tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799870134608261891.post3945146516412330408..comments2012-03-29T14:23:15.482-07:00Comments on Around the Randroid Belt: The Big Bang Elicits the Big Yawn from Randroidsseymourbloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02843717286012748265noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799870134608261891.post-44123095163872549692012-03-29T14:23:15.482-07:002012-03-29T14:23:15.482-07:00Those words don't seem to attatch themselves t...Those words don't seem to attatch themselves to tangible things; yet they seem to ring true.<br /><br />I will meditate on them.Jacob Wyatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16339437669640067822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799870134608261891.post-16901041489542515342012-03-29T12:35:51.690-07:002012-03-29T12:35:51.690-07:00From: Symbolic Exchange and Death - Jean Baudrilla...From: Symbolic Exchange and Death - Jean Baudrillard<br /><br /><i>To defy the system with a gift to which it cannot respond save by its own collapse and death. Nothing, not even the system, can avoid the symbolic obligation, and it is in this trap that the only chance of a catastrophe for capital remains. ...For it is summoned to answer, if it is not to lose face, to what can only be death. The system must itself commit suicide in response to the multiplied challenge of death and suicide. (Jean Baudrillard - Symbolic Exchange and Death 37)</i><br /><br />This is true for any system. And the randroids are no exception.seymourbloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843717286012748265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799870134608261891.post-1243194103461098532012-03-29T12:32:18.499-07:002012-03-29T12:32:18.499-07:00Jacob Wyatt, he "wastes" his time" ...Jacob Wyatt, he "wastes" his time" because long ago he received an incomparable GIFT from Ayn Rand. He knows that those who are "floating signs" hallelujahing her are really "floating signs" dissembling, masking the emptiness of their admiration, respect and fellowship concerning her. The counter-gift must be returned. Not necessarily at once, but it must be returned, and it must be greater than the GIFT itself. This is what Baudrillard gave to Foucault in his book Forget Foucault. This is what Darren is returning to Rand. He is making her more radical than she ever dreamed of being. So am I.seymourbloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843717286012748265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799870134608261891.post-45741954169580717832012-03-28T20:10:07.991-07:002012-03-28T20:10:07.991-07:00Satanic harmonics.
The Anti-KsE.Satanic harmonics.<br /><br />The Anti-KsE.Jacob Wyatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16339437669640067822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799870134608261891.post-33209679604046089232012-03-28T19:54:42.173-07:002012-03-28T19:54:42.173-07:00The harmonic resonances are central to Doris Lessi...The harmonic resonances are central to Doris Lessings science fiction novels of Shikasta the doomed planet whose tragedies and chaos stem from unharmonious harmonics.seymourbloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843717286012748265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799870134608261891.post-8799547245334285372012-03-28T15:33:18.659-07:002012-03-28T15:33:18.659-07:00And I will pour myself a glass of cheap scotch in ...And I will pour myself a glass of cheap scotch in mourning for such squandered genius.Jacob Wyatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16339437669640067822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799870134608261891.post-24792272574452973002012-03-27T20:35:13.290-07:002012-03-27T20:35:13.290-07:00Mr. Wyatt, many thanks! You made my day.
This eve...Mr. Wyatt, many thanks! You made my day.<br /><br />This evening I shall pour myself a peppermint schnapps and drink a toast to your good name and reputation!darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573318905727286251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799870134608261891.post-42842583365412351042012-03-27T18:13:14.776-07:002012-03-27T18:13:14.776-07:00Physics
Music
Biology
Computer Science
Literat...Physics<br /><br />Music<br /><br />Biology<br /><br />Computer Science<br /><br />Literature<br /><br />What the Hell are you?!<br /><br />And why do waste your time on these people? They've maximized their intellectual potential. There is no way they will ever be any better than they are -- and what they are is not nearly as bad as what they could be. What you are doing is the philosophical equivalent of kicking the dog.Jacob Wyatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16339437669640067822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799870134608261891.post-25460201947164709732012-03-26T18:06:15.253-07:002012-03-26T18:06:15.253-07:00>>>>Creationists make the same leap, i...>>>>Creationists make the same leap, in arguing for a Creator, when discussing gaps in fossil records.<br /><br />Once more, Burroughes: HUH??? The significance of gaps in the fossil record is not that they are consistent with creationism, but that they are inconsistent with Darwinism and gradualism.<br /><br />>>>>Richard Dawkins, in his recently published book, the God Delusion, has this to say about the argument for God on the basis of complexity (page 136): "A designer cannot be used to explain organised complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an infinite regress from which he cannot help us to escape."<br /><br />What Dawkins doesn't admit to is that an infinite regress applies just as much to a purely materialist explanation of origins as it does to one that assumes a creator-deity. By the way, at the end of Ben Stein's documentary "No Intelligence Allowed," Dawkins himself admitted that he is willing to accept an argument-from-design for terrestrial life . . . so long as the desiger is not "God".<br /><br />>>>>if existence was different from what it is, we might not be here to debate it.<br /><br />That doesn't change the signifance of the question "WHY, then, is the strong force what it is, when it could have been different?" You have evaded that question by trying to point to what the consequences might have been had they actually been different. That's a response to a different question (That question would be: "What would the consequences likely have been for the possibility of living organisms coming into existence had the strong force been different from what we find it today?) Get it? That's a very nice question, but it's a DIFFERENT question from asking "WHY is the strong force precisely what it is when no other force dictates that it be what we find it to be today?"<br /><br />And if a violin were discovered atop Mt. Everest, carbon-dated to 500 years ago, yet with strings not only intact, but tuned in perfect 5ths to E, A, D, G, an Objectivist archeologist would yawn and say "It couldn't have been any different from how we found it. And if it were different, why would we be surprised? Perfect 5ths have as much probability of appearing from the way the wooden tuning pegs are turned as any other interval."<br /><br />Well, uh, yeah, but why would every string be equidistant from its neighbor in terms of a musical interval? Why would intervals appear that were just those specific intervals that are amenable to a specific kind of music from a specific time period — western classical music from about the time of J.S. Bach to about the time of Richard Wagner?<br /><br />>>>>Adam Reed, who like me was not convinced of Parrish's argument and whom I quoted in the original post on this topic, has this to say about it:<br /><br />>>>>"There is no evidence for the belief that the physical constants could have had values different from what they are. <br /><br />Adam Reed has it backward. The question is not "what evidence is there that physical constants could have been different." The question is: "What evidence is there that the current constants must be what they are?" Answer: none. Ergo, it follows, that they could have been different.<br /><br />The fact that Reed committed himself to circular reasoning in an earlier part of his argument (see above), augurs well neither for his "reasoning process," nor (dare I say it?) for his "honorableness."darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573318905727286251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799870134608261891.post-71400595191013070942012-03-26T18:05:43.314-07:002012-03-26T18:05:43.314-07:00>>>>I would not disagree that I can de...>>>>I would not disagree that I can decide, by my will, to something, and my physical relation to the world has, by my moving, subtly changed.<br /> <br />Excellent. That's all Parrish is saying.<br /><br />>>>>But I also have not changed the external world unless I physically change it by touch, by my actions. <br /><br />Excellent. Parrish did NOT make that claim.<br /><br />>>>>The arrangements of nature are not changed simply because I will them to do or look at them in a different way, for example. My car does not become five times larger because I move right up to it. It is not elastic. It just looks bigger, etc.<br /><br />You're kicking an open door. Once again: PARRISH DID NOT MAKE ANY OF THOSE CLAIMS!<br /><br />>>>>I don't deny we can act without the desire to "achieve" anything; there is a time and a place for quiet relaxation where your mind is not focused on anything. But if you are in such a state (or fast asleep), then how are the elements of nature being changed other than through processes going on all the time, such as radioactive decay, erosion, or whatever? <br /><br />Excellent. That's all Parrish was saying.<br /><br />>>>>Being an "Austrian" myself, I can agree that no businessman wants to be obsessed with what other businesses and investors are thinking <br /><br />I can tell you don't know what you're talking about. An entrepreneur is VERY concerned about competition and what other businessmen and investors are thinking, because other businessmen and investors (like himself) are "future-oriented", and NOT especially obsessed with the "prevailing" state of the market. This means that those other businessmen and investors might be positioned to divert profit-making opportunities to themselves. Again, if that fat, diabetic, alcoholic fairy whose name means "Danger!" in Portuguese has left my former blog intact on SOLO, you will find a link to a lecture on Competition and Entrepreneurship by Austrian economist (and pupil of Mises) Israel Kirzner. It's worth reviewing, since you're a bit rusty on the significance Austrians place on the difference between "present state of the market" and "expected/anticipated future state of the market." It's actually fundamental to Austrian notions of the the market process and the idealized "Evenly Rotating Economy."<br /><br />>>>>The laws of physics just are; <br /><br />So is the tuning of a violin in perfect 5ths. But the question for those who are not wearing mental straitjackets: WHY are the laws of physics what they are when there's a lot of variability as to what they could be? Just as the tuning of a violin COULD be different from that of perfect 5ths — and most likely WOULD be different if the tuning were simply a matter of chance rather than design.<br /><br />>>>>they are not the consequence of some Creator's arbitrary will. It is one thing to state that there is no logical necessity as to why, say, gravity is as it is (and we are still learning more about it); it is quite another to then leap to the conclusion that it must have been caused by some sort of Supreme Being. <br /><br />Uh, yeah, but researchers like Hoyle, et al., never mentioned a "Supreme Being." They mentioned a "super-intellect", which is not exactly the same thing. If a violin's tuning in perfect 5ths strongly suggests design and intent by an intelligence (which it most assuredly does), then so does the double-resonance inside of stars that causes carbon to form from 3 fused helium nuclei: first into a highly unstable form of beryllium, and then into carbon. Objectivists yawn at this; Hoyle did not. Lucky for us, Hoyle was not an Objectivist.darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573318905727286251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799870134608261891.post-88347875426008153412012-03-26T18:04:11.407-07:002012-03-26T18:04:11.407-07:00>>>>It takes a certain amount of time ...>>>>It takes a certain amount of time and evidence to work out if a person is arguing honorably or not<br /><br />Huh? "Honorably"? "Honor" is a character trait. What does any character trait have to do with whether or not your opponent's ARGUMENT — his ARGUMENT, dimwit — is valid or invalid?<br /><br />What precisely is your procedure, Burroughes? Do you say to yourself, "According to my subjective criteria, it's apparent that Jones is dishonorable; ergo, his criticism of Rand's epistemology must be wrong, or not worth considering." ?<br /><br />Or, conversely,<br /><br />"Smith is honorable (according to my own subjective criteria); ergo, his argument in support of abiogenesis is valid." ?<br /><br />Yo, Burroughes! That's called "ad hominem."<br /><br />>>>>, and is showing good process in terms of how they think and deal with an argument. <br /><br />I don't know what this means. "Good PROCESS"? Arguments make sense or they don't make sense. When Parrish slammed Randroid Adam Reed for his circular reasoning — i.e., Reed insists that before claiming to adduce evidence for an entity called "God," one must first prove that such an entity exists; then Reed reverse himself and claims that before being able to prove that such an entity as "God" exists, one must first adduce evidence for it — that was a damning indictment of Reed's ARGUMENTATIVE PROCESS. It's obviously circular, and therefore invalid. But because you have a prior agreement with Reed's materialist/reductionist/atheist position, you think Reed is valid and Parrish invalid.<br /><br />Good PROCESS? Good GRIEF!<br /><br />>>>>A lot of the errors that come up in arguments are not signs of fraud or evil, but laziness, in my experience. <br /><br />Fine. In which case, WHAT DOES "HONOR" HAVE TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS?darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573318905727286251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799870134608261891.post-53469403913503504992012-03-26T18:03:15.254-07:002012-03-26T18:03:15.254-07:00Posted by Tom Burroughes recently on the Randroid ...Posted by Tom Burroughes recently on the Randroid site known as "SOLO":<br /><br />>>>>The other day, my comments about objectivism and religion . . . attracted a fair bit of commentary. This item, by a blog dedicated to attacking objectivism, is pretty vitriolic. You can get some idea of its approach by the strapline at the top: "This blog practices "Randroid Diminishing": The lampooning and lambasting of the major sites and personalities that worship Objectivism." Marvellous. I hope the blogger enjoys his hobby.<br /><br />Hobby? Brushing away flies is a joyous vocation.<br /><br />>>>>Decaying orbit? Really? Given the continued heavy sales of Atlas Shrugged and vibrancy of various groups sympathetic to her ideas, this is nonsense.<br /> <br />Sales of Atlas Shrugged in no way indicate that the so-called philosophy of Objectivism is any more influential or accepted (among academics or non-academics) than it was decades ago. The majority of people who have read and enjoyed Atlas Shrugged read it and enjoyed because of the storyline, not because Galt's speech transformed them into unthinking knee-jerk Randroids.<br /><br />>>>>All kinds of people attack Rand. If her ideas were "decaying", would such attackers bother? What is eating them?<br /><br />To be precise, we at "Around the Randroid Belt" never wrote that Ayn Rand's ideas were decaying (assuming they were alive to begin with) – read the relevant post again to confirm this for yourself. We wrote that the Randroid Belt – the ring of debris comprising Web sites like SOLO, Objectivist Living, etc., ad nauseam – was decaying. That's a bit different, wouldn't you say so?<br /><br />>>>>There is so much passive-aggressiveness in that paragraph.<br /><br />You're as sharp in psychology as you are in economics. (I.e., as dull as a bag of hammers.)<br /><br />>>>>I might as well say that when a person writes "dear reader", that they are being patronising.<br /> <br />Nonsense. "Dear reader(s)" is simply an old-fashioned stylistic device used in 18th-and-19th-century belles lettres. Can I help it if I'm literate and you're a trousered ape?<br /><br />>>>>When I said that Parrish was/is clever, I meant it without any sort of sneer or attempt to dismiss him (he also seems a very courteous writer, something the blogger would do well to learn from). I thought some of his article was interesting and had valuable points, but I disagreed with the central thrust of his argument. <br /><br />Here's some sound psychology for you: paranoids, schizoids, and Randroids, are unaware of their own lunacy. (That's one of the signs of their lunacy.) Members of a cult are unaware that they are members of a cult. <br /><br />>>>>No; when someone thinks they have been tricked, that is what they mean; it does not necessarily imply that the person shouts "you trickster" when they confront an argument that does not sit well with the rest of their views.<br /> <br />Wrong. A cult member forced to confront his lunacy by an outsider's argument will assume a defensive posture by crying "trick!" or "fraud!" They always have. They always will.<br /><br />As a final note regarding your state of denial: there are powerful psychological defense mechanisms that get installed and habitualized in the minds of cult members (Randroids, Scientologists, etc.). This is why concerned mommies and daddies hire professional De-Programmers to force a confrontation in the mind of the cult member and break through those defenses so that their child can continue his life as a real, live human being after having been transformed into a clone of Pinocchio by the cult, its dogmas, and the worship of its founders (Hubbard, Rand, etc.).darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573318905727286251noreply@blogger.com