william.scherk

Carol, I decided to give you a cheat sheet. These are all, needless to say, wrong answers. The law of identity states: If you don't got no picture ID, you don't get no vote. What human choice leads to the mind-body dichotomy? An extra helping of lasagne. Thinking according to Objectivism is: choosing not to breed. What is implied by the notion of "reality as it really is?" The Objectivist Housewives of Vancouver. According to Objectivism an "Abstraction" is: different from the dictionary meaning. You got a problem with that? The opposite policy of the concrete-bound mentality is exemplified by: new light-weight ceramic/carbon-fibre mentality. What method of cognition is required to achieve objectivity? Peikovian Classical Conditioning. The four steps in the generation of an emotion are: wince, whine, blame, preen. Fill in the blanks: Every virtue, according to Objectivism, has two aspects: Commercial and Industrial. Fill in the blanks: (According to Ayn Rand) The conservatives want to rule man's dangly bits; the liberals, his wallet. Fill in the blanks: Politics is to economics as Puccini is to Chekhov. Fill in the blanks: A man's wealth under capitalism depends on two factors: Tax/regulatory burden, and on Republicanism.

Marotta, you crushed me. I got 72. I won't give away the right answer/s, but will share the ones that got away, below. All of the responses to the questions below were rejected by the testmaker. I am ashamed of my C-. Tell me, though -- will you return obsessively to the site for a retest until you fix all your shameful slips too? Carol, by absorbing the full morphic field of my and MEM's answers, you can pull yourself above the water. I think MEM is wrong that you will not be able to get above 25. I expect Jonathan, Boydstun, REB and our secret friend to get closest to 100, and you will be somewhere in the upper-middle on the bell curve. I got all these WRONG: The law of identity states: Match the following definition to the proper concept: "volitionally to adhere to reality by following certain rules of method, a method based on facts and appropriate to man's form of cognition." Match the following definition to the proper concept: "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses." The three versions of the primacy of consciousness that have dominated Western philosophy are: Who is the philosophic father of the personal version of the primacy of consciousness? What human choice leads to the mind-body dichotomy? Ayn Rand referred to materialists as: The fallacy of the frozen abstraction consists of: Thinking according to Objectivism is: What is implied by the notion of "reality as it really is?" The exertion of mental effort can become automatic. Why can't a determinist hold anything as true, including his own theory? Match the following definition to the proper concept: "an existent regarded as a separate member of a group of two or more similar members." Units exist in reality, apart from a conceptual consciousness. According to Objectivism an "Abstraction" is: The opposite policy of the concrete-bound mentality is exemplified by: What method of cognition is required to achieve objectivity? The four steps in the generation of an emotion are: Only self-preservation can be an ultimate goal, which serves no end beyond itself. Fill in the blanks: Every virtue, according to Objectivism, has two aspects: _______ and _________. The concept of "egoism" identifies merely one aspect of an ethical code. It tells us not what acts a man should take, but who should profit from them. A man can avidly pursue irrational values and thereby gain pleasure (of a sort) from the process of harming himself. Fill in the blanks: (According to Ayn Rand) The conservatives want to rule man's_________________; the liberals, his_________. Fill in the blanks: Politics is to economics as _______ is to _______. The philosophically objective and the socially objective are corollaries. Fill in the blank: A man's wealth under capitalism depends on two factors: _______________, and on ___________________. Economic power is political power. Faith is inconsistent with capitalism.

I take a very humble position on Determinism. In the 'macro world' determinism is a given. What comes before determines what comes after. Today is a product of yesterday. The past determines the future. My thoughts determine my action. That is so general as to be tautological, but that is what I see at the level of my own perceptions. I have never seen anything, perceived anything directly in which I came to doubt causality as a function of time. Because I am what I am (a man/human) I am carried away by the 'arrow of time.' From a human vantage, what preceded is the very best clue to what will succeed. I am otherwise pretty much bereft of well-seated philosophical beliefs. At the Cosmic Level there are grand puzzles of causality. If I can only feel the arrow of time going forward in my organism, and if my field of vision extends only to the horizon, and if that horizon is constantly moving forward in time as the mark of the future beyond the now, my perceptions are still constrained. How do I make sense of such things as 'dark energy' or 'vacuum energy' or 'dark matter,' when these notions are implicate in a physics I do not understand? I have never perceived dark energy or matter. I know only that these two things are predicate on measurements/perceptions of anomalies in the equations following the Standard Model. At the quantum level, Paul, I am utterly ignorant in comparison to the names we associate with quantum theories. I can barely comprehend the lessons of causality from quantum effects and observation, yet I understand that the mechanics (Quantum Mechanics) are exquisite prediction machines. I understand from my science reading only the basics of why our silicon-world of instantaneous GPS is possible due to our understanding of the quantum world. So, it is only at the level of my greatest competence, the personal, perceptual level, that I feel able to comment intelligently on causality. I just do not have the chops for cosmology or for the quantum realms. I am then a 'soft' determinist. I recognize the 'hard problem' in philosophy at its juncture with science, but it occurs to me that much practical work in unravelling the puzzle can be done in the sciences while philosophy grapples with itself, new findings and new theoretical approaches. A soft determinist is pretty much what Xray and you and Tony and I all are, all we can be. We know from personal perceptions that we have will. We know that actions are usually preceded. We tend to be surprised when events appear to be disjoint with this background expectation of action preceding reaction. A soft determinist like me will have to fudge over things he does not understand. If what goes before generally determines what comes after, what are the exceptions? In my crude personal philosophy, I just open two envelopes into which I can put the things I do not intuitively understand, Quantum and First Cause. Does that make sense? As an individual, I know nothing of quantum mechanics or cosmology, certainly not enough to puzzle out in my own brain all the details of who is right and what is suspect, which is leading edge and which is debris. As a realist, I have to acknowledge my ignorance. I can follow along argument to a certain point with comprehension, but beyond is beyond. My orientation and point of crossing with Objectivish things is as a Realist. My basic orientation since a young age was to separate what is real from what may be illusion. I have a few tools in my kit, but no great sword with which to cut through ultimate puzzles. I can only assemble my knowledge by my best application of Reason. All this long blather on my ignorance to return to field your question to Bob and Xray: Is there the possibility of some basic principle in physics, outside of strict determinism, indeterminism and a supernatural grand designer, that can account for the emergence of an element of self-determinism or intrinsic determinism in the universe? This is dense, with many qualifiers. What is at issue, where is the question's centre? Here? -- "emergence of an element of self-determinism or intrinsic determinism to the universe" Here? -- "[outside] basic principle in physics" Here? -- "outside of strict determinism, indeterminism, and a supernatural grand designer" Three determisms, then: Strict Determinism, Indeterminism, Grand Designer. I read Grand Designer as gawd,, frankly, so set that aside, because the question asks me to set it aside as Outside. Similarly, I can view the qualifiers as a list, not descriptives. Then we are asked to find something outside of basic principles (of physics), outside of strict determinism, outside of indetermism, outside of a supernatural grand designer. And then knit physics back in, since the question begins, "Is there ... some basic principle in Physics ..." OK. Outside of strict determinism, outside of a gawd, outside of indeterminism, is there a basic principle in Physics ... that can account for .... the emergence ... of an element ... of self-determinism/intrinsic determinism ... to the universe. OK. I discard the things to discard and confront the emergence of an element of self-determinism in the universe. That is what is being examined. We have the emergence, the self-determinism (or element therein/preceding) ... in history. Do I understand this correctly if by way of example I insert Will? I do not add in qualifier human will or free will, because Paul may be describing a lesser holon, perhaps the first glimmering of sentient action, a new agency in the universe, a thing that acts to move itself and position itself and react to external events in ways outside the usual repertoire of mere lifeless matter. Paul, this is an effort to re-establish bona fides in this thread. Long before I got teary-eyed in this thread, long before scapegoats had their throats slit, you put up a good question. Michael answered the question with Sheldrake/fields ... which eventuated the throatslitting and goat hunt when I countered that Sheldrake's stuff was fruitless. So, do I understand the question correctly so far? It is intriguing that this causal spark led on to the events we witness, so maybe I can reset the anger meter by going back to first things.

William, I have been mulling whether to challenge this or not, and what to do about the bad taste it is leaving in my mouth. In my view, you did not even look at the video I embedded and posted an identical one as if it were new. Normally, when someone completes missing information, he says he is... er... completing missing information. He doesn't present something as if it were brand new with a smug "recommendation" for the audience. In my view, you misunderstood what I mean by missing information. The missing information was the draft post, which had my first reference to the Google Video. I remembered having written it, but I misremembered having put it in play. So when the link showed up in line, the information that I also watched the video (the whole video) was missing. I looked at the video you embedded, brother. I clicked through to Youtube to discover the date and venue. Youtube had no date or venue information. I searched for another instance of the video (after having watched it to extract information on its title) to find out more details about the talk, perhaps a transcript. I found no transcript but found the Google version of the video, and then found the site the contained the line-up of hucksters at the freaking conference. The Google video is the better representation of the talk to my eyes because it said on the page where it happened and what it was called. Your embed did not. So, you accuse me of gameplaying, denial, gotcha-ism, and lying about watching the video. It is obvious I watched the freaking video, because my next posts referred closely to and cited and excerpted the freaking video. Please advise on my newest thought-crime in contesting your characterization. Whatever you decide to do is good, Michael. I am interested enough in Sheldrake to continue my posts highlighting and exploring his ideas -- and to continue to post critical comments on his ideas. If you want to step back from examining Sheldrake and his claims, his narrative of science delusions, no worries. You write that "This does not mean that I buy into his theory 0% or 100%." Fair enough. You have other fish to fry. Despite your characterization of William as some story-enforcer, a bad guy, I see myself doing good, reasonable probing of theories and implication. One thing on your list of archetypes-of-story-voice might be Factchecker. Is there room in your story -- besides a stoning, malevolent 'basher' type -- for more neutral inquiry? Is it all slurs, 'debunk,' bash, cast stones? Are all the voices who counter Rupert Sheldrake a cohort of this slimey crew? Do they all harbour 'the bug' of True Belief? You might be right about the Story. It could be that Saviour Science cultists will do their dangedest to poor Sheldrake. They will bash, they will slur, they will cast stones at poor Rupert Sheldrake. They are but conductors of The Dominant Discourse, The Orthodoxy, Them, another tribe, power-mad and bent on destruction. But, what about his Story, as Sheldrake Saviour of Science? If, as you tell Carol, it is always story, always tribes, always saviours, always power ... and rarely and glancingly about truth, then how about examining Sheldrake's story for the awful elements of power politics it surely contains? Sheldrake is pretty clear that despite its delusions, his ideas can save Science! As for 'bashing' and 'stoning' Sheldrake, is this the only tale to tell of critical attention to Sheldrake? Is all critical attention paid, every argument, every doubt, every pointed question and observation of critics 'bashing' and 'slurs' and so on? What I get from your responses to me is that you see me allied to the foxes of Nuclear Destruction and Evul, The Orthodox Science Saviour Story Power Monger Elite Stoners. The use of language to demonize my opinions is really over the top, brother. You cast me as some kind of odious, sneaky, lying, game-playing stooge of an evangelical movement that wants to win at all costs. You underline to readers that my game has nothing to do with truth, all to do with base motives, with a crushing Saviour Story ... I do not see myself in the story you tell of my engagement with Sheldrake. I think you are unfair in your comments. Those who are still paying attention to Rupert's Story, as told by him in his most recent book The Science Delusion(UK)/Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery(US), know that he claims ten essential dogmas of science. Carol, it might be just you and me, so go get another cup of coffee and have a gander at this, from the introduction:

In an interview that led to a piece in the Guardian ("Rupert Sheldrake: the 'heretic' at odds with scientific dogma"). we get a cryptic answer from the man on his choice of book title: The Guardian wisely chose a life-style writer to take on the Sheldrake profile, rather than someone who has had science training or knowledge, and so there are no intelligent questions asked of the author. For example, find in the article how the dogmas that are said to afflict science are presented, with the questions attendant to the dogmas/doctrines beggared**:"Are the laws of nature fixed?" (meaning that the Dogma as he sees it is The Laws of Nature are Fixed) "Is matter unconscious?" (meaning Dogma says Matter is Unconscious} "Is nature purposeless?" (Nature is Purposeless) "Are minds confined to brains?" (Minds are confined to Brains)By beggaring the question, I mean that the very statements of presumed dogma are assumed to be accurate sketches of Science. These four are probably the least contentious of the ten and are probably the most accurate. It is in the ballpark, so to speak, and so Sheldrake has identified a cleavage between his body of assumptions and those of the grand edifice that he has self-excluded from. So, to biology, I think he is correct in the large -- but only if we accept his underlying terminology and assumptions embedded. In biological sciences, the components and their relations are not assumed to have a consciousness separate from their chemical interactions. For example, Sheldrake would be right to flesh out the Unconscious Matter at the level of biochemistry. The signals and chemical reactions at this level are not assumed to have an elan vital or invisible motivator. Biochemists look at the level of the material and in the material. But this does not mean that the next level (or implicated level as with systems biology) do not look for things that could be crudely characterized as consciousness. I think it is important not to let words trip us up too much, so bear with me. I argue against Sheldrake that biology is very much concerned with the components of consciousness. This consciousness is approached at the level of the elements under study. When we are at the level of cell biochemistry, we are looking at the mechanics of communication. Crudely, how does the cell take in information from outside its lipid barrier? How is the cell 'conscious' of the surrounding cells? How would a cascade of blood-borne hormones (from a conscious brain) affect the actions inside the cell? How does the cell 'know' when it is time to die? This is the kind of 'consciousness' that can be examined at the level of biochemistry, cell biology. This is the 'consciousness of the cell' that is studied hard as we speak. Do you follow that, Carol? That Sheldrake is right to say that Science considers Matter to be Unconscious, but at the same time Sheldrake is wrong that Science considers Matter to be Unconscious? I do this without making mention of the invisible new memory-plan-blueprint-field unknown to physics that somehow guides the detail of chemistry. So here again Sheldrake is right and wrong. Science does not yet see -- in the gross aggregate -- a need for an additional actor (in the morphic field) of spiritual consciousness separated theoretically in time. So science does discard or not put under scrutiny that 'something extra,' that extra layer of speculation on non-physical actors such as psi, phlogiston, N-Rays, ether, etcetera -- once they fail to show up where they should show up. It follows that the other three Dogmas that Sheldrake cites can be examined for underlying assumptions tied to language. Does "Science" say with one ringing voice that Minds are Confined to Brains? Yes and No. There is not much in science of the brain that a priori assigns an actor 'Mind' as independent of the flesh. Sheldrake is right here. And yet, Science glorious Science does daily grapple with the mystery of the Mind in Flesh. The 'details' are the frontier, the coal-faces of inquiry. If it does not consider a something extra (spiritual, of another realm, an orthogonal immortal personality with no physicial manifestation), is this a modern encrustation of dogma as Sheldrake asserts, or simply the design of the sciences? If he is correct that Science is instrinsically Materialist, is it a recent corruption? Carol, if you look at the more rigorous of the experiments he has published, you can see that he does ape the format of the scientific paper (most closely to those of the social sciences, however). The tests he applies to his results are fairly standard insofar as they present statistical methods. This is why a few folks outside the paranormal field have worked together with him or have entered into printed exchanges with him. For example, the folks associated withCSI (the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, formerly CSICOP) published critiques and rejoindersby Sheldrake to his research on The Staring Effect. I find notable that the challenges, exchanges, followups, etc, did NOT appear in the journal where his findings first appeared. This underlines the dissociation from normal science that afflicts all ofSheldrake's work. He himself has built the wall between him and 'normal science.' Where science sets aside shoddy or unproved or disconfirmed hypotheses, to the circular or pending file, it is notable indeed that Sheldrake does not drop anything from his theory. Nothing in the exchanges I have noted caused him to shift even one comma in the wall of theory. No findings set aside by another as uninterpretable or insignificant are accepted by Sheldrake as weak -- he does contortions to make sure every dud or marginal result is massaged to significance.Instead of circumscribing his conclusions (Morphic Fields are Real and Psychic Dogs Prove It!) he expands them. See that lineup from the conference where he presented the video in question. Not one person on the line-up was there to challenge or question -- they all larded on MORE extrapolations -- and none of these wilder extrapolations was challenged by Sheldrake. That was not a scientific conference. This was shilling and ass-kissing by New Age 'healers' almost to a man ... Carol, if you care to have a look at one or more examples of the original papers presented, note that the argument for psychic animals and feeling eyes on your head and crossword-learning fields is always presented as a statistical argument, and that his interlocutors at SI challengehim stoutly his interpretation. The signal in his findings (signals ofabove-chance psychic 'hits) are always on the margins. Even if the stats areviewed rosily, the function of a psychic dog or parrot are never robust andrepeatable. See also the gulf between his reading of the psychic parrot experiments,where he tangled with Robert ToddCarroll and others -- outside the pages of the journal in question, Iunderline heavily again the fact that Sheldrake does not indulge this kind ofexchange in the actual peer-reviewed literature in which his claims firstappear (I append a list of references from the Wikipedia page on 'The PsychicStaring Effect' at bottom. It is worth tracking down the Journal ofConsciousness Studies references to see what passes for peer-review therein.♥ _____________ || (from the Guardian feature: 'In America, the book is called Science SetFree, which [sheldrake] thinks is probably a better title. "They wereaware that if they called it The Science Delusion it would be seen asa rightwing tract that was anti-evolution and anti-climate change. And I wantno part of that."' ** Sheldrake notes in the intoduction to the book (via Amazon) that he uses the list of dogmas asquestions: 'I will turn each of these doctrines into a question. Entirely new vistas open up when a widely acceptedassumption is taken as the beginning of an inquiry, rather than as unquestionable truth. For example, the assumption that nature is machine-like or mechanical becomes a question, "Is nature mechanical?" The assumption that matter is unconscious becomes "Is matter unconscious?" and so on.' ♥ Titchener, E. B. "The 'feeling of being stared at.'" Science,1898, New series Volume 8, pages 895-897. Rupert Sheldrake, Papers on The Sense of Being Stared At. . David F. Marks and John Colwell (2000). The Psychic Staring Effect: An Artifact of Pseudo Randomization. Skeptical Inquirer, 9/1/2000. Lobach, E.; Bierman, D. (2004). "The Invisible Gaze: Three Attempts to Replicate Sheldrake's Staring Effects" . Proceedings of the 47th Parapsychological Association Convention. pp. 77–90. Sheldrake, Rupert (2005). The Sense of Being Stared At Part 1: Is it Real or Illusory? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12(6):10-31. Sheldrake, Rupert (2003). The Sense of Being Stared At: And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind, London: Hutchinson. Rupert Sheldrake (2005). The Sense of Being Stared At, and open peer commentary. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12:6, 4-126. David F. Marks and John Colwell (2000). The Psychic Staring Effect: An Artifact of Pseudo Randomization, Skeptical Inquirer, September/October 2000. Sheldrake, Rupert. "Skeptical Inquirer (2000)", March/April, 58-61

Bonus morphogenesis video featuring the fruit fly, to make up for the dreary tone of what follows. "Migration of pole-cells from posterior end"! "The hind-gut envaginates"! "The groove then seals off, as the cells that remain exterior zipper up"! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb6TJzTLg_E Actually, OL readers--including you--could have looked at the video I embedded two days ago, seeing that it's the exact same video (on YouTube instead of on Google Video). Michael, you asked upthread earlier if either Paul and I were looking at what you were looking at, asked if we had watched the whole video . I saw no need to answer, as my next answers referred to the content of the video. Confusion comes from a missing bit of information. Here below is part of a comment that I did not post. You" title="">You and I have discussed Sheldrake before of course, so I thought you were being playfully procedural. In the unposted draft I gave the whole lineup of the conference where his video was shot. The video is the same, the notation is different. The Youtube version doesn't give any information like date or title or whatever. The Google Video I mentioned and linked to (first in the draft below) is more forthcoming. You are right that a person interested in reviewing the first eleven minutes of the video could click back a page and scroll upthread and watch the first eleven minutes of your embed rather than just click the link I provided. The result is the same, so I thank you. Market targeting! I haven't finished the distillation of the first eleven minutes that introduces morphogenetic fields. i have only cut up the first five minutes so far, so bear with me if you are interested in the nuts and bolts of my concerns. A couple of quotes that will feature are at the bottom.** Yes. I am listening to it for the second time through as I write this. It contains nothing new -- Sheldrake has written copiously, and certain phrases, explanations and potted analogies and examples recur in his work. The title of his talk, incidentally, was The Morphogenetic Universe. I am familiar with Sheldrake. He has been writing and lecturing on the same subjects since 1981. The video represents an hour and some of ground well-trodden, with nothing new presented in the video. The lecture is from 2007, as noted at Google Video's copy: Here is the lineup a the lecture. ** "Morphic fields are the organizing fields of self-organizing systems at all levels of complexity. They underly the organization of minds, of bodies, of crystals of plants, of molecules, of stars and of galaxies. They are the fields that give things their form, their shape, their organization." "Matter arises from fields, not fields from matter. Fields are not made of matter, but rather matter's made of fields, of energy bound within fields." "In Quantum Theory, quantum matter fields, particles are vibrations within quantum fields." "Nobody understands how embryos develop." "DNA and chemicals alone can't explain morphogenesis. All biologists agree on this. Molecular biology too." "What tells the cells what to do? The answer within Biology, the now very mainstream answer is that it is morphogenetic fields. That's what shapes it. An invisible shaping blueprint."

To continue on the subject of morphogenetic fields, OL readers need not submit to more than the first eleven minutes of Sheldrake's 2007 lecture to get it from the source. All the major claims are laid out, and what little citation he does is done there. I mean to quote from the video, compare Sheldrake assertions against extant research. The language of the scientific disciplines implicated may seem like jargon, even highly faluted jargon, but I actually found it delightful to learn of integrin, and other specific actors in the regulatory network attending a cell, both genetic and epigenetic. It was rewarding to review various sites and explications on morphogenesis -- the details are intriguing and helped me see where the 'rock-faces' have moved and what remains unknown in our understanding of developmental biology. I even met something called Morphogen and Operon ... While my two remaining fans wait, faint with hope of closure for the shortened video of Sheldrake's morphogenetic claims, here is some homework I am going to to: find online anything and everything that Sheldrake has written concerning 'epigenetics'. Since he clearly says that DNA and chemicals are not enough to explain morphogenesis, he will have said or written something about epigenetics. If not, we can write him a polite enquiry. I am giving myself two extra falute points for doing this fun stuff. Look, Ma! Signal transduction pathways!

Here are a few images and texts I found at the summary page on epigeneticsfrom the Universityof Utah's Genetic Science Learning Centre. A fun, illustrated diversion or side-alley to my earlier points of discussion, but one that I hope illustratesone of my concerns. Even if you think Sheldrake has it right -- that a morphic field surely mustguide development (among other things) adjunct to the 'genetic code' in livingthings, I think it bears looking at how that posited field might act among theprocesses research has uncovered. To identify, implicate, tease out its operation and its potency from today's findings would be useful to Sheldrake, but he does not ever refer to today's state of knowledge nor note the current 'rock-face' of studies into that which puzzled him as a gap in scientific knowledge circa 1981. Knowing now of the many 'flags' and communications that a cell receives andregisters in its lifetime, can we see a place for or a need for extra invisible'resonances' in this developmental matrix -- a necessary 'other' to explain howspatial and temporal development is accomplished? If the morphic field(s) do have useful relevance to epigenetics,morphogenetics, gene regulation, methylation and so on, what would be thesignals that would indicate the operation of such a field? By wandering at the edge of current research, questions come to my mind:would Sheldrake be able to link up these findings with his theories? Does moreknowledge obviate the need for a new special mechanism? Would anything in his theory change in light of fuller understanding of themechanisms? Click the link above to get the whole fun and informative page, and see whatcomes to mind as still necessitating an extra morphic field. Is the explanatorygap descried by Sheldrake in 1981 still as large and forbidding? Though the page does not get down to the details of what is known of morphogenesis today (as with Wikipedia's notes, which are cogent to this thread), it gives glimpse enough of the field to lead further inquiry at UU's site. There you can read about adhesion molecules and laminin, fibronectin, and integrins -- and how to induce signal transduction cascades! Proteins Carry Signals to the DNA Gene Regulatory Proteins Have Two Functions Experiences Are Passed to Daughter Cells The Changing Epigenome Informs Gene Expression Cells Listen for Signals The epigenome changes in response to signals. Signals come from inside thecell, from neighboring cells, or from the outside world (environment). Early in development, most signals come from within cells orfrom neighboring cells. Mom's nutrition is also important at this stage. Thefood she brings into her body forms the building blocks for shaping the growingfetus and its developing epigenome. Other types of signals, such as stresshormones, can also travel from mom to fetus. After birth and as life continues, a wider variety ofenvironmental factors start to play a role in shaping the epigenome. Socialinteractions, physical activity, diet and other inputs generate signals thattravel from cell to cell throughout the body. As in early development, signalsfrom within the body continue to be important for many processes, includingphysical growth and learning. Hormonal signals trigger big changes atpuberty. Early in development, genes are "poised" like runners in the starting blocks,ready to jump to action. In a differentiated cell, only 10 to 20% of the genes are active. Differentsets of active genes make a skin cell different from a brain cell. Environmental signals such as diet and stress can trigger changes in geneexpression. Epigenetic flexibility is also important for forming newmemories. Thanks, Paul, for the notes and observations upthread. I drafted another reply that I will post to you backstage. My concerns have been stated and illustrated as best I can, so I will sit back and watch the rest of the ride.

I am a cranky old skeptic who has had a snootful of wobbly notions and wish-horses. Sometimes I half-jokingly suggest to MSK that where we disagree but are fixed on the same thing, chiseling away, we might each reveal something true from the thing under scrutiny. Where we most often disagree is perhaps where I see harsh critical scrutiny and he sees attack or bashing. Paul, Sheldrake extrapolates beyond reason, to my eyes. That might be the framework for both our senses of his theories' shortcomings. This is what I refer to when I indicate notion profusion, over-extrapolation, a cart-before-horse process of discovery. Here is some commentary summarizing his first book. What occured to me when first reading the book and what recrystalized on reading the summary was how all these incongruous elements could all be knitted up without first checking initial premises. Yow! Everything is a murky, untouchable field with an inherent memory. Of course what makes Sheldrake a bit of an untouchable is this insouciance in overturning Darwin, DNA and genetics -- he pays no nevermind to epigenetics or the answers to interesting questions in developmental biology, he just does not engage with current research ... only the murky fields of his imagination can properly explain evolution. This is the first and most obvious sign of a crank, self-exclusion and withdrawal from the larger community.

Rupert Sheldrake has been around for a while, publishing his first book in 1981, A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance He does not have a high-profile in any of the fields you might expect to find him in, outside of the shrinking field of parapsychology. His ideas are generally marred by confirmation bias and the kinds of scientific errors cranks make -- at no point in his career has he responded to criticism by altering or abandoning any of his theses. He is thus a player, and an author, but not a player in the science leagues - he has long hied off in his own direction after cosmic principles, seeking an alternative paranormal 'God Particle'/Field -- all to undergird parapsychology. Everything goes in or gets hooked up by the morphic field, every persistent hangover from psi research, ghosts, telepathy, mediums, psychic imprinting, etcetera. Toe get the full flavour of Sheldrake's very large set of beliefs, you will need to read his books, but it seems there is nothing Fortean or 'anomalous' that Sheldrake does not consider some kind of anecdotal confirmation of his theories, be they crop circles or ley lines or past life regression or whatever.. At heart, despite his many books and attempts, the theory of morphic fields has no adherents outside Sheldrake and the paranormalists. That is just the way things go. No matter how much we might want to think there are multiple converging lines of evidence giving support to the notions, there just isn't. After all these years, Sheldrake is still no further towards his explanatory goals, let alone a 'new science.'. See the article by our Rand-friendly skeptic Michael Shermer, Rupert's Resonance -- and if you follow the Shermer exchange, read Sheldrake collaborator Steven Rose: So-called "formative causation" - A hypothesis disconfirmed & Sheldrake's response. What makes Sheldrake appealing to some is, I think, a function of a sense of wonder, and a realization that the world is a very complex and mysterious place at times (the world consisting of the universe). If you believe in things like telepathy or life after death, and if you are kind of turned on by something like "Cosmic Consciousness,' it sure would be nice to have a sciencey-sounding set of arguments that tries to explain it all as manifestations of some as-yet-hidden-from-view mechanics. Sheldrake provides this. Who would not want to understand how ghosts work, what scientific 'field theory' can explain spirit manifestations and extra-sensory perceptions? I mean, if you accept that ghosts and life after death and telepathy are real and not artifacts. But. As always, but. What can we rationally expect of experiments testing hypotheses of this field? Whenever I think of field I think of particle (as with gravity a graviton, electricity an electron, etc, at least a mutuality and a mathematical description of implicated forces). A something and its effect on other somethings. If there is and can be a 'field' (like the purported Higgs Field, or a magnetic or electrical field(, then I expect that the field can be not merely rumoured, theorized and described, but measured -- and made to fit in with the fundamental forces and fields which already interpenetrate our world.. We can measure an electrical field, a magnetic field, and we can measure gravity. We can detect a storm of high-energy particles and predict their effect on the magnetosphere. We can measure all of the fields because we have seen or sensed them (with our instruments of perception) in action. This is I think what made me cough up morphic notions of Sheldrake, where actual sensing of the field is absent. I could find nothing reliable that showed up as indicator of the posited 'morphic field' or the even more fabulous 'morphic resonance' -- nothing firmly observed and thus positing its necessary existence (as with the 'extra' gravity adduced as evidence of necessary dark matter). In other words, the morphic field of Sheldrake seems essentially invisible to human perceptive apparatus. The morphic field as posited is non-corporeal, spiritual rather than material, a field of memory -- a non-genetic repository of plans and experiences, of the instructions for species and the Jungian archetypes and more -- and so it has been difficult for Sheldrake to test this concept directly. What kinds of behaviours and relationships are tested by Sheldrake? Well, in his book, Seven Experiments That Could Change the World are included research into 'dogs that seem to know when their owners are coming home' and 'the sense of being stared at.' These two have been featured in later books. His newest book is called The Science Delusion. I find Sheldrake's notions about morphic resonance to be his most incoherent. This is the thing that is supposed to be operating in the dogs and in the people. What Sheldrake actually knows about the world is not small, I am sure. But what he thinks he knows about the world is quite large and quite unfit to be nailed to the wall of fact just yet, in my opinion. Many are those like Sheldrake in the history of rational inquiry, in one part Velikovsky, in another part Reich. We need ask of each one and his peers where his studies fit in with the general march of knowledge, what fruit they have born, and what products they have brought to market. Caveal emptor and all that..

I am no architect and no maven of couture, haute or lowbrow. Something in Philip's sketches (and one sculpture set) made me do a Google Image trawl, and put together some of what I found that reminded me of Philip's strivings. Garnier's sculptural masses atop the Paris Opera, the morning view of Angkor Wat's skyline, the stylized effusions of Baroque, Rococo, Gaudi ... I hope you could push past the sketches and make more sculptures/models and more careful, detailed plans, Philip. Even if you never get a guild recognition or win a lawsuit to style yourself a professional architect, good plans can still get built and are often a delight and an artform in themselves. In wood, in fabric, in clay, concrete, in scale and in mininature, not merely on paper. See the fabulous Coral Castle for an example of what a non-architect built in his own lifetime ... Are any of your confections destined to be this big or this expensive or this lengthy to build?

Do we want to "transfer" our values (culture and so on) to our child? Is is always a 'good thing'? It is crucial what values one has, after all. Isn't it best that the child absorbs automatically some culture, as she will; takes on a sense of self-worth; and goes on to create her own mind and values? We are now asking the same questions, and they no longer pertain to only the self. Why do we want to transfer our values, culture, laws, morals, wisdom, experience ... to our children? We agree some of the answers, don't you think? As MSK points out, there is also a dynamic above and beyond the self, and the dynamic applies to all primates. We, each self, are implicated in the species. The demands of life totum bonum include the demand to reproduce, a species necessity. If a parent (or culture) cannot transmit the functions into the new instances of the species, then it is doomed. Children do not automatically self-generate competent adulthood. They need the nurturance to survive and to learn, to fend for themselves when they become adult. So, now, with George's help, we can get to the questions we now pose together, you, me, Mill, Adler, Rand and Schopenhauer, with a side-trip of Darwin.

If self-love must come first, as a given, if a full freedom of self is the ultimate aim, what makes up love for a child and the nurturance we expend on each succeeding generation? What marks the more successful, moral, rational child? Instead of thinking in terms of a summun bonum, i.e., a supreme good, such as happiness, to which all of our actions are (or should be) directed, Adler recommended thinking in terms of a totum bonum, i.e., a totality of goods which, considered together, comprise a good life. A concern for children and other people would constitute part of this totality. I love when you crack open a book on previous wisdom. I was mixing up the emotional valence of two threads, this and the other I posted in today. I brooded on the messages between and within Tony and Philip's. Each asked for something, each pronounced something. I mixed up their personalities into a tableaux, Tony playing the 'tidying'. parent to Philip. This coloured my comments. Getting hung up on the words as reifications, making them carry too heavy a burden, using analogy in place of reason, making fish-trap linguistic challenges, this takes me away from things that concern me about the shortcomings of Objectivish explanations. I tried to answer Tony back with the notion that a self is the firmware, always present, the background thrum of the machine, but as with Philip, that self is always in a matrix of Them, of others of the understandable and manipulable world of motivated beings. It is congenial to my thinking to consider Adler's double caution -- to beware the absolute in its awesome abstraction, Good with a Capital G, like Thor or Jupiter. To beware the constrictions of too-narrow concepts. That there is a buffet of good in the world, a behavioural repertoire of human goodness. We do not all take as many trips to the buffet, nor put the same on our plates. This lets us circle the square between a properly self-ish person, actualized to his own needs and goals. It is of course in his self-interest to instruct his young in the most rational means to success, a very selfish thing to parent, given they are of your heart and flesh, kin, your own, as close to your own soul as anyone can get. Have you read that true-crime book about murderous thoughts in a young American cohort? The biggest motivator to not commit their fantasies on hated rivals and obstacles was the contextual certainty of getting nailed. I have long considered myself a semi-covert utititarian at heart in terms of reckoning good. I like the implication that we learn and transmit information about good actions, consequences, cost and benefit, the history and expression of the bad ... We should be reassured at the fairly broad nature of agreement with principles here in Rand: the self, the individual, the necessity of a mind with singular selfish purpose. It is in the summing, and the description and the puzzles of Objectivish implications that I stop and consider. I thought that Tony married two things that should only be dating. The Good is not the Selfish, but a rationally selfish person can identify Good quite well. Even if only in the sense of a cynical estimation of `best practice` ... Your calculation was honest and effective, it seems. How do we estimate or guess with confidence what it is about life that tweaks our own version of I? I think again of this young Philip intoxicated with self. How does he rationally calculate, like you and I had done, realistically, on what our happiness quotient would be and what we knew would gain us our best life? One of the things I learned at OL is we may all be boxes of cheese, but we are not all Velveeta. Even when we disagree we seem to be reaching for an understanding just there beyond, often helping each other over fences. I relish Schopenhauer for his sharp and nasty rules on winning arguments. Would make a worthy hijacking of this thread were we to get him, Mills and Adler in action again. Thanks, George!

What's so complicated., Tony? I am not asking you to anoint a contradiction, I am inviting you to think about the words you use to circumscribe argument. By carefully inserting the qualifier 'tranferred intact' to your demandchallenge ... you wall off the door to considering lesser instances of that absolute. In other words, it is all or nothing. Not fruitful. Not explanatory of edge conditions, of the consequences of certain selfish human behaviours. Your life as 'an end in itself' is just words, it does not correspond to the behaviour as a parent. (am I presuming here? You have raised children, right?) I do not see a contradiction in your behaviour as a loving (I presume) parent, but your behaviour as a parent does not bear out the cliché of a selfish person. Since we for the sake of argument expect to find no facts in contradiction, it is the words that must give way, as inadequate or poorly chosen. Merely fencing problems off by words, by wordplay or idiosycratic usage (as with your eyepatch over what you share in values and orientation with the modern skeptical community) does not solve problems. See poor Philip trying to come to terms with the limits of his own self-understanding, and his attempts at rational self-assessment. Words get in the way, carry too large a load, fence off too much thought. I do not see a contradiction in your behaviour, just a small misuse of language that obscures things wonderful and human. We do not transmit intact a person's values as in your fish-trap sentence above. But we do something of the type, do we not? Let me ask it this way: given that we cannot now (and likely never will) be able to transfer intact any complex of values to another, why do we try to do so in lesser ways? Why culture? Why schools? Why nurturance? What is the impulse and what would be the difference between a selfish and unselfish person's means and manner of trying to transfer values? I cannot transfer intact to your psyche what I perceive, what I think you miss by hemming in your thoughts by fence-words, Tony, really. I cannot transfer my concerns to you, merely shine a light and hope you see what I see.

How about this: If anyone can indicate how one's values - life, and love of life, love of other individuals, of activity, one's hobby, gaining knowledge, having different experiences, making something work, loving one's own mind, or simply loving one's dog - can be transferred to a child...then I'll start questioning life as "an end in itself." I do not know if you are a parent, Tony, but if you are, try to imagine raising your children without teaching them, without trying to influence and shape their behaviour, without trying to instill in them the values that you know bring fruit. Try watching a child go forth in life with a 'selfish' parent in the normal sense of the world, a parent who always put its own interests ahead of the child's, who neglects its needs both moral and physical, who fails to discipline, who fails to love. If self-love must come first, as a given, if a full freedom of self is the ultimate aim, what makes up love for a child and the nurturance we expend on each succeeding generation? What marks the more successful, moral, rational child?

It cannot be valid, of course. Selfishness is not a self-evident, stand-alone symptom of a disease Philip, we can first make reference to the actual syndrome described, variously, as anti-social personality disorder, dissocial personality disorder, psychopathy, sociopathy.. Two large diagnostic complexes form the 'holy books' of psychiatric providers. The history of each is too long, but the ICD is from the World Health Organisation ("Intenational Statisticial Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems") and the DSM is from the American Psychiatric Association ("Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders"). Here are the criteria from the ICD: It is characterized by at least 3 of the following: Callous unconcern for the feelings of others. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society. Here are criteria from the DSM: A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following: failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead; irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; reckless disregard for safety of self or others; consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations; lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another; B) The individual is at least age 18 years. C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years. D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode. "Selfish" is not a word used in either official classification scheme, as you can see. When you ask if a psychiatrist would not need 'proper terminology of symptoms in order to properly diagnose,' you go to the heart of the matter -- and you also expose the grounds for much of the controversy that has dogged the DSM. But, put aside the cogent criticism of the DSM formation, or the sprawl of conditions, disorders and illnesses that could be nothing but a folie-a-plusieurs among clinicians. Go back to your original question and decide what you were trying to get at. As far as I can see, you wanted to challenge that one particular diagnosis (anti-social), and for good reasons: what if the 'symptoms' were not anything particularly damaging or indicative of problems? What if 'selfish' and 'arrogant' people were being needlessly and cruelly labeled as mentally defective, simply because of an altruist prejudice? What if the clinicians employed to diagnose anti-social disorders could not reliably tell the difference between a dangerous (to others) sociopath and a standard achiever (in business, sport, military, politics, what have you)? Return to 'selfish.' The ICD criterion that comes closest to 'selfish' is "callous unconcern for the feelings of others." Not quite 'selfish' ... but within the ballpark perhaps. Yet, what does callous unconcern mean? What might it mean to you in your own situation? Let me ask if you felt your mother and father callously destroyed your artworks, without concern for your feelings about the destruction? Is there a point at which your parents should have been concerned about you? Also ask yourself what kind of parents could not only harm their children deliberately, but could also feel nothing at the harm: no remorse, no guilt, no sense of responsibility. Have you ever met or known someone like this, someone who fits the profile? See where I am going with this? If your parents, gawd forbid, either of them, fits the pattern of an uncaring, unduly selfish and disempathetic brute who lies, manipulates, cons and otherwise treats people like boxes of cheese, does this mean you might change your mind about the utility of such diagnoses? Over to the DSM. Here, again, no 'selfish' plain and simple. But "pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others" ... the key words being pervasive pattern. So, what can we do with the rest of the information in the two diagnostic lists? What kind of activities lead to a diagnosis? As you might suspect, it is the criminal justice system that most often meets acts that seem sociopathic, for sociopathic behaviour harms people. A con is a fraud. A fraudster is a criminal. A sociopathic fraudster is one who does not give one shit about the pain or suffering the fraud caused to real persons. Moreover, the sociopathic criminal is one who persistently shows a pervasive pattern of not giving a shit about other people -- to the point of callous disregard of their safety (and of their lives). All this to say to you that the closest you get to another person's claim is the closest you get to understanding it. Now that you have seen the criteria, and that they do not simply describe an arrogant, successful, 'selfish' Randian person but a stone-hearted monster, can you see that at least some of what is described as 'sociopathic' is not the kind of person you want to be, and not the kind of person you will be safe to befriend? In this sense, the DSM/ICD are eqivalent to Four Sure Fire Signs That Dog Is Dangerous. Mad Dog Syndrome. For your protection and mine. The social norms noted in both criteria should not, I think, be smudged into mere 'social conventions' -- I think they should be seen as moral conventions: if you contract a debt, you are bound to pay it back. Normal in all societies. Same with Assault, robbery, rape, extortion, kidnapping, murder: these are things that are against all moral conventions, they are common to almost all societies as crimes Here we are very very far from the notion of 'selfish' (Rand's new meaning) you have in mind, I think. In her newly-coined version of 'selfish' there is no downside -- she acknowledges and trumpets the truism that every person has a right to think of themselves, to consider their own feelings, to reach for their own goals, to be concerned primarily with their own health and achievement, dreams and plans. The 'selfishness' we celebrate in Randian heros is not callous disregard, inability to take responsibility for ignoring the rights of others. A truly and properly selfish person in Rand's coinage does NOT disrespect or disregard the rights of others. And a properly selfish Randian hero would not commit murder, extortion, robbery, kidnapping, torture, rape or other violations -- and most definitely would not exhibit blaming behaviour, denial of responsibility, disdain for their suffering, or enjoyment of cruelty for its own sake. To recap, 'selfishness' is not a neutral term, not simply, not completely, not for all time. And it is by no means a 'symptom' of the disorder you take issue with. A callous disregard for the rights (and feelings) of others is not selfishness. Inventor Thomas Edison may have been selfish (in the Randian term) but you cannot use the same word to imply the same scale as you scope out the personality of sex-killer Bundy. The word just can't do that much work on its own. On to psychosis, psychotic, crazy, having lost touch with reality. What 'dubious' reason do you think led to that 'invention' ? I mean, did it describe a real danger (to self and others) or did it describe something else? If I warn you against a psychotic person or a dangerous agressive dog, am I helping you in one instance avoid harm, but not in the other? Follow on your own the rest of the criteria, the actual criteria, and see if you have been fair. If a person known to you actually had the same suite of behaviours cited above, would you trust them to treat you fairly, according to norms like honesty, non-initiation of force, and so on? Now that you see the Dx (in its short form), which describes Bundy and which describes Edison. Carol, despite her crippling socialism, is a very nice and understanding woman. She is not trying to trip you up, but helping you to sharpen your perceptions. ____ PS, your drawings and sculptures are wonderfully manic and creative. Something is urgent in you to create, and no parent was able to quash it. No one here will be able to quash it. Please be trusting to the degree that you might accept some of us here will actually help you think things through, and by so doing, help you get where you want to be in life -- realistically, and with least wear and tear on your heart.

I have been feeling ever more sorry for Diana Hsieh, at least in one aspect -- her career as small fish in a small and shrinking pond. Judging by the stale entries and absence of feedback at the former Noodlefood blog, she continues to lose both audience and relevance. Not that she does not have anything to say. Here is an excerpt from today at her "Let's All Eat Like Cavemen" blog. Now I have another reason to feel bad for her, the terrible effects of her adrenal syndrome. How very sad. Part of the reason for her dispirited lack of entries at Philosophy Inaction is illness. Life is a bitch, benevolent universes of cabbage and turnips notwithstanding.

Iran started a war with the USA on November 4th, 1979. Jerry, as usual, is taking his cue from tired sophistry that has already appeared. It is an invidious question as stated, because it is carefully designed like a fish trap. If you enter the sector and entertain the question without examining its hidden premises, you will -- like the salmon -- find yourself penned in. Here, fishie fishie fishie. Here is a better way of looking at it. The folks whom Jerry has ripped off this question had no intention but point-scoring, to demonstrate by sophistry and fish-weir use of language that the USA has no justification for any action or policy against Iran. (Sigh, yes, Mr Google and "When is the last time Iran started a war" and the fishing strategy is apparent. Jerry has no original thoughts, and would collapse into a bag of urine with jockstrap if asked to tell us five facts about Iran). If the question was 'When has Iran initiated military hostilities outside its borders?" then the malignant nature of Jerry's dishonest lure is revealed. The war that Iran started in 1979 in Teheran, by unlawful confinement of non-combatants, this war has continued. Iran was or is at war with Turkey (through the PKK), with Iraq (it won, and its client, the dictator-in-development Maliki now takes the war to Syria), with Armenia, with Lebanon (through Hizbollah), with Saudia Arabia (through the Quds force and the IRGC), with Israel (through Hizbollah and Hamas), with Argentina (through Hizbollah agents), with Sudan (Quds), with Egypt, with Spain, with UK, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Bulgaria ... Jerry, you are in this instance both lazy and stupid. You are so uninformed and uneducable as to be a liability to this forum. Never do you take correction, never do you engage discussion, never do you do any homework, never do you start a thread in good faith. I challenge you to write an essay about something you know about: your life, your struggle, your illness and your despair. The amount of time you spend adding grit to the gears of rational inquiry are wasted on people here. We have your number. Troll.

George, you are in that class of humanity called Writer. If I may say so, A Great and Good writer. Writers need to use their names. It is the one sure way to hang all their earlier work around their necks. Those who do not intend to be remembered or cited have no use for it. I had a friendly chat with the Louieeiuol fellow over at OO.net`s chat room (by chance, I saw him and MikeE on the board while checking up on Jonathan's scrivenings). He is young, and in the first flush of enthusiasm. As OOnet moderators go, he is about as good as they get. Recorded history shows no OOnet moderator ever publicly admitting error, so ... with a bit of good humour and understanding of the Recent Convert Syndrome, we can return to the usual bovine placidity of discourse we so cherish here. Carol, you caught me in mid-edit, with the basement metaphor. It is even sadder than that. The fifty-something friendless Objectivist Janitor on Vacation gave a play-by-play of his re-read of Atlas Shrugged on his Facebook page. Dailly. At length. It was like watching someone who had read the bible fifty times cracking it open for a Fresh Look and telling about the Good Parts. All of them. Beyond sad, and into the twilight zone. Using Rand as crack. Basement-dwelling non-achievers, arise and reject your pension! Objectivish Valhalla awaits you.

I agree with your comment, but in such a case a person can explain the compelling reason for anonymity. What I cannot abide are coy games about who a person really is. And that seems to be what is going on here. George, Carol, I have some experience as reader, comment contributor and moderator at Joshua Landis's blog Syria Comment. Because of the reach and malevolence of Syria's secret services, almost every single person who opposes the Syrian regime uses a pseudonym. On the other side, pro-regime commentators also choose pseudonyms, sometimes for stated reasons. There is an undestandable fear of the loyalists (right or wrong) that they will be targets of harassment or violence. Most of the anti-regime folks (not all) do give a minimum bit of information. For example my friend "Tara" identifies herself as a Damascence-born and bred American. She conceals her profession and city, but mentions children. Another friend, Son of Damascus, spells out with no detailt that he is in Canada, and part of an elite pro-regime-ish family of some business clout in the old country. A pro-regime guy "Norman" allows that he emigrated to American long ago, and that he is a doctor. And so on. This is the best that some (rightfully or wrongfully) fearful people can do. Beyond that, I have argued at that forum that folks could at the very least declare their citizenship(s) and give a glimpse of their background, even if only to say something like "I am a Syrian. I won't give any details" or "I am an American with an interest in the Middle East." But, even this bare minimum of self-identification is not the rule. There are several persistent posters who allow absolutely zero information out. We do not know where they hail from, nor where they are now, neither their languages, family, education, nothing. This leads to much speculation, and a remaining mystery. Why would someone insist on saying nothing at all about what they are (not 'who' they are) and yet pose as an expert? I still do not get it. For example, one lady (I presume, she takes the name Mina) has in two years of posting let slip only this: "an old Maoist." Another, "Ann," posts lengthy excerpts from RussiaToday, Xinhua, PressTV and other even stupider places (globalresearch.ca, voltaire.net, Alex Jones, Above Top Secret, Tony Cartalucci) but has never ever let slip even a hint as to her citizenship or place of residence. Louie/Eioul's coyness is NOTHING compared to these hooded maniacs. And I can think of at least three (good/bad/middling) reasons why he does not reveal anything about himself personally: -- fear of exposure (job, family, professional networks) of his Objectivism. In some milieus, Objectivism is a stain. -- habit (everyone else does it!). Some forums (like RoR/here/SOLO/Betsy's Litterbox) have a tradition of full names. Others have a tradition common to the internet of nicknames alone. -- uneasiness with the notion that someone can find him (without getting Syrian paranoiac about it, this is justified, I think). Creeps and weirdoes and obsessive nutcases are common. If only to avoid some nutter tracking down personal information, some folks do not 'play' on the internet with their real identity. Now, in some cases, I would recommend that named people go under a cloak. For example, one of the dimmer bulbs at OO.net (I will not name him) is so wedded to Objectivish things that on his most recent vacation he treated himself to a fresh re-read of Atlas Shrugged. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but he also took the time (on his Facebook pages) to plaintively ask for career advice. He apparently works as a semi-skilled labourer and would like to break out. He would like to find a girlfriend. He would like to use the gifts of Objectivish thinking to enter the glory of Objectivist Manhood. He is approximately 50 years old. Reading his stuff makes me inexpressibly sad. If I wanted to, I could find out which crappy school he is janitor at, or which plastics factory uses him as robot-feeder. He is broke, lonely, Objectivist, without friends or career, but enthralled with his twenty-odd years of studing Objectivism. Sad sad sad. In other words, sometimes keeping your identity secret is because identifying yourself would reveal not that you are a writer of some renown or a hockey mom in TO, but a sad sack with zero life accomplishments -- and little practical likelihood of ever rising above the unlovely damp basement suite of the American dream. Those who have 'made it' and would represent a successful (normed) Objectivish fledge, well, they do not post to OO.net. Further, I would urge all the present moderators there to go under a cloak. Every time I have looked up a named Moderator I have felt very sad. Whether a four-hundred pound lonely sci-fi maven living in a shithole in Kansas, or (I will not say), the revelation of identity is sometimes too pathetic. . So, Louie/Eioul, I will support you 200% percent if you give a big Fuck You to anyone who wants to know who you are. Sometimes it is better to not give the pricks (like me) an opportunity to investigate.

MEM's note about Israeli support of Iran in the war with Iraq is not well known, but true. Jerry's comprehension of anything is difficult to estimate. If he wished onlly to provoke, he did well.

Brant, ma naħsibx hemm xi raġuni li jkun hekk f'daqqa. Għaliex ma tgħidilna ftit aktar dwar ir-reazzjoni tiegħek? Inti tista 'tkun jitkellem dwar xejn affattu.

?

Sometimes I feel like The Threadkiller Here is a plain-jane sound version of the response to Brant upthread:

I saved up my view of this thread and video, as I usually am quite entertained by the Chimp from Edmonton. Funny video. Crass stereotypes, shitty accent, cute script. Italians, I suspect, could not give a flying fuck. As for 'racism,' Adam is right as usual. Italians are as much a race as the Maltese, each a lovely blend of forty-nine centuries of conquest, pillage, population transfers, war, immigration and spaghetti -- Italy even today is a polity barely managing to speak with one voice. A Sardinian Went To Friulia. A Sicilian Went To Milan. An Abruzzan Went To Venice. A Milanese Went To The Piedmont. Hilarity ensued. Fucking lazy southerners. Brutal heartless northerners. Dirty gypsies, dirty Africans. Dirty foreigners. Malta is one of those places that is hard to grasp in one hand, like Italy, and its linguistic heritage is fascinating and instructive (unless you are as dull-subnormal as Jerry). That a Maltese could not understand an Italian (even speaking Fake-accented Guidoese is so far from reality as to render the video both funny and stupid. Here is a wee snippet from the Wikipedia article on Malta: Jerry, you can use one of your four opposable thumbs to fire up the Kaypro and find Wikipedia on your own. And that 'Maltese,' no, it is not a corn-syrup infused ball of wax and food dye, Jerry. It is a unique, fabulous language, and it looks like this, from KullHadd, one of seventeen daily Malta newspapers: Here is my little story called Jerry Goes To Malta. It is in Maltese, oddly enough, which I am pretty sure no chimpanzee understands. Jerry Story hija idjota. Iżda huwa ma jkunx jaf hu idjota. Dan huwa imdejjaq lil Jerry, iżda jagħmel għal hilarity ħafna. Jum wieħed hu se jżuru Malta, u stupefied tiegħu mono-multilingwiżmu se jkun okay mal-Malti. Huma simili turisti injorant.