caroljane

Maybe her hacker boyfriend has dumped her for an older woman.

Qua Objectivism think that man needs philosophy for he is the thinking, free-willed animal. This philosophy guides him through his thinking and choice making. The morality is rational self-interest; it centers on one's self. There are four basic principles: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics--or reality, reason, self interest, and individual rights (capitalism, freedom). These are all interlocked, one logically leading to the next. The key and bridge one to the next is individualism. This refers to one man, one brain, one thought--there is no group think. Now, the supremacy of reality and reason is shared with science. The morality of rational self-interest doesn't deny that man is a social animal only states what is basic, which is first he is an individual animal with the need for freedom to thrive, produce and mate and achieve optimal happiness thereby. When reading about Objectivism merely categorize the material under one of the four principles and see how they integrate one principle to the next. Objectivism has two basic aspects. (1) Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand which is, say, 85% cultural and 15% intellectual (the percentages can greatly vary and are not important as such) and Objectivism which is 100% intellectual. She presented her philosophy from her view of the ideal man and his needs and the notion of the impotence of evil. While evil is indeed impotent per se, you cannot rend the possibility of evil out of any man the way she did her heroic, fictional characters. ("Man," BTW, is the over-riding concept shared by both sexes.) It is #1 that is difficult to master. The only one to do so I know of was Nathaniel Branden. Leonard Peikoff after 40 (50? 60?) years of study still fell short, falls short. I am referring to the Objectivist (Ayn Rand) catechism. My Objectivism is #2 and the (my) cultural self-automatic, just like Rand but with quite different results. Ayn Rand's mastery of Objectivism was intellectual and a bunch of her opinions (cultural). Mastering her Objectivism means you need the obsessive brilliance of Nathaniel Branden and to share her bed--not possible for a female. Then she'll announce to the world--she can't; she's dead--you are the master (and hers). (This spills over into her views of the sexes, masculinity and femininity and why a woman is unfit to be President of the United States.) --Brant Ok Brant...lets see if I got this right.PHOLOSPHY: school of thought. general studies of reality, existence, mind, and language. METAPHYSIC: understanding existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect. EPISTEMOLOGY: knowledge and understanding. ETHICS: human morality- right vs wrong, good vs evil, virtue vs, vice, justice vs crime. POLOTICS: organized (acceptable) control over a human community. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of these equal to individualism. One individual with one brain, knowing what their existence means, knowing right from wrong, between good and evil, knowledge and understanding, what their own understanding means of government control and what their behaviors deal with cause and effect and their freedom to pursue their life and happiness. Am I getting it...or am I confusing you as much as I am confused LOL! ~Cathy~ BTW, I wonder if she would be more accepting of a woman president now a days....hmmmmm Not bad, but politics and individual rights are in the same category re Objectivism. --Brant throw her in the swimming pool: if she floats she's a witch (burn her); if she sinks she's innocent; God will sort it out regardless (you floated) Brant, You were standing on the riverbank with a long stick to fish her out and lead her home safe through the woods.

The crazy lady is not me Calvin, honest. I have never seen Moneyball but I love Brad Pitt. You can call me crazy for that if you want. Carol usually stable

Shutout Boston! At home, of course. Still I have hopes of seeing |Rask throw a tantrum sometime before the series ends. And Zdeno Chara is just a freak of nature. Just look at him. 7 foot in his skates. I have met a lot of Slovakians, and I tell you, if he was not adopted from some other planet,he was a test tube baby, possibly genetically crossed with some sort of water plant. Great play. I look forward to the increasing desperation, which I predict will let Chicago tie it up again next game.

I also protest on behalf of Phil. He is far too tall to be a popinjay.

Yo, did I hear somebody was picking on one of my bff's? I too admire many of NB's writings and his accomplishments.And I never saw him much less met him, but I have heard many people speak of doing so, not just on here. And I have to say, in all those recollections, the word "pompous" was repeated. I recall Brant, who knows him well, said that NB told him he had never had the pleasure of meeting anybody more intelligent than himself. Maybe he was joking, or maybe he does not get out much. Brant would know best of that. Rest my case.

I think Ginny and I should put this to a test. What freaken test? Carol, yes, I remember the post from poor Phil. There has to be something about Obj. that screws men up in this area. Could that with all the importance Rand put on sex, including that your choice of a partner reveals all of your dark secrets, be a bit much to handle? Some of this nonsense is still going on. There a guy on OO who has a blog called The Leading Man. It's an dating advice column for guys. Rand's superior man raises his ugly head again. This blog is full of stuff how only men make decisions, only men determine what happens in a relationship, and a woman who opens her mouth is emasculating men. Jeez, how much does it take to emasculate a superior man?. An early victim was Barbara Branden herself. In PAR she makes it quite clear that although likeminded with NB and greatly admiring him, she never felt the sexual attraction for him that centres a marriage, and of course no amount of her self-blaming and efficient thinking and Rand's pronouncements could make her feel it. The body does not lie.

Ginny: I should have been clearer. I was referring to the alleged "men." And your testimonial replicates what the women told me also. I was, and still am, astounded about that aspect of the movement. A... Adam/Ginny, this is amazing. I thought my own recollections may have been biased or distorted by time - but do you remember Phil's story of his "therapy\" and his overthinking of his girlfriend's slightest word, while just getting up and leaving after sex without even a backward look? I am glad Ottawa was so far from NY, and though often invited the bf never wanted to go there! It is hard not to think that an unintended consequence of ardent Objectivism was a lot of sexual problems for otherwise normal healthy young men.

I love her hair and glasses and that is about it.

Yes, loved every miute. Adam dear, in your kindness, you know my ineptidute. Sean Mc|I recently in DownGoes \Brown on Grantland, wrote such a hilarious narrative of watching playoff overtim \e Iwould like it to be reproduced for anybody who also might enjoy--I fell down laughing. \TIA

Good grievances, what a perfect storm of novels v reality. Men have always known that it is a bad idea idea to sleep with a woman crazier than them. but they usually want to try it anyway. Dagny and Dominique are pretty much sociopaths, never mind the men they are most attracted to, and who cares?

Tony, I am sure you are right here. \The Objectivist I knew best had a delightful sense of humour and the ridiculous. |But I have to say that the other ones I met, did not seem to have any at all.In fact I do not remember any ot them laughing or even smiling, except, you know "scornfully"-- it was very unnerving to me, everybody just thought about things all the time and were never spontaneous.

Kyle, Sure did. Way back in the 70's. Koestler's theory of intersecting planes that spark humor, scientific discovery and artistic creation influenced me. I also recall that business of a baby smiling to stop suckling. And I smile a lot... There is truth to these roots, but I don't think they are the whole picture. Dennett and his coauthors have an interesting theory about humor. They believe it evolved and mixed with pleasure as a way to debug the cognitive apparatus. A way to flush out errors, so to speak. And the accompanying pleasure of laughter was nature's way of ensuring we do it, just like sex for reproduction. I believe there is truth in that, too, but it's not the whole picture. There is a huge amount literature about humor from philosophers and psychologists. Ironically, some really good stuff that the eggheads don't cover comes from those who practice it. Here is a nugget I received from a public speaking expert (Tom Antion). He was talking about humor in stories from your own life. He said humor is disaster separated by space and time. What was once painful is funny on the retelling. John Truby, a Hollywood script doctor, says that humor in full-length films reduces man to an animal, to a child or to a robot. The animal concerns bathroom and sex humor (for the most obvious examples), the child concerns exaggerations of emotions, especially when they are inappropriate, and the robot makes the person totally clueless to the attitudes of others. Humor is a much bigger topic than it seems and there are so many conflicting schools and theories, it's almost like a cosmic practical joke played on mankind. Unfortunately, one of the worst things I have read on humor came from Ayn Rand. She said the fundamental nature of humor is destructive and gave ethical rules where it is proper and where it is "monstrously vicious" (or some phrase like that). In other words, according to her (and I am pretty sure I can back this up with quotes), if you see a person you admire slip on a banana peel and, without knowing how or why, you burst out laughing, this is an indication that you are really screwed up inside and need a moral overhaul. In her world, I don't think you could laugh in such a situation and be concerned for the person at the same time. But if the person who slipped was immoral, laughter would be not only appropriate, it would be moral. I don't agree with this approach, albeit, there is an element of truth in it for certain contexts. Michael Oh yes, Rand and the banana peel. I think her image was of an elegant lady in furs and jewels slipping on it. Elegant , untouchable in fine clothing, the person Rand idealized in her hungry days, and held like a light before her, and indeed became. I know Rand sometimes laughed at herself (about her accent for instance) and I am not aware that she was ever mocked or laughed at in her youngest most sensitive years. But her odd pronouncement on what is proper to be amused by, seems not to come from rational thought but from somewhere deeper.

Wait till the next Toronto mayoral race Bill, which if Hizzoner persists in running as he now says, will twist up knickers on those we never knew to wear them.

Translation of that last quote: Only actual scientific study can prove a theory through scientific methods. Or if I can't do it that way, if I collect enough anecdotal evidence, I might luck out.

As WSS might say, think of it as KookieNetPants.

Adam, I will echo Jerry and caution you against World Net, they are in fact worse than Huffpost etc. They have no journalistic standards or credibility. They were the chief purveyors, and probably the source, of the "Cairo crucifixion" hoax.

What they share is rectitude. Ba'al Chatzaf Rectitude about what? Doing the right thing and not doing wrong things. The problem is that all ideologies are about doing "the right thing". But given the fact that ideologies differ from each other, their ideas about the "right thing" differ as well. That's not a problem for rectitude. Do you have a problem with rectitude? Are you for it or agin it? --Brant I'm proud to say my ideology is wrong about everything but I have no rectitude so I'm never wrong about anything Brant, You're right! -Some of the People Some of the Time

Peter said "apparently" so maybe he was just guessing as her name was Mitchell.

I can resonate. Loved it. Warren B, come on down! OL is obviously your spiritual home. Michael, is studying comedy of real use in better using it, in business or in life? I hope not as I never studied anything about comedy or indeed any form of writing, except that |I have read a lot of it. And thank god |I have never been required to teach "creative writing", I imagine it would be like having to teach sex ed to teenage parents.

Following the recent heroics of Boston's Campbell, playing two shifts with a broken leg, one of the hockey sites did a roundup of the most horrific on-ice injuries survived by NHLers past and present, players contributing their anecdotes and members voting on the most notable. A real gorefest! Here is the winner, the simple stoic testament of an ex-Dallas Star: "I had Sean Avery on my team."

Mike, I encourage you or anybody to read more Philip \Roth,and his Chicago especially the early stories, and his Chicago novel Letting Go. He is a master. My personal fave was his baseball book, The Great American |Novel featuring Gil Gamesh on the mound.

The in OL you have created something of a mini-utopia-- anomalies notwithstanding!

Franscisco mentioned that he came to New York to get a meal at some Deli. It had a distinctly Jewish name. Ba'al Chatzaf Oh, that Frisco! What a cosmopolitan, He sure knew how to walk on the wild side. I bet he hit the Cotton Club in his salad days too.

In effect she also abandoned Rearden, leaving him to fly around Colorado for a month looking for her while she was on a sabbatical. In respect to your example, not mine, I think Rand wanted to make a more general point about the indefiniteness of the future. It's true she was purblind about a lot of normal human being things, but you need more than that to burn a productive genius at the stake of righteousness. Go get Henry Ford or Charles Lindbergh if that is your wont. --Brant Indeed they both built their own stakes, showing a bigoted ugliness that was at least equal to their productive genius. |N Bigoted? Er, yes. Ford was a violent anti-Semite and Lindbergh was Nazism's #1 American fan and booster. Oh, I thought you meant Dagny and Rearden. Well now that you mention it, |I cannot recall any Jewish presence in any of the novels, for Dagny etal to be bigoted about. Everyone in Rand's scifictional America is Waspy with the international element being proud Nordic or Spanish aristocratic types. It was a novelistic Gentleman's Agreement of the 50sand earlier, \I think, that if you were not writing specifically about Jewish characters just to pretend that everybody is a gentile.