Hello Great Thinkers!

Anonymous Guest's picture
Submitted by Anonymous Guest on Sun, 2010-04-11 18:41

Hello, just found this site and found it tantalizing. The posts seem a bit old and I was wondering whats up? Someone killed the interest for debate somewhere? Anyhoo, I see there is a lot of confrontation about the lexical aspects of Objectivism verses Subjectivism verses Objectivism.. and wondered if anyone cared to join me on this thread about it? I promice I'm a nice guy, just a bit thick.

Oh, fair warning, ten or so years ago I was sent a letter from ARI in responce to the ones I sent Mr. Piekoff about the work I was doing in personal studies towards how the mind works. (an effort for a better world) The letter simply stated for me to see a doctor about the problems I described and to not write again. So you may find me a bit bitter. It's a bit of a sore as I had faith that the "Greats of Objectivism" would not suffer sophisms so readly. I had such high hopes that I would not be alone in my work anymore that I dove into the realm of Objectivism like a thirsty man in the desert who finds a small spot of wet sand looks too much like a pond in an oasis. And though I still hold the wet sand in such high value, I no longer suffer the delusion of irrelative truth nor the headache that came with it... which, by the way, would be a good area for a starting point. How is the nature of Relative Truth viewed here? Each objectivist forum seems to have its own form and I don't want to step on any toes or have mine steped on. Such a begining could also lead to an end worth waiting for or at least learn from.

Thanks for your time,

Sean B.

FYI.. Silence is a cowards evasionary responce that I will not tolerate anymore. I seek true Utopia and have no illusions about it so face me like a real thinker, I'll love you for it.


( categories: )

Auf Wiedersehen

William Scott Scherk's picture

Which means, until we meet again.

Keep at it, dumkopf, work on your social skills and listening skills, and above all listen to the advice on How To Communicate Effectively.

Fare thee well, OCD + Aspies wunderkid.

I had found it ten minutes

Utopia or Death's picture

I had found it ten minutes before I posted the link. It was missing for 7years or so. After reading it again I see where I am mixed. I have nowhere to turn now so I'll go.

Farewell.

(I originally posted under, "Equality 7-2521" I don't know why it was taken away. You'll have to sort mine out from the other anonymous posters, im the randian guy who discovers the 3 via Tesla's letter to the Red Cross near the end, I come in about a quarter of the way in.. if you make it that far. )

Sean B.

stolenflying@yahoo.com

Here is where I originally

Utopia or Death's picture

Here is where I originally found OS-012 and fell in.. head first as usual. Maybe from here you can see where I am coming from.

http://communities.anomalies.n...

The truth is.

Utopia or Death's picture

The truth is, if you haven't figured it out, that I am unsure how to approach the subject. With the complications in communication values; fundamental, metaphysical, and epistemological; I have yet to find stable footing for the simplest of statements to be transcribed into Objectivist terminology. With everyone around the world interpreting Ayn Rand's work, and everyone else's, relative to the language structures of their native micro-culture I have taken extraordinary lengths towards working around such reconstructive systems so to get past the miss-directing sophisms on every level to expose the natural truths inherent in the state of things as they are. Like me calling all of you cowards, what does it really matter? You know that you can only work with what you have to work with. You know that "coward" is a social clause for the purpose of exposing a potential problem to be addressed and that it is not an end in itself. You know all of you are following your hearts, your passions, towards goals that you see are worthy of your time with the highest moral backing that you know.

I am simply stating that there is a higher cause, non-Distopia, and that I believe that the study of the basis of Relative Truth may be the answer. I had hoped that my gruff nature, passionate pros, and persistent integrity would draw an inquisitive set of questions and.. well more righteous deconstruction of my bad penmanship with a proper, thoughtful, retorts to my gruff nature to show the thickness of your skin and your stamina against the winds of fate. My passionate pros were for you to feed off of as an overabundance of suppuration from my scars to support the existence of your good will as I have you. (morbid pic, no?) We can move on. Get past your tailored dictates and see the forest for the trees, there is a natural fractal-istic system out there, i.e. there is literally a math to what you see as madness.

Here is one example of the mathematical monster: http://www.highintelligence.com/

Now these folks believe that their system is a basis for a global dialectic, their own approach to Utopia. The problem is that the system doesn't allow for the user to abstract new concepts. I figured out that if you replace the zero with a three, using the zero in its natural place as a space-saver, the damn thing functions right. It's freaky. The ability to dissimulate the work of anyone, including yourself, with absolute precision down to the most fundamental of constructs is and enormous power. A power that is a bit overwhelming and has lead me to this current state of blundering since I don't have its use perfected, the basis of its use perfected, nor do I have a living situation that leaves me with the freedom to perfect it. It is the math of relative truth.

What do you think and what is your truth relative?

Care to join me in trying this again?

Sean B.

Whats in a troll?

Utopia or Death's picture

Thanks again for everyone's participation. It has been educational as I have learned that there are no, "Great Thinkers" here outside of great crybabies. And be sure to keep crying, I'm sure someone else will make the world better and kiss you boo-boo like me as it is obvious you guys/gals can't stand on your own feet, "keep it up. He's responding. His one almost made sense." .(Come on Mr. Gregster, pick a side or don't bother.)

Here is a rough example of the irony that I see. Below was adapted from Galts speech in the 50th anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged:

"You have heard that this is an age of moral crisis. You have said it yourself, half in fear, half in hope that my words had no meaning. You have cried that man's sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demand. Since virtue, to you, consists of trans-suppositions, you have demanded more such sacrifices at every successive civil disaster. In the name of a return to civility, you have sacrificed all those evils which you held as the cause to your plight. You have sacrificed objection to subjection. You have sacrificed ontology to philosophy. You have sacrificed partnership to friendship. You have sacrificed Relative Truth to Objectivism. You have sacrificed happiness to duty."

You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held t be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the fundament around you? That world is not the product of sins, it is the product and the image of your integrity. It is your social ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection. You have fought for it, you have dreamed of it, and you have wished it, and I-I am the man who has granted your wish.

Your ideal had an immutable enemy, which your code of society was designed to destroy. I have withdrawn myself as that enemy. I have taken it out of the way of your reach. I have removed the source of all those evils you have been trans-suppositioning. I have ended your battle. I have stopped your motor mind. I have deprived your perception of the relative truths en-mass. I came here alone."

"Men do not live by Relative Truth, you say? I have reserved those who do. Relative Truth is impotent, you say? I have reserved those who's Relative Truth isn't. There are values higher than Relative Truth, you say? I have reserved those whom there arn't. "

"While you were dragging to your trans-suppositional altars the people of objection, of ontology, of partnership, of Relative Truth-I beat you to it, I understood them first. I saw through them the nature of the game you where playing and the nature of that social code of yours, which they had been too innocently generous to grasp. I saw through this another way to live by another social system-one based on relative truth. It is this I brought for you to examine."

"All the men who have vanished, the men you hated, yet dreaded to lose, it is you that has driven them away from you. Do not attempt to find out who. They do not choose to be found. Do not cry that it is their moral obligation to support you. They do not recognize such support without relative truth. Do not cry that you need the contrast of their integrity. You don't. Do not bribe their return. They are on strike, they, the people of Relative Truth."

:end of line.

I told you it was rough but though it is rough, it is as close to what I see as matters. If your having trouble with this abstract then let me explain a bit about the 'Abstract'. The 'Abstract' is usually taken to be the bizarre or artistic way to put things but there is a more important form that is actually more important, paramount, to the fundament of thought. Not unlike the "Abstract" preceding a patent or theory, in its pure form an abstract is a ideological structure from which knowledge is actuated. Like a primer, this structure has a substructure that utilizes the three base elements of sentience, the three realms of existence. Without this substructure's integrity in the creation of an 'abstract', the 'abstract is defunct as it requires all three elements to become a functional existent without ambiguity. Such entities exist within the mind as open clauses relative to their creation. When the missing element is integrated, the entity then becomes a fully functional disambiguated building block for the creation of more abstracts. Whether a distortion of reality or a perfect replica, it functions the same.

Lastly, "Still in print after more than fifty years, "Atlas Shrugged" a science fiction novel by Ayn Rand is the fundamental cornerstone of the philosophy know as "Objectivism". No other book of her's or anyone else was more accurate in depicting the fundaments that have made Objectivism what it is today.

Generally assumed to be the proper basis for Capitalism, Objectivism is an attempt by one woman to end the travesties that hide within Socialism only to suffer the travesties that hide within Capitalism and that they are just as potent but opposite in nature. Not realizing this, they push forward while bending the reality of there philosophical world to fit the 'capitalism' template. Going so far as to deem innocent ignorance as evil and depicting protagonists as saints as they murder those whom don't know any better and accusing the "masses" for being immortal for not being sociologically educated enough to keep from "dumbing down" to fit in. With power, intelligence, and wealth the Objectivist Elite had started a war against a non-existent enemy. A delusion of such obscurity has been a senseless pragmatic-ism fostered by very few people of worthy note and without enough relative truth to scare anyone. But unlike the dangers of Socialism claiming Capitalism "wrong, the Capitalism front fosters a numbing up, the acceptance of the realm of socialism as "wrong thus making collective behavioral conditioning for this new world the mainstay of social and self acceptance. This negates the fundament of sentience, the glue that ties the epistemological and metaphysical realms together, the math behind truth-relative, the Function of Intelligence.

So Objectivists and those from the systems that have spawned from it, I say object. Object the ignorance of Ignorance and help build the only perfect society, Utopia.....not Galt's Gulch.

Or chew me out.

Either way, join my battle for a better world." -An article I wrote at Brashbitez.com... with less misspelled words..

For a perfect society there needs to be a universal basis for the mingling of relative truths between individuals that is fundamentally sound and unabstainable. A proper Lexicon. A Lexicon is a filtered collection of dialectic existents like words, terms, and phrases. Like a dictionary, a Lexicon defines these existents but unlike a dictionary it is not intended to be universal for all other dialects. It has a specific dialectic base of an individual's or group's ideological context/s. The logistics of a Lexicon generally start with the interpretation of the concept 'Lexicon' with the ideological structures dictated by the specific dialectic base in question. Such dictations, if not readily identified, can be discovered by reverse engineering the structures and substructures of the dialectic base to follow the plausible tangents the new context allows. Exposure of the ideological integrity in this way allows for refinements, additions, and omissions depending on the parameters of the initial dialectic base and the limitations, or lack there of, in the ingenuit and integral skills of the party or parties involved. As to the dialectic base, it can come in any shape or form from a single symbol to the knowledge base of an entire civilization. Even the anti-lexical aspects are applicable as a Lexicon is tool for communication ordination and as a tool can be used to fix, so can it be used to destroy or left to gather dust.

In the history of mankind there has never been an attempt, or at least a successful attempt, to make a true Utopian Lexicon. I intend to change that as having a perfect basis for communication allows for the ability of perfect understanding thus leading to a perfect society relative. With so many variables in the transgression of ideological values interplaying with the dance of relative truths on the individual's level, there comes a need for a system of order, Law, to balance the creation of such a thing. And lastly, there must be a definitive dialectic base for the creation to commence.

Thus I have asked for the views of the readers on the subject of relative truth.

...

If you the reader still think this is "just a troll" might I expand on the concept a bit for you?

From "The Mark Of the Troll" by Sean C. Blanchette. (Yet to be published.)

"One earns the segregational term, "Troll" when one uses a community's collective intellectual power outside the the politically correct "norm" to sort out a problem of some relative connection with a given context. Often blamed for disrupting a thread, chat, or blog Trolls are generally banned, burned, and treated as anti-intellectuals when the very nature of the troll post is to fight the anti-intellectual bureaucratic sub-structures of the relative perceptual basis that the community holds as absolute. With whatever they have to work with, whether anyone knows it or not, and whether or not any postie is in the right or wrong as that is relative.The point is that without trolls the world would be a darker place. Each community locked in its intellectual macrocosm by the very manufactured glue that brought them together in the first place. "

That's about all I have to say today and I hope your ears haven't fallen off.

Sean B.

WSS

gregster's picture

keep it up. He's responding. His one almost made sense.

edit:

"Pick a side or don't bother."

See my earlier Mr Blankcheque: "You show many attributes that would grant you a warm reception at the interweb site Objectivist Living. There they take on any strays who wish to dabble around the notions of truth and facts. If you suck up there your toes won't be steped on."

You deserve hell.

Thank you for your response

Utopia or Death's picture

Thank you for your response with so much hard work Mr. Scherk. I do not condone your Argument of Intimidation nor will I validate it by translating. If you would like me to follow your argument and for me to give you a worthy response then please use English only. If you don't speak English and are using the Google Translator, please seek a live interpreter so you can discuss the plausible interpretations to examine them closer than you can alone.

On another note, I'm glad to hear that you know local mental health clinics in Canada and hope you use that knowledge well.

Thankyou for your time.

Festschriften

William Scott Scherk's picture

Well, the question is too difficult, right?

Wacktopia, I used Google Translate on your salad bar of verbiage, just to give it some piquancy and ratchet up the kookery. I sent it to Spanish then Norwegian then Afrikaans then Albanian then back to English. My comments are interspersed, in Polish.

Now I see that I can not get out socialism is Objectivism collapse features (fear of looking bad .. no Lenses libertarian, at least when he wrote in his "objective" followers not invite you to the wonderful gultch), but they have shown interest in me break. . less interest in trying.

Obiektyw libertarian nie jest rodzajem zdanie sprawia, że mnie do szału.

So I said, I'll tell you what my vision of "relative truth" is (something for you to work with robots), and so can you tell me where I am wrong, and they smell a little bit about me .. more .. I do not care, I have nothing to fear from you and you and nothing to lose.

I pachną trochę o mnie .. więcej .. Nie obchodzi mnie, co mówisz. Mówię kurwa jesteś szalony.

Relative truth is the idea that, assuming sufficient validity of the concept of 'truth' early work as "Opinions", but with a flare just introverted, intellectual, in the equation.

"Błysku tylko zamknięta, własności intelektualnej, w równaniu"? WTF? Whisky Tango Foxtrot, mamy jeden zwariowany szczeniak w SOLO rewir. Sanitariuszy!

Names well known, the word "relative" and "truth" is used throughout the definitions that form part of the relativity theory of Einstein and dictionaries, with their relatively operation, adequate definitions. In short, is the relative truth that a person is so true, regardless of faith to others.

Nazwy dobrze znane słowo "względny" i "prawdy" jest używane w definicji, które stanowią część teorii względności Einsteina i słowników, z ich stosunkowo pracy, odpowiednie definicje. W skrócie, jest względnym prawdy, że człowiek jest tak prawdziwy, bez względu na wiarę innych.

WTF?Ty kurwa orzechy?

Think Veritology, is the study of truth, a religious thing. As such, http://ehritzema.wordpress.com ... "And you think that it is not worth considering in the atheistic and techniques,"

"A myślisz, że nie warto zastanowić się, w ateistycznych i techniki"?

I dodał w przecinkami, fuckwit, ale nie mogę zrozumieć techniki i ateistycznych. Czy straciłeś marmury, małym chłopcem?

http://mysite.verizon.net/mark ... .

Dude! This path leads to Madness and Institutions.

Hmm ... simply be wrong for you to choose ... on
Physics is a concept much abused and the word for you. Just as "deep" and "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious." You pine for the evils in society and shouted, "This is bad!" And hope for the recognition of "One must never fail to moral judgments to speak." (P. 309, ARL.)

Wyglądało to bardzo piękny w afrikaans, ale Afrikaans jest taki piękny język, że nawet nutcases wygląda dobrze. Czasami.

When correlated with Ayn Rand's obsession with the idea of be ".. for the masses", unless you believe there is a collective consciousness ... Nah .. It is against the teachings of Ayn Rand .. But she did not .. But she did not "believe? ... Fallacy of the analytic-synthetic" dichotomy? (P. 18, ARL).

Don't substitute one Unyielding Dogma for another, crazy puppy man.

Anthropomorphization concept theories given mixed with the universal and absolute, "Note that the existing terms mean ..." and only after she said that the definition was something else, "The meaning of a concept consists of units - existing - including, including all the features of these devices" on the same page 19 of ARL .. (I personally disagree with it, and you do not see how the concept of conscious intention "concept came from the children .. maybe a bug or something ..)

No, może nie ma potrzeby odbiorców. Jesteś jak lalkarza i lalkowe w jednym!

She, as you seem a fear written summaries.

Yes, I often seem a fear.

As if fears that smugglers and their spirit efforts to create a concept, context, or a dialogue to "loss" to keep you pervert.

Keeping pervert is Job Number One at SOLO.

The only power he really has is his ability to appeal.

Exactly, but your communication style is Repulsive and Frighteningly Obtuse and Monomaniacal.

Am I wrong?

No, you are in trouble mentally. Just saying.

Now I am not again, "not moral judgments to speak" and say that all of you cowards!

Yes, in fact you are again not moral judgements.

Not because you choose to be, but that the structure of the target socialism, "which takes you full of fallacies like the one in combination, did you do it. Wake up!

Target Socialism is the new line of Bathwear for yuppies who don't like to wash.

What is your family right?

To cross the street when I see you mumbling your way up the sidewalk stinking of too many long nights alone with your obsessions.

Get help, brother. If you are in Canada, it is as easy as booking an appointment at the local Mental Health Clinic. If in America, well, you are fucked. If you weren't fucked already, that is.

"Truth Submitted by Curt

Utopia or Death's picture

"Truth

Submitted by Curt Holmes on Sun, 2010-04-25 12:57.

Truth is my head hurts.

I think I'll refrain from visiting this thread."

Why did he bother to comment? I know I am lacking in many areas and have stated so as well as asked for help. His post is just another example of the illegitimacy of the acceptable mindsets within Objectivists that are allowed to proliferate and pollute. Where are the "like minds" that would stand up and.. well, do anything to help this guy let alone me? The ubr minds that work towards a better world through Objectivism? Has places like solopassion.com become rot factories for 'whine', like about how bad other people and yell at those who don't care about those bad people? Too lazy to explore the possibility that I might have some point worth taking the time and energy to explore?

I get it.. money. Your not getting paid to do so. As far as I have seen, there is nothing here I would pay for and as far as I'm concerned, you all owe me for the time and effort I put into this thread without even a decent response like, "hi" or "welcome". This is my first thread here yaknow.

If your gonna post like this guy please take your conceit elsewhere.

Thank you.

Truth

Curt Holmes's picture

Truth is my head hurts.

I think I'll refrain from visiting this thread.

Ok, the question is too hard,

Utopia or Death's picture

Ok, the question is too hard, right? I see now I can't pull you out of the objectivist's socialism functions (fear of seeming wrong.. non-objectivist, in your writting amongst your "objective" peers less you don't get invited into the glorious gultch) but you have shown interest in smashing me.. at least interest in attempting to do so. So tell you what, I'll tell you what my view of "Relative Truth" is (something for you robots to work with) and then you can show me where I am wrong and smack me around a little.. alot.. I don't care, I have nothing to fear from you and yours and nothing to lose.

Relative Truth is the concept that, assuming that there is enough validity in the concept 'Truth' to begin with, functions the same as 'Opinions' but with a righteous flare and introverted, intellectually, in comparison. Name sake wise, the word, "Relative" and "Truth" are used via the definitions form Einstein's theory of relativity and dictionaries with their relatively functioning, good enough, definitions. In essence, relative truth is that which an individual holds as true regardless of the truths of others.

You think Veritology, the study of truth, is a religious thing. Like this guy, " http://ehritzema.wordpress.com... " and you don't think it's worth your consideration in more atheistic techniques like, " http://mysite.verizon.net/mark... ".

Hmm... just to be more wrong for you to pick at...

'Relativity' is an overly abused concept and word to you. Like "profound" or "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". You pine over the evils of the world and shout, "That's EVIL!!" and hope for recognition for, "One must never fail to pronounce moral judgement." (Pg. 309, ARL.) when it correlates with Ayn Rand's obsession with the non-existent 'mind of the masses'.. less you believe there is a collective consciousness... Nah.. Thats against Ayn Rand's teachings.. But she does it.. But she doesn't "believe? ... Fallacy of the Analytic-Synthetic-Dichotomy? (Pg. 18, ARL.) Anthropomorphization of concepts mixed in with her theories dictated as universal absolutes, "Observe that concepts mean existents..." and just after she said the definition was something else, "The meaning of a concept consists of the units--the existents--which it integrates, including all the characteristics of these units." on the same page 19 in the ARL. (I personally don't agree with this one as I don't see where the intent of conscious concept, "concept" came from.. maybe a bad childhood or something..) She, like you, seem to also have a fear on written abstracts. As if you fear the mind mongers and their attempts to distort a concept, context, or even a dialog to "defeat" you. The only power you really have is your ability to whine. Am I wrong?

I will now, again, not "fail to pronounce moral judgment" and state that you are all cowards! Not because you choose to be but because the structure of the 'objective socialism' you cling do so dearly is riddled with sophisms that, mixed together, have made you so. WAKE UP!!

What is your truth relative?

Sean Curtis Blanchette Smiling

Lol. I like your dry sence of

Utopia or Death's picture

Lol. I like your dry sence of humor Mr. Klein. I know I squeek well since I came here without a plan. I see something severely important that needs to be addressed and since I don't know the best way to do it from my end I figured to dive in head first and hope for the best. Kind of like walking into a room of society critics butt naked thinking they care enough to look past my personal faults to hear me out so to save the world, at least a small part. The nice thing about doing it this way is that you find out how free-thinking those involved really are up front, bad thing is that it makes a mess of first impressions, something I'm not sure I should bother with in this area.
( neologism... is a neologism?)
I wouldn't exactly say that "unabstainable fundament" is a term, I agree it might be used as such but it is simply two words, a verb and an noun, put next to eachother for one to absract the meaning like an expression. Like "most relevant", "essentially introducing", and "care enough". The context I put it in was, "a structural foundation that cannot be abstained" and my example with Ayn Rand's clause was to make that context more apparent.
From my viewpoint "neologism" seems more the short form of a hyperbole used as the base of the word's construction. Thats assuming it to be 'neo-log-ism' sence I have found no available definition (proper) for 'logism'. "cannot", "everyone", "oneway" would also fall under the neologism that is neologism from their current and more commonly accepted place, "compound word". Call it an "old neologism". As I have not replaced the definitions of the words, "unabstainable" or "fundament", I'm not sure where 'neologism' would apply. If you break down the word "neologism" into "neo-logism", with "logism" as the name for Alexander (neo-Kantianist?) Vvedensky's theory that the limits of knowledge is based on logic itself, then the word's construct would be self defeating. (Thats one way to neo-fi everything. lol) "Clause" may be more accurate than neologism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

FYI, english is my only language. It just sounds like another because I use similar structures. If you haven't noticed, all of these struggles we are having point to a need of a proper Lexicon. With linguists still fighting over which structure of what is better, it is ridiculous to poke around like this. I will not respond to these questions and accusations here anymore. Just fill in the blank for me, please? Your view of 'Relative Truth' is ____________.

Sean B.

Don E. Klein's picture

You get a very small window of opportunity to gain the reader’s interest, and with each misspelling and grammatical mishap the window closes all the quicker. Use a spell checker, and problem's solved.

Here are the Google results for “unabstainable fundament” http://www.google.com/#hl=en&s...
I offer this as evidence that you’re essentially introducing a neologism, yet you use the term as though everyone should know what you’re talking about, and now, you finally apply it to a context, Rand’s statement that reason is an absolute. Maybe someone will take the time to answer you on that point, I’m only trying to help you understand why you’re being ignored, since you’re being quite the squeaky wheel.

Also, I’m curious, what is your first language? I gather that it’s not English, how long have you studied?

Amendment: "Continual silence

Utopia or Death's picture

Amendment:

"Continual silence is a pattern of apathy wether intended or not."...I forgot to expand on this.

I intended the statement to cover those whom actually read the entire thread as it was before it was replied to in responce to Mr. Scherk's comment. Its hard to believe that there have been so many "reads" as documented. My guess was that roughly 90% of those reads where skimmers and passerbys. With the current number at 359, I'm quite positive that my guess was a little high.

Thanks to everyone for

Utopia or Death's picture

Thanks to everyone for writting, I reply in the order of time posted.

<"Spelling Bee winner
Submitted by Don E. Klein on Tue, 2010-04-13 21:56.
You didn’t bring up a topic to discuss, and your spelling and grammar sucks. Lexical Objectivism verses Subjectivism verses Objectivism. What’s that? A poem? Also, “unabstainable fundament” is a new one to me.

There, you got a reply.">

Thankyou SBw for the reply. As for the topic I wrote, "How is the nature of Relative Truth viewed here?" and explained in a later reply, "I'm currently working on a self-sustaining Lexicon for the purpose of creating an unabstainable fundament and I need a broader view of the concept of "Relative Truth" and figured that such an expantion would help those on this site in their own studies and works." and commented that, "It would be a mutual educational adventure." directly afterword. As for my spelling and grammar, I make no excuse and I will endevor to improve as I see fit. If you would like to help me improve the english language or can show a better functioning language, please do. I am not a master.

There are many complications with written communications as evident within all of the posts of those who replied including myself and not just. Within each of our mindsets is an integral structure used for interpreting communication and the concepts derived from said interpretation. Without a proper foundation, such as a Lexicon, open tangents can and generally do lead both the sender and receiver down paths unintended. Take the game called, "Telephone" for example and step it up a notch to include the ideological interpretations as well. Here, take a Mandarin woman, a Twi woman, and a Spanish woman (I like women.Eye) for one probable (for lack of a better one) example and under the assumption that they posses the highest skills available in their respective languages, both first and second. The African also speeks Mandarin, the Spaniard speeks Twi, and the Chinese guy speeks Spanish. Sit them down in a circle and have them recite Galt's speech to eachother in succession. You will find that because of the thought processes developed for the different language structures, you will never get a perfect return . Sure, "Close enough." can be acceptable when it fills the quota of function but further interperatations from a sophistical given, like the compications in compairing relative lexical structures for interpreting, one can become severily damaged intelectually, especially when it comes to matters of philosophy. "Common Sence" may be a factor in the stability of said intellects but even if one does keep a sence about them, the integrity of the communicator is still lost to a more indepth study. Other complications, like Descartes' evasion of religious prosecution for one, add to and even create ambiguations that plague interpretation. So in effect, one can be submerged in unseen sophisms (please see http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/... ) that guide the flow of Ideas in ways outside of the user's knowledge.

As for the "poem", I ended the statement with "..." not "." in effort to expose my lack of clearity into the effectual use of the "Ayn Rand Lexicon" as it seems to have been constructed with more of an intent to defend Objectivism against attacks of dissent than an objective (the Objectivist's version of, "objective") analisis of Objectivist terms. For a strong example, please look at page 151 in the Ayn Rand Lexicon and look at the first line next to "Esthetic Judgement". "Now a word of warning..." ..is that not a threat? If it is simply taken out of context then why? Does it not ambiguate the integrity of the Lexicon itself? Should the Lexicon been called, "The Ayn Rand Compilation" since most if not all of entries suffer simular issues? Granted it's a great source of information pertaining to thoughts and subject matter from Ayn Rand (and others.. another complication in regards to the current title) but it is a muddy source of, "OBJECTIVISM FROM A TO Z" as it is not in a logical lexical context.

“unabstainable fundament” is a structural foundation that cannot be abstained. Ayn Rand claims Reason as "man's only absolute" repetedly without giving it an unabstainable fundament and suffered for it. Not to say that such a fundament cannot be had but one might as well state that you must take it on faith that she was correct. Faith indicates abstainability and at this level it has made a mess of objectivists in their fight to impose its unabstainability without proper fundament.

Thanks again for replying, it's nice to know you.

Ok, who's next.

<"Submitted by Kasper on Tue, 2010-04-13 22:52.
There's not much, if anything, to address here. Your curiosity for how the mind works and whether it matches up with Objectivism is indeed a problem answerable by medical literature or future medical research and then you can contrast/compare it with Objectivist theory - available anywhere. Amazon, local library and internet information. Take your pick.

Silence doesn't always equal evasion.. Have you considered that it may be a matter of dis-interest?">

Hi ghosty(cute no?), nice to meet you and thankyou for addressing, if that's what you are doing, what you see to address here. When you have the time, please expand on what aspect of functional epistemology, indeed, is a problem answerable via medical references. I wouldn't mind a dialog.. probably not here. And to clearify, 'compair' and 'contrast' are only two of the three components nessessary for concept creation, the third is 'abstraction'.

As for the "...matter of dis-interest?", I concider such disinterest in the creation of a true Utopia, non-distopian, as evasion of the main priority of a philosopher, i.e. everyone, regardless of intent. Thus I have brought up the main topic to be handeled first, Relative Truth, as a sudtle and thorough way to deal with my consideration that is may well be a matter of disinterest.

Thanks again for replying and I hope you find more to address.

Next.

<"How the Mind Works
Submitted by James Heaps-Nelson on Tue, 2010-04-13 23:15.
Utopia,

If you are indeed interested in such topics, consider the following:

On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins
The Feeling of What Happens by Antonio Damasio
Descartes' Error by Antonio Damasio
In Search of Memory by Eric Kandel

The Atlas Society also has a number of monographs on this topic. The Psychology of Abstraction by Kenneth Livingston is good.

If you find any of the above interesting, post about it and we can talk about it here.

Jim">

Dear Jim, thankyou but my intrest lies in the creation of Utopia. The dancing of concepts through unknown minds is a long and arduous journey which I have taken enough to know where to go, Relative Truth. Unless I run into something I can't handle, I intend to continue as I am. Besides, I enjoy talking with people more and have found it easier to find the answers to questions about statements, points, and views by directly asking them. Beats reading a thousand pages to find out if the sky is actually blue.. Also, some of my studies require human interaction such as this so in truth I am enthralled to be here.

Just to make it known, I have read most of the works Ayn Rand. (I think The Romantic Manifesto is the only one I haven't read. Anthem is my favorite.)
So please don't mistake my being here as a mistake. And after fifteen years of study I would think I could possably out-do, so to speak, Mr. Livingston. Truth is, it is a matter of disinterest. With me it would be like beating a dead horse. The others sound like they may be nice distractions for another day when I have nothing better to do.

Again thank you for writting and for the probable future reading material. Very kind.

Onward!

<"Submitted by gregster on Wed, 2010-04-14 10:50.
Utopia
You show many attributes that would grant you a warm reception at the interweb site Objectivist Living. There they take on any strays who wish to dabble around the notions of truth and facts. If you suck up there your toes won't be steped on.">

Thanks gregster for the invitation. I'm afraid I have already made a name for myself there by steping on everyone elses toes. Look for the author "Stryder" to find my posts.. more like angry rants really.. I've been refigning my internet social skills and the posts there are examples of my previous efforts.

Silly question for you, what do you mean, "..dabble around the notions of.."? If it's what I think then I'm sure they would have a field day with you for that.

Thanks again for the invite and for replying.

Now..

<"I second the recommendation
Submitted by Aaron on Wed, 2010-04-14 12:35.
I second the recommendation for 'On Intelligence'. I'd also recommend 'How the Mind Works' by Steven Pinker and have had high recommendations for (but have not yet read) other Pinker books.

Aaron">

Thanks for the recomendation Aaron, kind of you to offer.

And finally.. Mr. Scherk. I hope you don't mind but I did use Google Translate, as per your requisite, and replaced your French with Google English. You owe me for the effort so instead of taking the time to clean it all up I leave it to you to sort.

<"Did I fail to understand something?" Yes . . .
Submitted by William Scott Scherk on Thu, 2010-04-15 18:21.
93 views and no comments. Am I getting this right? How does this "forum" work? Did I fail to understand something? Or do you guys like to letting people hang in the wind like this?

Au fin, c'est une question de personalité et aussi une question de bonne foi. La manque de commentaire ne dit rien au sujet de la motif de 'you guys.' Il n'y a pas de 'you guys' ici. En outre, de prendre une conclusion fondée sur une fausse dichotomie est inefficace.

"In the end, it's a question of personality and also a question of good faith. The lack of comment says nothing about the pattern of 'you guys'. There is no 'you guys' here. Also, take a conclusion based on a false dichotomy is ineffective."

Plus précisament, il n'est pas possible de représenter avec exactitude le moteur mental d'une autre personne, sans prendre le temps de s'en informer.

"More specifically, it is not possible to accurately represent the motor mind of another person, without taking the time to find out."

.. I have the same problem on my utopian forum. No one bothers. Did everyone give up? Vanish into myopic closet nillism to accept and impose a horrid, flawed, and ideologically vulger social structure? Are you so pent up towards fighting the masses you've forgotten your a part of that mass? Human? Fight the ideas not the people!

Si vous limitez vos données à un petit ensemble d'informations qui ne fait que souligner votre «intuition», vous courez le risque de rater des faits très importants imbriqué au monde.

Ainsi, si vous restreindre l'ensemble des explications possibles pour l'absence initiale de réponses. . . vous n'obtenez pas de bons renseignements.

Ainsi, «did everyone give up?!» est une possibilité parmi d'autres - et la réponse la plus probable n'est pas que tout le monde a fui dans le nihilisme. En fait, la question est mal formé. C'est une accusation . . . . en forme de question.

"If you limit your data to a small set of information that only emphasizes your "intuition" you run the risk of missing important facts embedded in the world.

So, if you restrict the set of possible explanations for the initial lack of responses. . . you do not get good information.

Thus, "Did everyone give up?!" Is one possibility among others - and the most likely answer is that everyone has fled into nihilism. In fact, the question is malformed. It is an accusation. . . . in question form."

Look, I've been working on this for 15 years. Fifteen years and I have yet to give up on the chance that an 'absolutely perfect' society can be had. In fact, I have found more evidence and moral responcibility to support that theory than any other. I could use a little help and figured someone here just might be interested.

Avez-vous reçu un diagnostic de trouble mental?

Les personnes avec un trouble de la personnalité "borderline" sont des adultes (ou des adolescents) sans la moindre déficience intellectuelle mais qui sont émotionnellement perturbées et avec des comportements pouvant parfois sembler excessifs, enfantins ou immatures.

Ils ont une tendance à réagir plus intensément que les autres à des niveaux de stress moindres d’une part, et à parfois mettre plus de temps pour se rétablir, d’autre part. L'on parle de dérégulation émotionnelle ou de surémotivité (personne surémotive, surémotif).

Les relations avec une personne souffrant de trouble de la personnalité borderline peuvent être extrêmement chaotiques du fait de leur "tempêtes emotionnelles", changements d'humeur soudains et impulsivité.

Leur vie est une véritable souffrance car elles présentent à l’entourage une apparence de «normalité». Pour les personnes souffrant de ce trouble, se conduire longtemps en adulte "comme tout le monde" est un rôle alors qu'elles sont dans une vraie detresse.

"Have you been diagnosed with a mental disorder?

People with a personality disorder "borderline" are adults (or adolescents) with no disability but who are emotionally disturbed and whose behavior can sometimes seem excessive, childish and immature.

They tend to react more intensely than others at lower levels of stress on the one hand, and sometimes take longer to recover, on the other. They talk of emotional dysregulation or surémotivité (person surémotive, emotional).

Relations with a person suffering from borderline personality disorder can be extremely chaotic due to their "Emotional storms, sudden changes of mood and impulsivity.

Their life is a real pain because they have to look around to "normality". For people suffering from this disorder, behavin 'like everyone else "is a role while they are in real distress. The question is malformed. It is an accusation. . . . in question form."

I'll check back in a few days, if no one bothers then I won't return. I'm sick of mental cowards.

It is really not going to help, dude. Although a certain rectitude and belligerence doesn't bar you from participation, since those qualities are prized in some measure, the accusatory, unbalanced nuttiness of your first post is going to make you a target. You sound nuts, frankly.

A better place for you might be the cult led by Stefan Molyneux. He feasts on the fucked-up. I will send you a link backstage.

WSS>

Dear sir,

Please expand on "the end" that you are implying and to what intent.

Where exactly does personality and good faith fall when based on Relative Truth? (I would really like to point this thread back towards my original question.)

Please name the implied "false dictonomy" as I fail to see where 'common sence', or any variation there about, applies to my understanding this paticular point.

Continual silence is a pattern of apathy wether intended or not.

All forms of "motor mind" have the same fundamental basis. I am studying, among many other things, paticular aspects of that basis and relative integrations instead of their tangents or extentions.

In relation to "intuition", I am studying natural intellect function through natural ideological stimulation both in myself and others. The risk I take in missing important facts, embedded and otherwise, is calculated.

I have formulated the set of possible explanations for the lack of responces. I then contrasted that calculation against what I see should be the ultimate goal of mankind, the creation of Utopia, and acted accordingly.

Personality disorders, outside of physically damaged brains, are evidence of a traumatizing existence. They do not dictate nor distort the natual functions of the intellect but the stimulus those intellects have to work with. As such, and without a proper basis for personality contextual maps (such as a Lexicon) let alone a basis that is agree apon by relative parties, identifying whether or not one has a personality disorder is tantamount to fallacy. Especially without taking the time to find out the "motor mind" of the individual or the group in question.

"..excessive, childish and immature.". One might say they seem passionate, playful, and free thinking as they, and can only, work with what they have. A healthy education on relative topics would be most benificial to such a youthful mind as I am giving you.

Please expand on the statement, "They talk of emotional dysregulation or surémotivité (person surémotive, emotional).". The translation leaves many possable venues open for interpretation that would need confermation such as definitions, contexts, and their relations.

Emotional storms, sudden changes of mood, and impulsivity are natural in relation to personality disorders, borderline and otherwise. The cure is as stated above, a healthy education.

The search for 'normality' is the search for a healthy education. Without it, their lives would be tedious with guess work. The need to "belong" becomes more apparent as their interactions cause more dismay and distance from their goals and loved ones. If you haven't noticed, this is one of the main reasons religions exist. Until Utopia is created, the cults will continue to rise and a myopic form of Capitalism will continue to hurt man instead of help.

As for the malformity of the accusational question/s, it was intended. I call out to all objectivists with my challenges. Besides, it seems the only way to get them out of their "safety zones" to do something worthwhile.

You stated, "It is really not going to help, dude.". Please explain what "it" is and what it "is really not going to help, dude.". I am here to work on Utopia an meet new people with like minds about simular topics. I am not here to fix Objectivism. Also, given the current state of objectivist society, I decided to become the hunter. My bate is myself. My weapon is my Relative Truth oiled with persistance. My goal is a better life through a better world.

I may sound nuts to you but you sound positively ludicrous to me. Even so, I still would like to get to know you.

As for the last bit of your post, I have no place for you to decide for me, nor was I asking for you to do so. I have made my place the Utopian Thought Contigation (not contagen) where I tend to keep my "f**ked-up" self. If Utopia is to be created then I will do so without repeteing history.

Thankyou for your efforts and I hope we talk more.

Now, I ask again to all who read this, how is the nature of Relative Truth viewed here?

Smiling Thanks again to all who replied and to those caring enough to read this far. Smiling

Sean B.

"Did I fail to understand something?" Yes . . .

William Scott Scherk's picture

93 views and no comments. Am I getting this right? How does this "forum" work? Did I fail to understand something? Or do you guys like to letting people hang in the wind like this?

Au fin, c'est une question de personalité et aussi une question de bonne foi. La manque de commentaire ne dit rien au sujet de la motif de 'you guys.' Il n'y a pas de 'you guys' ici. En outre, de prendre une conclusion fondée sur une fausse dichotomie est inefficace.

Plus précisament, il n'est pas possible de représenter avec exactitude le moteur mental d'une autre personne, sans prendre le temps de s'en informer.

.. I have the same problem on my utopian forum. No one bothers. Did everyone give up? Vanish into myopic closet nillism to accept and impose a horrid, flawed, and ideologically vulger social structure? Are you so pent up towards fighting the masses you've forgotten your a part of that mass? Human? Fight the ideas not the people!

Si vous limitez vos données à un petit ensemble d'informations qui ne fait que souligner votre «intuition», vous courez le risque de rater des faits très importants imbriqué au monde.

Ainsi, si vous restreindre l'ensemble des explications possibles pour l'absence initiale de réponses. . . vous n'obtenez pas de bons renseignements.

Ainsi, «did everyone give up?!» est une possibilité parmi d'autres - et la réponse la plus probable n'est pas que tout le monde a fui dans le nihilisme. En fait, la question est mal formé. C'est une accusation . . . . en forme de question.

Look, I've been working on this for 15 years. Fifteen years and I have yet to give up on the chance that an 'absolutely perfect' society can be had. In fact, I have found more evidence and moral responcibility to support that theory than any other. I could use a little help and figured someone here just might be interested.

Avez-vous reçu un diagnostic de trouble mental?

Les personnes avec un trouble de la personnalité "borderline" sont des adultes (ou des adolescents) sans la moindre déficience intellectuelle mais qui sont émotionnellement perturbées et avec des comportements pouvant parfois sembler excessifs, enfantins ou immatures.

Ils ont une tendance à réagir plus intensément que les autres à des niveaux de stress moindres d’une part, et à parfois mettre plus de temps pour se rétablir, d’autre part. L'on parle de dérégulation émotionnelle ou de surémotivité (personne surémotive, surémotif).

Les relations avec une personne souffrant de trouble de la personnalité borderline peuvent être extrêmement chaotiques du fait de leur "tempêtes emotionnelles", changements d'humeur soudains et impulsivité.

Leur vie est une véritable souffrance car elles présentent à l’entourage une apparence de «normalité». Pour les personnes souffrant de ce trouble, se conduire longtemps en adulte "comme tout le monde" est un rôle alors qu'elles sont dans une vraie detresse.

I'll check back in a few days, if no one bothers then I won't return. I'm sick of mental cowards.

It is really not going to help, dude. Although a certain rectitude and belligerence doesn't bar you from participation, since those qualities are prized in some measure, the accusatory, unbalanced nuttiness of your first post is going to make you a target. You sound nuts, frankly.

A better place for you might be the cult led by Stefan Molyneux. He feasts on the fucked-up. I will send you a link backstage.


WSS

__________________

PS -- I will run this through Google Translate and append. Thanks for the backstage suggestions.

I second the recommendation

Aaron's picture

I second the recommendation for 'On Intelligence'. I'd also recommend 'How the Mind Works' by Steven Pinker and have had high recommendations for (but have not yet read) other Pinker books.

Aaron

Utopia

gregster's picture

You show many attributes that would grant you a warm reception at the interweb site Objectivist Living. There they take on any strays who wish to dabble around the notions of truth and facts. If you suck up there your toes won't be steped on.

How the Mind Works

James Heaps-Nelson's picture

Utopia,

If you are indeed interested in such topics, consider the following:

On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins
The Feeling of What Happens by Antonio Damasio
Descartes' Error by Antonio Damasio
In Search of Memory by Eric Kandel

The Atlas Society also has a number of monographs on this topic. The Psychology of Abstraction by Kenneth Livingston is good.

If you find any of the above interesting, post about it and we can talk about it here.

Jim

There's

Kasper's picture

not much, if anything, to address here. Your curiosity for how the mind works and whether it matches up with Objectivism is indeed a problem answerable by medical literature or future medical research and then you can contrast/compare it with Objectivist theory - available anywhere. Amazon, local library and internet information. Take your pick.

Silence doesn't always equal evasion.. Have you considered that it may be a matter of dis-interest?

Spelling Bee winner

Don E. Klein's picture

You didn’t bring up a topic to discuss, and your spelling and grammar sucks. Lexical Objectivism verses Subjectivism verses Objectivism. What’s that? A poem? Also, “unabstainable fundament” is a new one to me.

There, you got a reply.

93 views and no comments. Am

Utopia or Death's picture

93 views and no comments. Am I getting this right? How does this "forum" work? Did I fail to understand something? Or do you guys like to letting people hang in the wind like this?

.. I have the same problem on my utopian forum. No one bothers. Did everyone give up? Vanish into myopic closet nillism to accept and impose a horrid, flawed, and ideologically vulger social structure? Are you so pent up towards fighting the masses you've forgotten your a part of that mass? Human? Fight the ideas not the people!... Objectivism is not perfect. It is awsome, extencive, and even beautiful in many areas. But it is not PERFECT. Crying

Look, I've been working on this for 15 years. Fifteen years and I have yet to give up on the chance that an 'absolutely perfect' society can be had. In fact, I have found more evidence and moral responcibility to support that theory than any other. I could use a little help and figured someone here just might be interested. I'm currently working on a self-sustaining Lexicon for the purpose of creating an unabstainable fundament and I need a broader view of the concept of "Relative Truth" and figured that such an expantion would help those on this site in their own studies and works. It would be a mutual educational adventure.

If you don't want to talk about it here then find some way to contact me because I don't think I'm allowed to advertize my forum here.

Tired I'll check back in a few days, if no one bothers then I won't return. I'm sick of mental cowards.

Noob Noob

Utopia or Death's picture

And live.

Noob

Utopia or Death's picture

If my user name is inappropriate and change is needed, pls let me know. I only want learn.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.