human able to see more of the spectrum, but can't quite imagine the selective pressures necessitating or rewarding such extensions to the sensoria. So, I am quite happy to read theses that posit a future human evolution in fascinating detail. My lack of imagination -- perhaps unfamiliarity with the cutting edge of speculation on these trans-human topics -- leaves me as yet unconvinced.

From Ellen's timely and helpful citation of Kamhi's Criteria for Visual "Fine Art" Here's a bit of seemingly abstract art: Tony, do you want to give a try using Kamhi's criteria to sort the above image -- or give a stab at interpreting its faults and follies or strengths and morals in terms from your note above? Does this particular image invite us to see a connection between collectivism/statism ... and the IS/ISN'Tness of it? Is it or isn't it, to your mind?

This sounds like a good story. Can you remember anything about her (a name, a year, a place, title of her account -- or the name of the show you listened to) so the rest of us can examine the story? The author I heard on the radio is Judy Bachrach and her book is "Glimpsing Heaven". She began as a hospice worker and later became an investigative journalist. She was a "dead is dead" skeptic whose view changed as she gathered first person interviews for the book.Thanks for the name of the writer/researcher you heard on the radio. I looked for salient details from your retelling, and came up with the name of the actual person Bachrach was talking about: Pam Reynolds Lowery. Pam Reynolds's aneurysm operation happened in 1991 (she died in 2010). Bachrach's 2014 book is not the only one to present the Pam Reynold's story -- Bachrach's retelling relies heavily on details already gleaned and explained by Michael Sabon in his 1998 "Light and Death." You got just a couple of things slightly wrong above, Greg. The aneurysm was not in Pam's neck, but in her brain. The surgery was indeed in response to an emergency (the aneurysm), but Pam was fully briefed on the operation and what it might entail. All the blood in her body was not drained (a complicated mixing and dosing of substances in and of blood and saline solution took place). She didn't wonder why they cut her leg open when they were supposed to be operating on her neck -- she 'heard' an exchange when it was discovered that the first femoral artery they tried was too small to be used in the procedure (they tried and succeeded using her other groin artery). One thing to consider about Pam's case is the amount of time she was 'under' and the various types and 'levels' of sedation used and their particular designed function. To put it simply, Pam wasn't 'dead' at circulatory standstill for but a necessary time to clip her aneurysm. She was unconscious for the greatest time of the operation under general anesthetic, not standstill. The surgery took just around seven hours, and the amount of time Pam's brain (and heart) was at "standstill" -- was a half-hour in the middle of the entire procedure. In reading a few skeptical reviews and investigations, I understand that Pam's case is put forward repeatedly as a 'best case" example of the somewhat mysterious Near-Death Experiences. So, I would expect the accounts to have become more elaborated over time, and for some details to be lost. As well, I expect a few misapprehensions to have crept into the retelling. And so my research found. Here's a brief excerpt from an exceptional site: As Michael Sabom recounts in Light and Death, in August 1991 a then 35-year-old woman he called "Pam Reynolds" (a pseudonym) underwent an innovative procedure to remove a brain aneurysm. The procedure—inducing hypothermic cardiac arrest or "standstill"—involved lowering Pam's body temperature to 60°F, stopping her heart and breathing, and draining the blood from her brain to cool it and then reintroduce it. When her body temperature had reached 60°F and she had no electrical activity in her brain, her aneurysm was removed. About 2 hours after awaking from general anesthesia, Pam was moved into the recovery room still intubated (Sabom, "Light" 46-47). At some point after that, the tube was removed from her trachea and she was able to speak. She reported a classic NDE with a vivid OBE, moving through a "tunnel vortex" toward a "pinpoint of light" that continually grew larger, hearing her deceased grandmother's voice, encountering figures in a bright light, encountering deceased relatives who gave her "something sparkly" to eat, and being 'returned' to her body by her deceased uncle (Sabom, "Light" 42-46). The case was quickly celebrated because of the lack of synaptic activity within the procedure and Pam's report of an apparently veridical OBE at some point during the operation. But it has been sensationalized at the expense of the facts, facts which have been continually misrepresented by some parapsychologists and near-death researchers.[14] Although hailed by some as "the most compelling case to date of veridical perception during an NDE" (Corcoran, Holden, and James), and "the single best instance we now have in the literature on NDEs to confound the skeptics" (Ring, "Religious Wars" 218), it is in fact best understood in terms of normal perception operating during an entirely nonthreatening physiological state. Of the several mistakes in retelling I have researched, the most important is in the timeline: it tends to get squashed. So most accounts suggest that the head-drilling 'wake-up' moment came during the half-hour of standstill. That is not true. Her recollections were during general anesthesia. Two mischaracterizations of this case are particularly noteworthy, as their errors of fact greatly exaggerate the force of this NDE as evidence for survival after death. First, in their write-up of the first prospective study of NDEs, van Lommel and colleagues write: Sabom mentions a young American woman who had complications during brain surgery for a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG [electroencephalogram] of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequentlyverified observations during the period of the flat EEG [emphasis mine] (van Lommel et al. 2044). Second, in his Immortal Remains—an assessment of the evidence for survival of bodily death—Stephen Braude erroneously describes the case as follows: Sabom reports the case of a woman who, for about an hour, had all the blood drained from her head and her body temperature lowered to 60 degrees. During that time her heartbeat and breathing stopped, and she had both a flat EEG and absence of auditory evoked potentials from her brainstem.... Apparently during this period she had a detailed veridical near-death OBE [emphasis mine] (Braude 274). But anyone who gives Sabom's chapters on the case more than a cursory look will see two glaring errors in the descriptions above. First, it is quite clear that Pam did not have her NDE during any period of flat EEG. Indeed, she was as far as a patient undergoing her operation could possibly be from clinical death when her OBE began. Second, she had no cerebral cortical activity for no longer than roughly half an hour. Both of these facts are nicely illustrated in Figure 1 below.** I'd imagine, out of my medical experience, that installing a tube in her leg would happen before they completely shut her down. -- and you would be right, Brant. Greg did not apparently consider the possibility that some of the re-retold details can have gone awry. When he confidently asserts that "those visual and auditory perceptions occurred in a chilled body that had no blood in it, with no heart beat and zero electrical brainwave activity," his confidence is misplaced. His retelling is wrong. I don't think it matters that this story doesn't actually provide evidence of life after death. For those who need gods and an afterlife, evidence is nice but not necessary. I am pretty sure Greg doesn't need evidence from anyone else, nor from the dead past, nor from sketchy retellings of NDEs. Not to believe in gods, not to believe in a soul separate from the body. I believe we individual humans are more than brain/body. I believe we can achieve a sort of immortality. Through our works, through our language, through our art, through our ability to build on our imaginings, we have become gods of the earth, gods of the air, gods of near-space. We are able to individually plug in to the vast interpenetrated networks of human knowledge. We add to it, we subtract from it. To me, the achievements of human beings are astonishing. That our brain of a body is capable of greater useful manipulations of the visible and invisible world than is the brain of any body in another species -- eg, even among the other primates -- this supplies me with all the wonder and awe at 'creation' that I need. To stand awestruck at the universe and at human emergence from the apes ... to grasp the immensity of time and evolution through human inquiry -- this supplies to me a 'religious' feeling that I have never ever gotten from contemplation of the 'divine.' In a way, I find insidious Greg's attempts to malign our materialist viewpoints. He must know that 'the house' is overwhelminingly agnostic if not atheist. He must know that logic and reason and careful painstaking inquiry is what binds us OLers. He must also surely know that we relish arguments that advance knowledge, remove error, distill insights, provide new instances of clarity and depth of understanding. What purpose does it serve (as in this instance of mistaken details) when sloppy or perfunctory reasoning (or masculinized logic) is put in play? Moreover, if the purpose is not to engage discussion, perform reasonable arguments, what is Greg doing here? What is his project? ___________ **

While we wait the thirty or a hundred million years for incipient telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, mediumship, remote viewing, astral travelling and other extensions of the human sensorium to kick in, we have our present accomplishments to fill in a bit. We have extended our abilities beyond the body in significant ways, We came to language and culture, arts and sciences, cities and networks, x-rays, television, radio, telecommunications, the internet. We have the human tools of inquiry that have let us sense the entire spectrum of the IR band, and moreover, the 'sounds' of the cosmic background radiation, the entire electromagnetic spectrum, microscopic changes in blood flow in the brain. We can 'feel' the heat of distant stars and galaxies and 'sense' the contours of objects at the atomic scale. Adjunct to human senses abound in many fields of inquiry. We can 'see' magnetic fields and cosmic rays. We can 'feel the effects of gravity in dark matter. We can hear the voices of the long-dead. We humans have in our cultural and technological powers entered the realms of 'seeing' and predicting that were once only given by seers and prophets and witches and gods, I think. It's this acceleration of human 'senses' by extra-human auxiliaries that makes me think it will be unlikely that humans will evolve seeming supernatural abilities via 'new' senses. We have our technological adjuncts -- why would we need evolve them in our own bodies when we can 'plug in'?

In my stinko pinko way, I agree with resuming normal state-to-state relations with Cuba. In itself, this inserts and extends America and American values into Cuba in several ways. It regularizes migrations, visa regimes, allows for future Embassy meetings with civil society folk (the dissident Cubans who are not quite jailed but otherwise given no room besides the internet to criticize or challenge the system). I also agree with the slight easings here and there of travel and ability to access US banking and financing, and the new limit to remittances. The details on how the US will insert itself in telecom are to come, but it looks like a victory for the Cuban people. What hasn't changed is that US citizens still cannot get tourist visas. And the trade embargo. Who knows what the new Congress will do with the latter. Most Americans who visit Cuba will still break the law, when they fly Montreal-Havana or Toronto-Varadero on a beach hotel package. Canada's Trudeau was a mighty leftist of sorts, in that he reestablished normal relations with Cuba in the seventies, in the age of Nixon's detente with China and the USSR. I've always wondered, and more deeply after the fall of communism in Europe, when Cuba would crack. I think getting "normal" with Cuba is a good wedge. It's been so long. That island is whipped economically. Its system barely feeds and clothes and houses its own citizens. At the same time the people are well-educated and enterprising. It's a country just waiting to join the 21st century, debased by a bankrupt and decrepit totatlitarian dictatorship. I can't but support anything that might help revive individual risk and reward and lessen the hard hand of the Cuban state on its people. The last steps in Cuba itself getting more 'normal' will probably initiate when the Castros die. If their successors cannot liberalize their economy like China, the infrastructure will continue to decay and the ability of Cubans to be economic actors will stall. From reading a few dissident Cuban sites, the ordinary Cuban was surprised by the news delivered by Raul on TV. Surprised and very positive. They certainly know what changes need to be achieved. I think the younger generation of Cuban-Americans will be strongly positive for this change, and for America to dump its blockade. The older generation will not accept detente. In the end, I hope the Cuban people can make good use of better relations with the USA. I hope they get the opportunities to fix their wrecks, and get on with being a normal country. I hope those who step up after the Castros are able to manage a transition bloodlessly. I revile the dictatorship, I might mention. I want the people there to be able to live free as I do in Canada, and for the creaky old communist system to crumble unto death. Is this an adroit move by Obama or an executive over-reach? Don't care. I see this as a tacit defeat for Cuba the state, and the beginning of the end. __________________________ Trudeau and Castro in Havana

Quantum weirdness could refer to a few unique properties of the so-called quantum world ... or with the near-term promise of quantum computing. I think a detailed electric 'map' of the brain -- alongside the maps of protein cascades, the chemical mapping of millions of possible combinations -- would probably be the place where we could discover actual quantum effects. What you say about consciousness -- needing to understand how it actually works -- I agree. Have you read anything from Antonio Damasio? His books come to the subject of consciousness (and the brain) through 'defects' in consciousness. I recommend his 2012 Self Comes To Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. It helps to have read his earlier books to adopt his phraseology and definitions, but he is a good enough writer that even difficult concepts are intelligible.** Damasio looks at the levels of functioning 'awareness' that develop as different 'levels' of the brain come 'online.' His work to understand consciousness is rooted in the study of patients who have had various brain injuries (including coma, locked-in syndrome, and other effects of brain lesions). Shut-in syndrome is close to the absolute edge of consciousness embodied -- when the body is almost completely paralyzed by injury to particular areas of the brainstem -- where the person is consciously aware, but gives no sign. It's a weird, flat, emotionless world. At the other end of the scale, Damasio looks at the effects of brain lesions in areas that contribute to a sense of self, executive control, and the all-important emotions, without which decision-making (free will?) is practically destroyed. Here's Damasio at a TED talk, as a sample of his overall project -- "The quest to understand consciousness". Ted also supplies a transcript if you hate watching videos ... I think that once we humans understand more about the many-layered and plastic functions of the brain, when we can finally make headway on the 'hard problem' of consciousness, then we will be very closed to designing a machine with a 'self,' or a 'soul' or a quasi-human independent 'mind.' I think we will be thirty years away from this until the day when Damasio's work (and the work of other fine researchers and philosophers of mind) seems basic and inchoate. So, I will answer a resounding yes if the question is Will humans ever succeed in embuing a robot with high-level intelligence. I think we can barely conceive just how much progress in brain and cognitive sciences can happen over the next hundred years of human history. ___________________________________ ** for a brief explanation of Damasio's theory of consciousness, see the fairly good Wikipedia entry.

This sounds like a good story. Can you remember anything about her (a name, a year, a place, title of her account -- or the name of the show you listened to) so the rest of us can examine the story?

There are only three references to Bacon listed in the Index. One is a contrast between Frick's "sensibilities and predilections" and those of the collector, Steve Cohen, whose "avowedly favorite work is Screaming Pope, by Francis Bacon" (pg. 205). One is a passing reference to Pollock's and Bacon's "work mirror[ing] their confused and tormented lives" (pg. 235). The third is a footnote which says: Ellen Thanks for the references, Ellen. I note that Kamhi has at her website a full list with hyperlinks of 'Images of Works Cited in Who Says That’s Art?' But only one Bacon is noted -- one of his many versions of 'Screaming Pope.' Using the Look Inside feature at Amazon, I tried to find the text/page that refers to "Thompson's color plates," but it is not included in pages reproduced there. It is interesting that she would find a couple of Bacon's works to be almost-art. Is this art?

Some Chesterton fans and followers aren't sure about the provenance of the pithy saying. At the Chesterton.org, an article sorts through the various citings/sightings: "When Man Ceases to Worship God." It's nice to invoke god/s now and again at Objectivist Living. Were the epigram close to true, then we OLers who have no faith in a personal (or even half-way attentive) God are but a mad assemblage of 'anything goes' beliefs and pet theories, in persistent logical conflict with each other, staggering from one materialist conundrum to the next, with morality a sinkhole, faithlessness an existential terror. In other words, if the saying is just-so, then we are almost all depraved beings without the framework of faith in the supernatural. I think that notion is countered by what actually unites almost all posters: a reverence for human reason, an attachment to reality and the tools of rational inquiry. Even in the most outlying areas (like J Neil Schulman's god-encounters), it is in the language of reason that notions of a spirit-world are justified (of course we have had many characters come and go who only tentatively accept reason as best practice). Greg's touting of his spiritual beliefs and his pithy sayings are entertaining, but he has not to my knowledge ever assembled his notions into a coherent written whole. So a convenient quoat from a Catholic writer is just that, a rather smug categorical denunciation of the faithless, via pseudo-logic. On an Objectiv-ish forum, it's sort of funny. Greg is implying that we agnostic/atheist are all lost, lost, lost without God. -- as for the subject of It Ain't Art, I am sometimes baffled by the prices paid for what Kamhi (and likely Rand) categorize as NotArt. For example, this triptych by Francis Bacon hauled in $142 million. Even if Rand/Kamhi/Torres/etc are entirely correct about It Ain't Art ... do their explanations of why humans value NotArt make sense? Why on earth is Francis Bacon's work of NotArt valued so highly? Will the 'art world' even have Kamhi's flights of erudition on its radar?

I am sad to learn of Nathaniel's death.

Off the topic of Bill Cosby and the rape-by-media he has faced ... up here in Canada a big sexual assault flap led to charges being laid today against the former CBC radio star Jian Ghomeshi. -- one of the creepiest allegations made against him was by a former co-worker on his CBC show. He is purported to have said to her: "I want to hate-fuck you." I still don't know exactly what hate-fuck means (to Jian), but is sounds like assault. How would one consent to be hate-fucked? This guy's career is completely destroyed for the foreseeable future because of the allegations. Here is a picture of him leaving court today. This is front-page news in the savage north.

I don't think anyone here can help to the degree an in-person conversation can. I would point you to a person with whom you could have a face-to-face. I'd suggest you identify someone in your life to talk frankly about your mood and loss of motive power. If you have no desire to do anything, and this is a state you do not want to continue, and you are asking for help on OL, I would say you are half-way to recovering what you have lost. It is not easy to ask for help, even if anonymously. But it is an essential step on the road of feeling better. We none of us know enough about you to be able to pick out a person or persons for you to share your discomfort and distress. And you haven't given details of the current mood enough for any of us laymen to offer you a proper psychological 'diagnosis.' Besides that, nobody here has the professional chops for that. But, this layman thinks that you are having a bout of depression, and that you need to talk to someone who knows about depression. I also think you need to talk to someone who is bound to keep your confidences -- like a psychologist or physician or nurse practitioner or counselor ... Of course, you can do this while also applying yourself to the books, poems, story-rebuilding, and physical and mental exertions suggested by the other worthy laymen. If you are having a serious depression, you may or may not recover in a given span of time. The state might revert, or might persist, become chronic and even more acute. In which case, having a discussion with a professional will help you 'diagnose' yourself in particulars, given your history, your cognitive habits, your environment, your stressors, family history, etc. You will then be better informed to 'prescribe' for yourself a plan -- whatever you rationally decide can get you out of the emotional and motivational slump. The more understanding you gain of the 'black dog' of depression, the better actions you can take, I think. Of the other useful and ennobling advice given so far, exercise is paramount. You are already in the gym, giving yourself the feedback endorphins that exercise enables. The suggestions for different forms of exercise you can filter through your druthers. You are lucky that you enjoy the exercise of weight-lifting ... I'll also add a couple of links. One is to a nice middle-of-the-road interactive symptom checklist -- this allows you to answer your own questions, even if only to discard the notion that you are actually in a serious depression. It will help you take stock, and measure the knock-on effects of what you are feeling. By self-assessing the reality/severity/impact on your life, you can ready yourself for the 'reading cure' + 'physical cure' + cognitive reframing + what science-based medicine has to offer. The last link is to a terrific episode of a Brain Science podcast . It concerns the beneficial effects of exercise on the brain, as explained by John Ratey. Ratey is very much on the side of exercise as a cognitive 'rehabilitator.' I'll wish you good luck on the road back to optimal motivation and more pleasure in life!