RoR: Forum

Michael,

================
Humans are not inherently productive. [A]hahahahah, if they were[,] we would not need a philosophy at all.
================

Michael, I know that you are an artist, and so you should be somewhat excused for giving a little too much weight to your "feelings" on matters. The Reverend (Malcolm) replied to this well, but I have another thing to say about it: In society, every value that humans need is produced -- every damn one.

================
You know, Ed, how this all reads to me? That you hope curiosity leads to creativity.
================

Now there's the artists' strong-point -- being able to jump to a sense of life. You are (in this case) right about my hope, but remember the words of the now-immortalized Rand: Only long-time personal therapists, intimate loved ones, and yourself -- will ever really know your sense of life.

Ed

Post 81

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 10:26am

Ok, Robert, let me throw some more trash your way.
Humans do not do the following inherently:

Producing or capable of producing.

Producing abundantly; fertile. See Synonyms at fertile.

Yielding favorable or useful results; constructive.

Economics. Of or involved in the creation of goods and services to produce wealth or value.
If it were automatic, inherent, then we wouldn�t need to understand or evaluate anything about it. �Hey, everyone I am inherently productive because I am human!� And the gigantic mass of humanity went happily off into the sunset, pickled pink, filled with their inherent worthiness.

Post 82

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 10:54am

Ed,

"Michael, I know that you are an artist, and so you should be somewhat excused for giving a little too much weight to your "feelings" on matters."

This is simply unfair. Michael Newberry is a romantic realist, and an objectivist. Are you suggesting that ALL artists are subjectivist's and relativists?

At the risk of contradicting the Reverend Malcome, the following by Michael Newberry is true:

"Humans are not inherently productive. [A]hahahahah, if they were[,] we would not need a philosophy at all."

Ayn Rand pointed out that REASON is volitional. Without REASON uniquely human (creative) productivity does not happen. Philosophy, to the extent that is teaches humans the correct method of THINKING and REASONING enhances human productivity. The only correct measure of a correct philosophy is the extent that the philosophy enhances human productivity and flourishing. If humans AUTOMATICALLY practiced correct thinking and reasoning [effortlessly] then philosophy would indeed not be needed.

Edit: Oops. Sorry Michael, I didn't notice your post while I was writing this one.
(Edited by Mike Erickson
on 1/21, 11:04am)

Post 83

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 4:41pm

While Reason is volitional, humans cannot survive without use of it - hence all humans produce... BUT - the efficiency of the production is another matter.

Post 84

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 6:54pm

Robert wrote: "While Reason is volitional, humans cannot survive without use of it - hence all humans produce... BUT - the efficiency of the production is another matter."

Robert,
I know you wrote down words and you arranged them in a manner and I know they are supposed to mean something....that is as far as my reason takes me.
Michael

Post 85

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 7:14pm

Others,

Humans do not do the following inherently:

Producing or capable of producing.

Mike & Michael, the Reverend and I disagree with you -- on the grounds that human life is impossible without production. Maybe you've seen a hobo, living off of others' production -- utilizing altruistic guilt. You take that as something metaphysical, it is not. I'm talking about man qua man. You're talking about the guy down the street. The only way he survives is by mooching, and that is not the human way to survive. He's not being very "human" -- if you ask me.

In general, production is necessary for human survival. Period. I actually think we agree on this (ie. our differences are due to semantics).

It's because of the kind of creatures we are.

Ed

p.s. Mike, the "artist" dig was to get under the skin of Sir Michael (to level the playing field around here -- as he has been a loose cannon, given way too much reign to type beligerently)

Post 86

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 7:31pm

Ed wrote: "...I know that you are an artist, and so you should be somewhat excused for giving a little too much weight to your "feelings" on matters."

Perhaps your going by your reasoning that humans are inherently productive and applying it to a definition of "artists" you picked up somewhere and concluding that artists are inherently subjective. Now that makes total sense to me that you would think that way, there is a certain logic, if not reason, to it.

Michael

Post 87

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 7:47pm

I am not belligerent I am one of the kindest people around ask Cordero and Hong--though George and I differ on what is meant by kindness--I will let him state what it means to him but I think it is giving generously any of my time but I do draw line with certain things. And I am amused to know that there is now a level playing field, reminds me of a Dutch expression: als je hooft boven het masses gaan het moot offgesnijen (sp). Translation: If you're head rises above the masses it must be chopped off.

(Edited by Newberry on 1/21, 8:26pm)

Post 88

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 8:55pm

Ed,

"Mike & Michael, the Reverend and I disagree with you..".."I'm talking about man qua man. You're talking about the guy down the street."

I was talking about what I INSTANTLY understood Michael to mean in his original statement. Perhaps because he said "Humans" and not "MAN". That means you cannot take a random sample of humans beings and find that each random sample has the property of being productive. So it is not an inherent property of EACH human. But none here would argue that productivity was not a inherent property of "Man qua Man".

You CANNOT assign a different meaning than Michael's intent and then argue against that different meaning without committing a straw man fallacy.

"Mike, the "artist" dig was to get under the skin of Sir Michael"

Well, that goes beyond unfair. That's just plain mean. Think of Michael's sensibilities as an artist. Shame on you. And all of you Ed supporter's, you should feel deeply ashamed as well. For shame, for shame.

Mike E.
(goes away clucking)

Post 89

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 9:46pm

Mike, your very clear...hahahaha, a least to me.

Over the years one hard lesson for me to have learned was that people are not inherently good or productive or intelligent. So I don't assume that will be automatically the case, still excapes me that it isn't so...so there comes a time to enforce the "10-minute Rule".

Michael

Post 90

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 12:41am

Mike E.,

===============
"Mike, the "artist" dig was to get under the skin of Sir Michael"

Well, that goes beyond unfair.
===============

It does? Really? Given the present context? You know the context Mike, the one where he has been constantly condescending, with all of the "hahaha's." Or have you forgotten/forgiven the condescension?

Baffled by your straightforward bias,

Ed

Post 91

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 7:50am

Newberry,

I am not belligerent I am one of the kindest people around ask Cordero and Hong

Let me see. Newberry is - a superb painter, an effective writer but a poor typist, ex-tennis player, wicked, shameless, exhibitionistic (but of course), very perceptive, very smart, and a bit crazy... But "one of the kindest people around"? Hmm, you definitely are generous with your time, energy, and perhaps emotion. Well, if others can not perceive your kindness, I think you should just walk away - if not from the issue, at least from the person.

Post 92

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 11:05am

Ed,

"Given the present context? ... where he has been constantly condescending, "

"Baffled by your straightforward bias,"

I will explain my "bias" as best I can, but first I would like to assure you that I do find value in many of your writings and you as a person.

What we are about here on this forum is communicating ideas from one mind to another. The emphasis is [should be] on the ideas and the correspondence of these ideas to reality. I believe the usefulness of a forum like this is to test the ideas that you have in your head by presenting them as accurately as possible and inviting criticism of these ideas by others. It is not a contest. It is a quality control operation so to speak. I would like the contents of my mind and the strategies I use in my mind to form these thoughts to correspond to reality as closely as possible. On this forum I have found a group of people who are not only engaging to listen to in conversation but also take the contents of their minds and correspondence to reality seriously.

Where does Michael Newberry fit: Michael is one of the most straightforward persons here as far as trying to accurately portray the thoughts in his mind about a given subject. Perhaps because of his experience and training as an artist I think he is able to communicate what is in his mind most directly, without filters, without self consciousness. I value that VERY highly. Michael Newberry has learned to walked "naked" in the world. I do not think "condescension" is an appropriate way to describe Michaels context. His good humor is not intended to be at anyone else's expense.

Where does Ed Thompson fit: Ed is a very smart guy, but SOMETIMES engages in verbal sparring. That is to say, all of your communication goals are not to portray your thoughts exactly but to "win" against your "opponent". That is not so interesting to me. Entertaining sometimes, when not taken seriously.

Post 93

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 4:15pm

Mike E.

=================
Ed is a very smart guy,
=================

Takes one to know one.

=================
... but SOMETIMES engages in verbal sparring.
=================

You wanna' argue about that?! Seriously though, I see that in myself, but there is a subtlety unexpressed by yourself that requires illumination (see below).

=================
... all of your communication goals are not to portray your thoughts exactly but to "win" against your "opponent".
=================

I argue for ideas because they are important. Regarding methods, I often do dish out what comes in. What's the big deal with that? I'm an eye-for-an-eye-type-o-guy. Get used to that.

However, I do not INITIATE belligerence on others, I merely RETALIATE with it when I feel it is appropriate.

I also appreciate Michael's candor. But don't tell me that I need a "special" standard for judging Michael's actions, because he "requires" to be given more unchecked reign for personal expression than us others do -- "because" he's an "artist." When I brought that notion up, I was mocking it. It's the same bunk notion as intrinsic respect for elders. Don't tell me that I should sit back and let Michael snub his nose at me -- that I should sit down and take it quietly.

People ought to be judged by what they say and do -- and nothing else.

Ed

p.s. And if you take all this as just "verbal sparring" (and not idea-oriented) then fine. I don't require your approval to live my life like I think I should.

Post 94

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 5:15pm

Ed, perhaps we have cross purposes. I am only here to have an enjoyable time. I don�t give a shit whether anyone likes me or not here�ideas on the internet I take with a grain of salt as I would ideas with wine and dinner with friends. On the other hand I am on the look out for exceptional people. I place a tremendous amount of weight on the what they do; if they follow their passion; if they experience love in their life; if they love art; if they value their friendships; if they grow; and in their ideas if and only if their actual lives reflect their ideas. Ideas without that are BS.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 1/22, 5:40pm)

Post 95

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 5:44pm

Michael,

==============
Ed, perhaps we have cross purposes. I am only here to have an enjoyable time.
==============

I am here to have an enjoyable time, but not only to have an enjoyable time. By the way, this doesn't cross our purposes. You can have your fun, while I have my fun -- plus the other (mental clarity, personal growth, etc) benefits that I get from RoR.

==============
I don�t give a shit whether anyone likes me or not here ...
==============

I do. I'm very interested in relating to like-minded people. I'm interested in benefitting from the purposeful value-attainment of others (ie. from their rationality). We'd, of course, agree on your last statements (exceptional folks are to be sought out). But your first statements trouble me. Ought I to take nothing you say seriously? It appears that the smoothest course of action would be to remain as superficial and glib toward you as can be mustered. That seems inauthentic to me. Your engagements here appear to be a conundrum then, as you're only having fun -- and there is more than fun here.

I'll agree not to take you seriously anymore, or even ignore you if necessary -- if that is really what you'd prefer (over this haggling and word-fighting).

Ed

Post 96

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 5:51pm

Ed,

I meant for my paragraph beginning with "What we are about here on this forum.." to express my purpose and strategy for communicating here. My paragraph about Michael was simply expressing my view of him in order to contrast that to my view of you to give you insight into my "bias".

"But don't tell me that I need a "special" standard for judging Michael's actions, because he "requires" to be given more unchecked reign for personal expression..."

I believe you should have the same standard for EVERYONE. And that standard IS "unchecked reign for personal expression". If a person is being HONEST there is no need for you (or anyone) to be offended. If you see no value in their feedback or ideas, simply cease dealing with them.

"I'm an eye-for-an-eye-type-o-guy. Get used to that."

OK.

Respectfully,
Mike E.

Post 97

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 7:05pm

Mike E.,

Sorry to be a little defensive with you. It had just seemed to me that anything Michael did/said was to be taken as an expression of artistic license, or of a "pure authenticity," and that that same standard would not apply to me (because I'm not as "artistic" as he has shown himself to be).

===================
I meant for my paragraph beginning with "What we are about here on this forum.." to express my purpose and strategy for communicating here.
===================

That's part of the problem, Mike. I didn't take your words as a personal purpose/strategy (because they were written more as a universal!). Think about it. If you begin to preach to me about what we're here for, about what this forum is for, then don't you find that a little presumptuous, given that I've been on this forum for at least a year or two longer than you have? Given the fact that I've contributed articles to this forum, but you (as yet) have not? I found that presumptuous -- and it got under my skin.

===================
My paragraph about Michael was simply expressing my view of him in order to contrast that to my view of you to give you insight into my "bias".
===================

Okay.

===================
If a person is being HONEST there is no need for you (or anyone) to be offended.
===================

Call me pedantic, but there doesn't have to be a "need" for me to take an offense. If I take offense, then so be it. I don't care if others feel it didn't "need" to be that way, which is another way of saying that, because it was possible to shelve my personal feelings (and be more "PC" about things), then I "shouldn't" react authentically -- if my reaction would be "upsetting" to some folks.

===================
If you see no value in their feedback or ideas, simply cease dealing with them.
===================

Good point.

Ed
[and my main goal, Mike, IS to portray my thoughts exactly, even if I digress, at times -- just look at my articles]

Post 98

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 7:49pm

Ed wrote: "I'm very interested in relating to like-minded people."

That's it Ed. We are not like-minded.

Post 99

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 7:53pm