- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Life IS serious business however making light of heavy things keeps me from being over-burdened with the ever-increasing darkness of this world.
I have noticed that you do the same. π
I find your lack of faith disturbing - Darth
Oh NO! Can't breath....
Jan
It is that lately the Gulch lacks levity in general. A sense of life is benevolent.
At least you can make fun! π
Boredom, to me, is a choice much like happiness is a choice.
I'm never bored...even when I thought I had time to squander. I squandered my time by doing things like rock climbing or trying to run a sub 6 mile (never was able to, dang it) Now that I'm happy to even have the desire to walk a sub 30 mile, every waking moment, as you say, is a treasure.
I have loved the aging process. The moment I turned 50 (way back when) I felt a personal sense of freedom I had never before experienced.
How can anyone be bored?
We have no problem keeping ourselves happy and busy. Boredom is something we don't grok.
Hear that Gulchers?
You got an active brain and you're bored?
For shame, children.
God bless your wife!
A number of our group of friends, and co-workers, between the ages of 38 and 43 all got pregnant for the first time at the same time. It was great being older, you have a different perspective and never have the feeling you missed out on anything. You also have the advantage of having watched your friends raise their kids - I learned a lot about what not to do that way!
yesterday which contained the book which your son
did back in the 80s. . fantastic!!! -- j
.
Its time to just not give them the attention that they expect, but only the attention that they demand by force.
Harry Browne's book about living free in an unfree world (which I just read), is spot on. The gulch should be a light in the night for how we do that in a positive way.
Government exists today in the USA because people are supporting and enabling it. Look at all this election coverage. In reality, the government cant do positive things no matter who gets elected. It can only do more or less BAD things by getting in the way. It doesnt deserve so much of our attention.
Thank you for mentioning it (or the author at least - I assumed this is the book you were referring to :)...I just purchased the Kindle version.
Looks as if it is just what is needed right now.
Another factor I think is happening, is the long drawn out, endless pounding and grinding of this campaign season. You can't access news without it. And so much real news is just eclipsed and gone because of it.
However, I still enjoy the Gulch immensely. There are some fine folks here. I would never have latched onto the novel Shadows Live Under Seashells which I just finished. A highly worthwhile read. The mood and tenor is lingering with me for awhile yet.
And I have gotten, and hope have given some good insight and advice. I am thinking of finding some Ayn Randisms of the day to bring to light again. I recently found my collection of the Ayn Rand Newsletter that I subscribed to back in high school. There are no doubt some gems in there to bring forth to today's non-fiction.
the right to be offensive - yes.
But I remind those who verbally lash out that they are admitting failure by having nothing to say apart from abuse.
βCommon courtesy may seem a quaint anachronism,
but without it, logic and reason die on the sword of uninformed passion. β
Pierre Ryckmans
And,
" one of the great problems of our age is that we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas.β
Margaret Thatcher
This means, give us your thoughts and ideas, keep your anger off the page.
But as much or more than anything, it's a lack of confidence in the philosophy and life applications of Objectivism by all but a handful of the Objectivists of the site.
Rush Limbaugh Undeniable Truth #6:
Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.
That is not the way that it should be, but it is the way the world unfortunately is.
It is also the reason why the correct response is Atlas shrugging.
Before I get trashed for being racist or classist or some other "ist", I am making a distinction between humans of all races, colors, creeds (or lack thereof), ideological foundations, etc. vs. those who are part of my family (i.e. brothers, sisters, parents, kids, and those in the extended family with whom I have chosen to continue to make a part of my life).
Do we have the right to enforce the principle of non-interference on others? In general society, we certainly do not. In an Objectivist society such as the Atlas Society or in Galt's Gulch Online, we can expect the principle of non-interference to be followed. But enforced? The best we could do even in an Objectivist forum is point this out to the moderators, and have the moderators ask people who violate the principles agreed to follow the terms and conditions of forum participation that that person agreed to.
Regarding the "votes to non-relevant Troll Posts", some in this forum might consider my posting of the fire in Hillsborough, NJ as an irrelevant Troll Post. It was a legitimate news item from the town I grew up in. I rode past that warehouse every day I went to middle school. Back then, it stored many metric tons of mercury, which was moved out of there after I left in 1985. Such a warehouse fire epitomizes that Atlas Shrugged is now non-fiction, thereby making it relevant.
I prefer to let the people who post define what is relevant, rather than let you or any other non-moderators dictate (word chosen carefully) what constitutes a Troll Post. If Scott, for instance, tells me something is a Troll Post, he has the right as a moderator to contact me and request that I do not post such items. Any non-moderators who attempt to limit discussion only to Objectivist philosophy on this site are now wondering why the forum isn't as entertaining as it used to be. Well, that is the just reward for attempting to infringe on others' freedom of expression.
I have little patience, time, or interest in PCness, courtesy over content, quantity over quality, or compromise of principles. I don't waste my time on tact or other nonsense. Words have definitions (AR described those definitions as the primary line of defense against the statists) and actions have consequences. As to your proposed principle of non-interference, I think any Objectivist would agree that one has no individual right to intrude into the private property of another and interfere with that others exercise of rights, unless the results of such exercise intrudes onto others in negative ways.
But when that other enters into the public sphere or into a gathering of Objectivists with the intent or attempt to espouse anti-Objectivist discussion and ideas under the guise of 'freedom of expression', that other opens himself up to my unapologetic condemnation and/or counter arguments, and certainly invites my responses to and for those open to the Objectivist Philosophy.
As to your last paragraph, your statements and implications are generally wrong and inappropriate to the discussion. I don't know of any on this site that are generally recognized as Objectivists, that demand purity in posting or comments and have even found many of them to welcome humorous and personal interactions.
This discussion of what is 'Trollish Behavior' has been going on for more than a year now, and the reluctance of members in general to utilize the tools available to respond to the behavior has resulted in many of the Producers of the site dramatically reducing their involvement or even leaving the site--to the detriment of the rest of us as well as to those that find their way to the site discovering it to more resemble a general discussion or Conservative site than an inviting Objectivist site.
For now and the future, you may fully expect that I will continue to espouse and defend Objectivist principles and the development of Objectivist thinking and growth in any venue that I choose.
Objectivism is predicated upon the premise that it should be self-evident that humans should have liberty to do as they please, as long as it doesn't negatively affect others. In Galt's Gulch Online, even though individual contributors have some disagreements, as you and I do in this case, in general, we respect each other and can get along at the end of the day.
Statists operate under the premise that they have the right to use force to make us bend to their wishes. This is fundamentally incompatible with the existence of an Objectivist society.
If I were to disagree with my own prior assertion that "Objectivism works well for small groups of like-minded individuals", it would be on the side that it doesn't even work well in small groups of like-minded individuals, rather than on the side that it can work for a larger society. Perhaps I was being too generous to Objectivists.
Ayn Rand was neither a psychological hedonist nor an a-philosophical libertarian. She developed an entire philosophy showing how political freedom requires ethical egoism, how what is in fact in one's self interest depends on the nature of man and is not whatever one feels it is, and how an ethics of egoism requires reason as the exclusive means of knowledge. The notions of a self-evident politics or automatic selfishness were alien to her.
Objectivism is not "for small groups of like-minded individuals" and you are not "too generous" to Objectivism. You don't understand what it is. It is not politics. Objectivism is a philosophy for the individual to live on earth. That has implications for social relations and what kind of social system is required. It does not mean that everyone has to be "like minded". It does require rationality, without which no society can work. In a mixed or irrational society every rational individual still needs philosophical principles by which to live and survive the best he can for his own life despite the irrationality of others.
Rand did say that Objectivism is a philosophy for the individual to live on earth. Objectivism does have implications for social relations. Those implications are precisely the problem. Those who reject Objectivism's tenets have no compunction about using force to get their way and will always win over those who show restraint in using force to get their own way.
What I am saying is that the philosophy of Objectivism is fatally flawed precisely because it does require rationality of the vast majority of a society's citizens. An Objectivist society is to be desired, but not stable. If I were to simulate an Objectivist society, its Lyapunov exponent would be positive, meaning that it can never reach a stable steady-state.
The premises you claimed Objectivism are predicated on are both false and not what Objectivism are based on. Ayn Rand explicitly rejected both of them.
Your statements about mathematical "exponents" are arbitrary, rationalistic nonsense that have nothing to do with Objectivism. It is more floating abstractions. It is no better than the previous metaphors about "differential equations" with nothing to measure and no equations to relate them.
It was apparent when you previously claimed you were over 90% "there" to being an Objectivist that you didn't know what it is. You still don't.
You correctly quoted Ayn Rand in saying that Objectivism is a philosophy for living on earth. The only country and time in which an Objectivist could have lived with minimal contradictions in a larger non-Objectivist society that was rational is pre-21st century America, most notably the late 1800s. There is no nation that an Objectivist can live in this era that can be defined as "rational". I seriously challenge you to name a nation right now that you can define as rational. Yet there are around 7 billion people in this world, more than ever before. According to Objectivism, human life requires rationality. As I have just illustrated, there is no longer a rational country on Earth, even though all of us in this forum would prefer that it did. We would flock to such a place, The fact that we cannot decide amongst ourselves on a place to shrug is further evidence that there is no longer a rational country on Earth.
You may choose to disagree with me, but after my last paragraph, it should be clear that Objectivism is a philosophy for living in Utopia, not for living on Earth.
The distinguishing characteristic of man is his rational faculty, the use of which is required to live. It is exercised to some degree or he doesn't. Rationality is the fundamental virtue of the Objectivist ethics. It is accepted by choice or not. It is not automatic. And it does not mean choosing rationality doesn't matter unless everyone does. It does not mean that rationality is for living in "utopia" and Ayn Rand never argued that it does. That is bizarre. You are very confused about Objectivism.
While you correctly pointed out one of the problems with altruism, the more important problem with altruism is that those who willingly choose not to produce do not die of starvation. That is part of my definition of a rational society. Instead such moochers outreproduce responsible producers when it comes to the gene pool. The opposite of this would be required in what I would consider a rational society.
And since you evaded my prior challenge to name a current nation that is rational, I ask you to once again.
I have come to my own philosophical conclusions based on my own empirically derived observations. Objectivism is consistent with many but inconsistent with some of those observations.
Objectivism is not accepted in a wider audience because most don't know what it is to be able to accept it or not. You are one of them.
The common retort for Objectivists is that non-Objectivists are pragmatic. Well, if Objectivism is a philosophy for life on earth, that is a definition of a pragmatic philosophy, yet Objectivism is not pragmatic, as you and others insist.
I'm a really good example of this....being a conservative its said by some that I have sullied and degraded this website by expressing and defending my thoughts and ideas.
I think conservatives are welcome here, but viewed by many of us with caution, especially when they forcefully try to dominate the conversation.
The question is not whether a conservative should want to be here, but why anyone would want remain either a liberal or conservative who is attracted to Ayn Rand's ideas and the sense of life she portrays, without further exploring her philosophy and the historical facts outside the prevailing "narratives" to see what made Atlas Shrugged and its implications for life on earth possible. (And that learning should be done primarily by reading it and listening to the lectures first hand, not by socializing here or anywhere else.)
There have only been a few conservatives (and a-philosophical libertarians) here who have obnoxiously and militantly pushed anti-Ayn Rand views, or pushed all kinds of politics or causes without regard to Ayn Rand's principles, along with interjecting often angry personal feuding.
For the rest, whatever they have been, this is an opportunity for exploring, improving understanding, and sharing common values. But no one without sufficient knowledge should believe he or she must "become" anything without knowing first what it is and why. You aren't joining a religious sect here, signing up in advance for a dogma. Forget about what you call yourself and strive to discover what Ayn Rand's philosophy is in all its ramifications and what is right. That should be true for all of us.
Welcome may be too strong a word. I think tolerated works better.
It died.
It died when a small group of Producers decided they had a lock on the truth of all things Rand.
It died when they choose to push the Ignore button instead of exercising the persuasive power of Reason and Logic.
It died when they choose to substitute vituperation for argumentation.
It died when down-voting and the word "nonsense" became their comments of choice.
Joe
Who are "they" anyhow? You sound like you need a pity party. I won't attend.
It has washed out and become a tool, not of the producer as it once was (and what brought me here) - "Producer" meaning the Randian, not the board's paid member status - but of the sheeple, the covert looter and the Anonymous hack.
I used to log on and jump in with glee and abandon, knowing I was communing and communicating with like minded individuals, but now it's more of an internet hash-list of those who have a political agenda to push, using a few learned catch phrases to "pass muster" but otherwise being as false as coins made from play-doh.
As such I find I rarely have the Daily Digest catch my attention as it once did long ago, and more often than not being deleted from my in-box out of hand as non-relevant, non-objective, or, frankly, non-sense. And as such, if that is the -best- tat the gulch has to offer me that day, it's not worth (honestly) wasting my time logging in and looking through the Gulch, only to leave sad, disappointed and likely embittered...
Have you gone back and read all the original Ayn Rand essays and lectures? Their characteristic depth and significance in contrast to stock political commentary (even when correct) makes them timeless. She once described her "purpose in writing articles [as] to discuss the application of Objectivism to modern eventsβi.e., to explain today's trends by identifying their philosophical roots and meaning, and to present the Objectivist alternative. In this respect, reality has proved too cooperative: so many trends are going the way I predicted they would (only more crudely and viciously so) ... My criterion in selecting the subjects I discussed was: the subject's philosophical importance, which had to be demonstrable, but not too obvious." -- "A Last Survey", The Ayn Rand Letter, Nov. 1975.
It is far more than the rehashes you see today.
The reality that things are getting progressively (word chosen very carefully) worse exponentially is sinking in. The Fed's proposal of negative interest rates is an example.
If you look at the five stages of grief, this forum had/has many who are angry. The next stage after that is depression and detachment. I am moving into that phase now. After that comes dialogue and bargaining. There had been a lot of people dialoguing, but now have moved into the frightening stage given our current circumstances called acceptance. I will never accept the current situation. I suggested to my wife and kids last night that, if Bernie Sanders is elected, that we should just shrug and leave.
I deal in tangibles for what I produce. I do so on a mouth to mouth basis, and say little otherwise.
Its sad when you play by the rules and lose... but that is the American way.
What do you mean by "mouth to mouth" basis? Can you give some examples?
It relies on So-and-so giving excellent value, producing top quality goods, and getting that word-of-mouth to the people most likely to need or desire so-and-so's Knowledge, skills, and abilities.
It's called the "underground economy"... when states prohibited things like barter, it's how business was done via this prohibited medium to keep the watchdog masters one the wiser on the economy that was thriving under their noses.
You have to market to those who need your talents, shake a lot of hands, have tangible examples of what you do, and be able to meet the commitments you make.
Twenty years younger and I'd be right behind you.
But if Bernie is not elected, and instead we get Cruz, Rubio, Or one of those, what then? What about Trump? Or have we played out on politics, or perhaps wait until the field is down to the two presumptive rulers?
As one who has just reached 76, houses 3 stents, and trying to keep up with the quickly accelerating rate of perceived time passing, I was wondering if good and evil are additive in the sense that if a candidate is not all good, will his good and evil add or subtract from that already in the present government. Or, will the bad just get worst? I am in the compromise makes the bad get worst camp.
Original thought and commentary has decreased relative to sloganeering, unthinking acceptance of canned points of view, and out and out nastiness. Originality, a product of thinking for one's self, is hard work. Even some of the people who regard themselves as objectivists sound like Ayn Rand robotic clones. Current rearranging-the-deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic politics is boring and abysmal inside or outside the Gulch. Since I've joined the Gulch, I've found some real gems of posts and commentary (and some good books by Gulch authors), but they are fewer and farther between, and I don't have time to extract them from the dross. Yesterday, in response to Khaling's "I'm Bored" post, I said that when I'm bored with what I read, I try to write something interesting. I will continue to try to write interesting things for my website and post them in the Gulch, but beyond that I don't get much intellectual bang for my time buck.
I'm wondering if this repost will get deleted as well. I await an answer from whomever deleted the original.
Support got back me to after two days, thanked me, and said they had found a glitch in the system. They fixed it and the thread comments were back. I wonder if it or something like it is still happening?
Another issue is one will read something in the right hand column but it takes a while to post in the main comments section. I think most have been fixed thanks to the staff and someone notifying of a problem.
The Gulch used to be vibrant and full of life. Now if feels like any other news feed that worms its way into my email.
Right now, most of the attention goes TO government and what it is doing. Government is just an impediment in my life. I try to ignore it as much as possible. It isnt the all powerful force that it wants us to believe it is. Its populated by minion clerks just trying to get a paycheck that I have to write. I try to give them only as much attention as they can garner by actual force. I would rather have no interaction with them at all.
I realize that the latter two blogs kind of make me and outsider, but it was those studies that introduced me to Ayn Rand.
Hope I haven't bored you.
Yea, the screen name is just my way of staying humble and honest. I seem to do my best work when I am reminded of that.
Now you're on track.
So make it vibrant and full of life. Reply to those whose sense of life you find bad. If I was there with you, I'd (gently) slap you up the side of the head with a warm dish towel.
By the way, I hate it when you're right. Waaay too often. (LNOL) [laugh not out loud]
Sometimes I turn off programming when some PC rubbish appears. (Some friends hate my political commentary interruptions.) I think this attitude started after watching Boston Legal for several years during the Bush years. The writers were constant in their sniping and criticism of the war and 'rendition', etc. I was really looking forward to seeing what they would do when Obama was elected and betrayed the left. The show was cancelled in spite of decent ratings.
The hidden premise is simple. Objectivism is the most powerful creative idea in the history of thought since Aristotle. Rand showed every premise of contemporary thought is false and needs to be redone. That's huge markets and incredible opportunities but all I see posted here are complaints and lets run away.
What I want is to see someone doing the new and exciting. The sense of life I yearn for is shown in Sandra Shaw's bust of Ayn Rand. I will do my best with the launch of a web site next month on knowing, essentially integrating science and philosophy. The point is that people are desperate to know in a time of anti knowledge and I think there is a market for knowledge. When it is dark nothing sells like a lantern.
Ayn Rand showed evil is impotent. Its up to us to show the joy and virtue of the good life.
Philosophercat
So, we have minimized the joyous the bonding element and elaborated the kvetching moments.
Jan
I must be an insensitive clod.
There are a large swath of contributors to the Gulch. Some are learning. Some are knowledgeable, some are not objectivists, some think their version of objectivism is the only way, sort of like going to hell if you don't believe in Jesus.Some are truly objectivists. For every one of them, a proper sense of life varies in some degree or another from the ideal. But to condemn the entire Gulch as having lost a good sense of life entirely is the same as racism. I hate to use that word because it's used so improperly, by demagogues today. Yet, there it is. I have read your posts, Pirate. I'm not sure if you are serious, or just want to provoke a discussion.
As a character in my world famous novel (!) Paris, Wyoming says, "The vicissitudes of this world force me to choose between depression and cynicism. I choose cynicism because it's more entertaining."
Sure, we can rehash the philosophical arguments regarding economics, abortion, gay marriage, socialism, gun rights, evolution, and a host of other topics, but in general people have already made up their minds about which side they sit on, so instead of being actual debates with points awarded based on the merit of the argument, it becomes a contest of wills and populist agreement.
So all we're left with are discussions of current events, and current events right now are downright depressing as jbrenner points out. Shrugging takes a tremendous amount of moral conviction, but it also takes preparedness. In AS, there was a retreat to fall back to. In real life, no such place exists so we are left to try to figure out how to survive individually. For those of us who appreciate economic basics, we know subconsciously that's not really that productive. We want more, but are stymied as to how to get there, leading to resignation/depression instead of a hopeful plan.
ly to be recommended. It does not feel happy and
expectant of great things, like a long time ago. But
I don't know about the other people's. And I still
find the discussions very interesting; I would not
want them to disappear.
Ayn Rand wrote about the phenomenon of people losing their sense of life as they grow older, but it happens not by imposition but acceptance.
It is a reflection of life on the streets.
https://youtu.be/lAD6Obi7Cag
Hope springs eternal.
Regards,
O.A.
I still have my mind, a mind of that of a young college student who became enamard with a young and vivacious female History Prof. whom I took every course she offered. Including one on Revlutions in History(some political and most others in armed insurrection. Basically turning me into a Revolutionary in mind, but not so much in physical activity. So, I currently read material about the Cival War, Secession of States and survival books. I'm impatient for the economy to crumble as in Atlas Shrugged. Objectivism, is no where to be found in this world except in peoples thinking. I'm not a Doomsday person, or one to hide in a cave. If there comes a time that Insane Obama attempts to nullify the 2nd Amendment and other parts of the Constitution I will take political and physical action. I will go to the state capital and have my voice heard for Secession from the Union. If that doesn't work then I will take physical action. Like finding a Militia to join or create one.