Thursday, September 29, 2005

A Synthesis of Life, Love, Values, and Relationships

Since every virtuous act has to be deliberate and chosen before it can be considered a virtue, the act of choosing, the choice and the process of deliberation then becomes paramount in an understanding of the morality/virtuousness of one’s acts. NOT ALL CHOSEN ACTS are necessarily virtuous or moral. The way we can differentiate certain chosen acts as moral and others as immoral or amoral is by judging it against the standard of human life as the most fundamental and basic value. Life is a value without the existence of which no other values are possible or attainable. Thus, all acts consistent with the protection, sustenance, and enhancement of human life and the condition of human living are moral acts. However, as I said earlier, all moral acts should be DELIBERATE and CHOSEN acts, as there can be no morality if there can be no choice. I hold that NOT every living human being actually CHOOSES to live. Yet, they keep on living. The property of life is a default to every living being. But the act of living is NOT a default for all human beings. I draw my distinction between the two groups of living human beings based upon the act of choosing: the Rational Human and the Irrational Human. The rational human chooses life with the clarity and salience of what it means to live. The rational human deliberates upon his/her choice of living and consistently makes the choice to keep on living. Therefore, the rational human pursues all possible avenues to make his/her choice of living, the best possible choice. Now, since the act of choosing to live is made so deliberately by a rational human, the act of living itself becomes an act of great virtue and moral worth for this rational human. Now, since life (living) itself has become an act of virtue because it was deliberately chosen, and morality is only applicable to living beings, all acts committed by this rational human that remains in consistency with his/her fundamental moral choice to live is also fully and consistently MORAL. Self-sustenance, production, and creation are actions MOST DIRECTLY and POSITIVELY impacting upon the choice to live. Since these actions come at the most direct and immediate hierarchy of deliberate acts after having chosen to live, they hold such significant moral worth that is second only the act of living. Since living is a deliberate and salient CHOICE, the rational human is faced with the alternative of life or death EVERY SINGLE moment, and CONTINUES TO CHOOSE TO LIVE at every single moment. This act of choice being made at every living moment is what truly renders that choice and that life so significantly valuable and virtuous. His or her own life becomes the MOST PRECIOUS possession for this human being because he/she chooses to have life at every single moment keeping in mind clearly that they can CHOOSE TO DIE the very moment that they find this life NOT WORTH possessing. In exact opposite, the irrational human is oblivious to such salience of the life-death alternative. The irrational human never fully or clearly considers the fact that life is a self-generating, self-sustaining act, and that he/she can choose to die just as easily as he/she can choose to continue living from one moment to the next. The irrational human merely goes through the motions of living because life for this irrational being is merely a default of reality, NOT AN ACT CHOSEN CONSCIOUSLY at every single moment. Hence, this irrational being’s life is NOT MORAL and NOT virtuous, because it has no precedence of self-deliberated, chosen act of sustenance. All their acts of escaping death is merely that: acts to avoid death – they are not acts to choose to live. The irrational human reacts to the external stimuli of their default state of living to guide their actions and show them how to live. Their actions are often arbitrary and contradictory because their state of existence is based on whim, chance, and fate, NOT on deliberate choice. Thus, an irrational being pursues acts and values that ARE NOT ALWAYS consistent with their act of living because their own life does not have any significant value to them. Hence, their actions are not selfish – in fact, they consider any selfish, self-sustaining, self-generating, self-pursuing acts as IMMORAL because their MOST FUNDAMENTAL context of morality lies OUTSIDE of themselves, lies outside of their own lives. Their own life is not thing of virtue or morality. At best, for them life is a default and so it is amoral. Hence, martyrdom, self-sacrifice, altruism, self-negation, self-deprivation, self-pity, etc. are in fact considered virtuous and moral, because the primary goal of their actions are NOT their own selves, NOT their own lives, but someone or something OUTSIDE of themselves. That is only consistent with their belief systems. The rational human is a selfish and moral human. The rational human loves his/her own self and his/her own life to highest degree above everything/everyone else. The rational human hold immense pride and joy in living. The rational human knows that the moment life becomes NOT what life should be, he/she will CHOOSE TO DIE, because death is as real an alternative and as real a choice as living is. Life is a default, LIVING is not. Just like my theory of relationships says that if every morning you do not wake up next to your lover and say with full, deliberate salience that “I wish to be your lover and love you today” – if you feel you cannot say that with honesty even one moment, then you should not be with that person. Love can be of value and loving can be of virtue ONLY when it is a choice CHOSEN at EVERY SINGLE MOMENT, NOT arbitrarily declared one day as a promise at the altar to hold till the end of a vague and uncertain eternity. You can only truly experience love for someone else, if you have first experienced it for YOUR OWN SELF. So, every one who declares self-loathing, self-hatred, self-pity, self-sacrifice, self-negation, self-denial, self-deprivation, self-degradation as a virtue are ones who truly feel the same way about everyone else (and they also demand that from others). Thus, morality, ethics, behavior, love, relationships, etc. are all intricately connected with each other and are based on a hierarchy of objective propositions with LIFE as its most fundamental standard of all values. If this hierarchy of Objective value is broken at any level, it will not lead to a rational living experience. This is the absolutism of Reason. One cannot hold a position contrary to any of this and still claim Reason as their guide.

My Roommate is so Open-minded!

My roommate and I had a talk last night. We get along great... and we had quite a fiesty discussion (in a very positive sense) about beliefs. He had apparently started reading my one and only copy of the Bible that takes its place among numerous other books on my bookshelf. My bookshelf has categorical classifications, and I tend to place the Bible somewhere in the Philo/Theological section of books. Anyway, so my roommate had recently decided to read the Bible for the first time in his life, since he had never read the bible before. And thus, began our discussion on beliefs and reality. According to my roommate, I am very close-minded because I am an atheist. I hold on to a rigid position without considering God's existence as even a remote possibility. (Of course, I think his characterization of my beliefs is utterly inaccurate! But that's for later). So, he says he is very open-minded about things that he does not know or cannot know. Hence, he told me that in varying degrees of faith/knowledge, he believes in the following:
God, souls, Jesus, Krishna, saints, ghosts, heaven, hell, demons, black-magic, witchcraft, witches, aliens, unicorns, werewolfs, and vampires.
I asked him if he believed in the possible existence (since he is so open-minded) of the following. He said HE DID NOT BELIEVE in the existence of these:
Batman, Superman, Spiderman (spiderman -- he did think there was some evidence that it could be true), Daredevil, etc.
So, it was fascinating for me to know all these things in believed in and things he did not believe in. I couldn't get a clear and coherent explanation of the difference between the two sets of things. Apparently, he wishes to always remain open to any kind of possibilities -- like Unicorns, etc. and not deny that either they might have existed at some time in the past, or still currently exist somewhere right now. It's funny, how the divorce of Reason from the human mind in place of faith can give rise to such "open-minded" beliefs. I wonder if human civilization would have been able to come thus far in medicine, in science, in technology, in communication, in language, in computers, in art and architecture, etc. if all humans held "open-minded" beliefs in unicorns, vampires, werewolfs, witches, etc. Who knows, we might have invented a "werewolf-inator"!

Marriage Jokes... Note to Sasca! Aaaa!

She left him on the sofa when the phone rang, and was back in a few seconds. "Who was it?" he asked. "My husband," she replied. "I better get going," he said. "Where was he?" "Relax. He'll be late, he's playing poker with you." ======================= Love is one long sweet dream, and marriage is the alarm clock. ======================= There was this lover who said that he would go through hell for her. They got married, and now he is going through HELL. ======================= At the cocktail party, one woman said to another, "Aren't you wearing your wedding ring on the wrong finger?" The other replied, "Yes I am, I married the wrong man." ======================= There was a man who said, "I never knew what happiness was until I got married.... and then it was too late!"

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Dostoyevsky Encore!

Another quote he said, "If there is no immorality, there can be no virtue." In essence, that is the pithy version of my lengthy arguments against the attribution of "perfectly moral" to the concept of "God". If God cannot have any possibility to be immoral, then there can also never be any possibility for his actions to be virtuous. At best, they can only be characterized as instinctual. But ofcourse, that whole idea is racked with contradictions!

Sept. 28: Thought of the Day

This quote, even today holds its relevance, and probably more so, as it speaks the truth about the attitude of many contemporary thinkers. Thought without reality is no thought at all. A Consciousness with any existing contents of awareness to be aware/conscious about is not conscious at all! Existence precedes consciousness. The faculty to perceive and be aware can only do so if there exists contents to stimulate the eventual perception. "Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic" -- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Well, Duh!

When it comes to religion, you're a non-believer (simple as that).You prefer to think about what's known and proven.You don't need religion to solve life's problems.Instead, you tend to work things out with logic and philosophy.
You are an Atheist

What Age Do I Act?

You Are 28 Years Old
Under 12: You are a kid at heart. You still have an optimistic life view - and you look at the world with awe. 13-19: You are a teenager at heart. You question authority and are still trying to find your place in this world. 20-29: You are a twentysomething at heart. You feel excited about what's to come... love, work, and new experiences. 30-39: You are a thirtysomething at heart. You've had a taste of success and true love, but you want more! 40+: You are a mature adult. You've been through most of the ups and downs of life already. Now you get to sit back and relax.

I sleep usually on my side

What Your Sleeping Position Says
You are calm and rational. You are also giving and kind - a great friend. You are easy going and trusting. However, you are too sensible to fall for mind games.

How do I live my life?

How You Life Your Life
You seem to be straight forward, but you keep a lot inside.You say whatever is on your mind. Other people's reactions don't phase you.You prefer a variety of friends and tend to change friends quickly.You tend to always dream of things within reach - and you usually get them.
How Do You Live Your Life?

Yet Another Personality Test!

Your Personality Is
Rational (NT)
You are both logical and creative. You are full of ideas.You are so rational that you analyze everything. This drives people a little crazy! Intelligence is important to you. You always like to be around smart people.In fact, you're often a little short with people who don't impress you mentally. You seem distant to some - but it's usually because you're deep in thought.Those who understand you best are fellow Rationals. In love, you tend to approach things with logic. You seek a compatible mate - who is also very intelligent. At work, you tend to gravitate toward idea building careers - like programming, medicine, or academia. With others, you are very honest and direct. People often can't take your criticism well. As far as your looks go, you're coasting on what you were born with. You think fashion is silly. On weekends, you spend most of your time thinking, experimenting with new ideas, or learning new things.
The Three Question Personality Test

Is This How People See Me?

Slow and Steady
Your friends see you as painstaking and fussy. They see you as very cautious, extremely careful, a slow and steady plodder. It'd really surprise them if you ever did something impulsively or on the spur of the moment. They expect you to examine everything carefully from every angle and then usually decide against it.
How Do People See You?

Machiavellian Me?

You Are Somewhat Machiavellian
You're not going to mow over everyone to get ahead...But you're also powerful enough to make things happen for yourself.You understand how the world works, even when it's an ugly place.You just don't get ugly yourself - unless you have to!
How Machiavellian Are You?

Monday, September 26, 2005

The other day (and in many days in the past) I have brought up the topic of how we are still so primitive in many ways despite our huge advances in technology. One area specifically is that of driving motor vehicles. I find the fact that we are still driving cars to be quite an astonishingly primitive sort of behavior to do, almost like harkening back to the cave-man ages! Ofcourse, they didn't have cars to drive around at that time, but my point here is not about the specifics of driving, but of the fact that we are STILL DRIVING, still HANDLING, still DIRECTING these huge machines! I think the technology is there but we just don't seem to use them. I believe that driving cars should be a thing of the past. The vehicle of today should be able to drive itself. With enough information, tools, and resources, I think a modern car today should be able to direct itself from one point to another with very little or no human supervision necessary. People should be able to get into their vehicles and read their morning newspapers, for example. For have breakfast/lunch/dinner, etc. while on the move. Or be able to hold meetings in their vehicles. Whatever it may be, I think humans should be free of the burden of having to drive their vehicles. We already have GPS navigation sytems and maps installed in cars; that should take care of routing and mapping. We have cruise control, brake assists, front & rear cameras, etc.... that should allow the car to navigate well in traffic. We also already have technology that guages and measures all kinds of things in the car, like gas, air-pressure, oil levels, etc. So, the car should be able to intelligent jugdments of its own on what it needs when and where to go get it. Also, I think, tiny magnetic strips could be placed on the white lane dividers/markers, and a opposite charge magnet sensor should be placed under cars. This would guide and alert the vehicles on whether they are staying within their lanes, or when they make lane changes to calculate number of lanes being crossed, etc. Also, roads could come fitted with electronic or low-frequency pulsars that could act as mile-markers and landmark identifiers. Some public-transit buses already have that technology where it senses the upcoming bus-stops and announces it on the bus. So, here, instead of announcing it, why not have the vehicle decide for itself based on that information, where it is going and where it needs to go, and how far it has come, and whether or not it is lost. And with voice-activated controls, people can simply speak pithy directions into the computer to specifically direct or over-ride instructions to control the car and navigation. Yea, so I think steering wheels should be a thing of the past. Drivers sitting and staring out of their front windshields should be a thing of the past. I can't believe we are still stuck doing all those things.

Friday, September 23, 2005

Best Comment on "Lovers Death"

Gosh! This is the BEST comment I've received so far for ANY of my works! Just the other day, I was lamenting about how people are so hesitant to make critcism about another's works... that they'd rather say NOTHING than make some honest criticism. And one does not need to be HARSH in going about doing it!If you notice, I'm always going around people's blogs posting exactly what I think... if I like, I say I do. If I don't like it, I say I don't. If I think this person could write it better, I say it straightforward.I'm glad finally someone decided to say something real like that! So here I quote Sasca, a.k.a Just an Ordinary Girl, and most recently a.k.a Cabrizella: "well, i liked he poem, it was, hmmm, there was something about it that did feel a bit "stunted" it just seems to me like it could flow more, there is one part i really like alot about how the lover takes breath in and this pumps air into you... i am not sure but its seems to me it would make more sense if the lover's exhaling is what pumps breath into you? i just read it and like the idea but then i was like- wait- that woulden't flow in a natural sense, i dunno, i like the surgeon imaery most of all it is very striking---the wholeidea of a surgery gone wrong like the surgeon is meant to save your life not take it--- so it makes it all the more shocking that he would let you die/bleed to death since its not what a surgeon does... so emphasis on trust and then ensuing shock might kmake it more powerful but i'm not sure....the ending i thought was a little bit cliche- i think you can say the same thing in a more innovative way to make it more powerful-- if its an old truth said in a new way it strikes the heart more deeply it seems but yeah i totally loev the idea i think you could make it amaaazing, right now it hink its just ok... thats my honest opinion. sasca"

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Sept. 22: Thought of the Day

You see, I had studied Alan Watts a long time ago... and at some point I even agreed in a lot of what he said. Ofcourse, now it's simply fascinating for me to look back and wonder how did I ever think any of his philosophies made any sense!? And actually, the answer is that I wasn't really looking for sense in philosophy. I think what it really was, was that the more "complicated" I thought the philosophy or theory was, the more I thought it was important and probably true, and that it was merely my own intellectual failure to grasp it or understand it. It seemed like, the more 'non-sense' it was, the more likely it was true. I think it stemmed from my extremely unhealthy sense of christian-imbibed self-humility and lack of intellectual strength or intellectual self-esteem. So, while before my default position was that if I don't understand it, if it doesn't makes basic, fundamental sense to me, it is most likely true, I'm just not smart enough, and I would accept it -- now my default position is that if these things do not make any sense or that they defy the most fundamental concepts of my understanding, then it is NOT my fault, it is most likely that that IDEA is false or at the very least, underdeveloped. Thus, now if I fail to grasp an idea or intuitively feel that something is not right about it, I begin with skepticism, maintain my foundations of concepts and basic principles, look for consistencies in logic and reason, investigate further and open myself up to new information... So, here is just one example of what Alan Watts said that I had agreed with before, and which now I believe is so neo-hippie-style delusional:
"I find that the sensation of myself as an ego inside a bag of skin is really a hallucination. We try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us."

Abstract Logic

Sasca D'Agostino a.k.a Just an Ordinary Girl a.k.a Calabrizella, You were going to write some treatise about your views on logic and why you always failed at it (not surprising, as you are still a Thomist-Catholic-Apologetic)! ;) Anyway, so still waiting to read it. In the meantime, I thought while the rest of this country is presumably occupied with Rita gearing up for a strike right behind Katrina, I can sit around in my cubicle and plot out some detached, anti-realist logical principles for fun (in a philo-sophic-geeky sort of way). This, ofcourse, is so unlike me. But I'm just waiting for a hurriance update meeting I'm supposed to attend in about 30mins, and can't do anything else until then... so why not this?! So here's a statement. -- note: by the sheer statement of a statement, I am making an assertion. Thus, every statement is an assertion, which is different from an affirmation. The affirmation or negation or neutrality of a statement is jugded by logic. Anyway, I digress. Here's a statement: The coffee in my mug is black and is not black. Is this a contradictio? If yes, why? If not, why not? Now, remember, we are dealing with abstract logical principles... right now, I'm not being an Objectivist and scrupulously applying logic to every referent in reality. So, the above statement can be broken down into two assertions. The coffee in my mug is black. The coffee in my mug is not black. The truth of these statements will decide whether their assertions are contradictory. Now, if the first statement is true, then the second statement is either false or not fully true. If the first statement is false, then the second statement is either true or not fully false. Since, in Aristotelian logical principles, typically things are taken as either fully true or fully false, the above statement might seem to contradict the law of non-contradiction. However, if we challege the assumption that things are always fully true or fully false, then we might be able to get away with saying that my statement "The coffee in my mug is black and is not black" is actually NOT a contradiction and does not violate that principle. O, I gotta go now. More later. Okay, I'm back to write more.... so where was I? Okay... so the statement "The coffee in my mug is black and is not black" is not a contradiction if I do not accept the premise that A is A in the same respect and in the same time. I could mount a challenge by saying that A could also be fully A in the same respect but at different times, or A could also be fully A at the same time but in different respects, or that A is sometimes partly A and partly not A, but the truth-value would be dependent on HOW much of A is really A. So, "The coffee in my mug is black and is not black" -- that statement by itself DOES NOT preclude the idea that the coffee may also be dark brown, for example. Since all it asserts is with regard to the color black, we cannot say with full logical certainty (presumably according to logical principles) that the coffee could also be or not be brown or any other color of which we don't know. Thus, in such cases, the logical truth of a statement is not deduced from the analysis of pure logic (like how classical Aritotelian logic does) but through an actual and demonstrable proof or theorem. Unless, my negative statement (the coffee is not black) is PROVED to be true or untrue and not just analyzed to be true or untrue, we cannot have any certainties of its truth statements. Now, the implications of such a logical approach is that *concepts* in essence lose all its meaning. And this is the current nature of philosophical dialogue in contemporary culture. Contemporary and modern philosophers argue that concepts no longer hold the universality of truth as we believed it did. According to them, concepts like "black" and "exists" are merely our feeble attempts at having our biased languages interpret ideas into universality. Some go so far as even arguing that Math is also inadequate as a universal language and that because numbers hold different positions in different bases (base 10 or base 2 for example), one cannot accept their universality either. For instance, note my Paul Tillich quote. According to Tillich, using concepts like "existence" to make inquiries upon the concept "God" is futile because he believes that it essentially works to deny His "existence". Thus, claiming A exists means claiming A does not exist. Thus, A is an existent being and is not an existent being. Thus, in the above example there is not meaning to word "exist" but apparently there is some vague, ungraspable meaning to the word "God" and we should just SHUT OUR MINDS DOWN and accept that that"God" just is - without making any attempts to understand what "just is" means! In such a scenario, anyone could make an equally arbitrary statement and demand that you divorce your concepts from any coherent integration and just accept the arbitrary statement as "just is". Like I could argue that Superman "just is", and give you no method to prove me wrong because I just denied you all recourse to any sensible use of universal concepts. Anything you say, I will respond with "that is just what you say!" And therefore, coming back to my coffee in the mug is black and is not black -- when I begin to understand that concepts are not actually arbitrary, and that concepts infact do hold mathematical absolutism, I will be able to understand that the statement I made is infact a contradictory. I understand that at any one given time, "black" will only be "black", that if it is not "fully black", then it is probably grey or some other color and therefore NOT black, and this I DO NOT need a proof for, all I need is an objective analysis of concepts involved. Now, some may argue that, well if the entire world was split equally into color-blinded and normal vision people, then you would have half the people arguing that the color is black and half arguing that the color is grey, and how could you know what the truth of the coffee is!? Here your concept of what "black" is might actaully fail. The response to this situation is still the same consistent position of objectivity. Concepts hold universal absolutism. When I say "black", I have created a concept out of the essence of what it means to be be the color "black". The color "black" is NOT what is percieved by the observer but is what is essentially the wavelengths that such pigmentation reflects of light so as to give us the color "black" based on our current visual equipment. In other words, if I wear blue sunglasses and everything begins to look blue or in hues of blue, I should NOT conclude that suddenly everything has changed their pigmentation to reflect blue, but my own VISUAL equipment has changed that filters the light to appear as blue. Thus, if you are color-blind, your visual equipment might be different, but you are still percieving the SAME wavelengths of color black, just not seeing it manifest as the same COLOR as others do. Anyway, the point of all this is to argue that logical principles can get pretty crazy and absurd if they are divorced from all referents to reality, and if concepts are degraded to an arbitrary status. In such a paradigm of the world, everything becomes anything and nothing at the same time. The mind, the world, reality and existence are all invalidated by those ideas. Infact, those ideas are self-defeating because they argue for their own negation! Thus, so called "philosophers" like Tillich, who get paid thousands of dollars by academic institutions like the University of Chicago to churn out crap never cease to baffle and amuse me. Yet, I'm also aware of how pernicious their influence on society can be.

Steve Chapman on Ayn Rand - Washington Post 02/02/05

"Has Ayn Rand gone mainstream? The radical champion of individualism and capitalism, who died in 1982, is no longer an exotic taste. Her image has adorned a U.S. postage stamp. Her ideas have been detected in a new mass-market animated comedy film, "The Incredibles." And on the 100th anniversary of her birth, there will be a Rand commemoration at the Library of Congress — an odd site for a ceremony honoring a fierce anti-statist. In her day, Miss Rand was at odds with almost every prevailing American social attitude. She infuriated liberals by preaching economic laissez-faire and lionizing titans of business. She appalled conservatives by rejecting religion in any form while celebrating, she said, "sexual enjoyment as an end in itself." But her novels found countless readers. "The Fountainhead," published in 1943, and "Atlas Shrugged," which followed in 1957, are still in print. In 1991, when the Book of the Month Club polled Americans asking what book had most influenced their lives, "Atlas Shrugged" finished second only to the Bible. In all, Miss Rand's books have sold some 22 million copies and continue selling more than half a million a year. Miss Rand emerged in the aftermath of the Great Depression, the New Deal and World War II — which were taken as proving the obsolescence of the free market, that prosperity required an all-intrusive government, and that national success demanded subordination of the individual to collective purposes. After the traumas of the 1930s and '40s, America was intent on building a well-ordered welfare state by compromise and consensus. In that setting, Ayn Rand resembled the female athlete in Apple Computer's 1984 Super Bowl commercial, who sprinted into a mass assembly of oppressed drones to hurl a sledgehammer at the Big Brother orating from a giant TV screen — smashing it and bathing the audience in dazzling light. Miss Rand, a Russian immigrant, saw herself harking back to the Enlightenment values of reason, limited government and personal liberty that fueled the American Revolution. "The United States," she declared, "was the first moral society in history." Her novels were derided by critics, who saw them as interminable philosophical diatribes disguised as melodrama. What she regarded as thoroughgoing consistency struck many readers as overbearing dogmatism. Her political ideas attracted only a fringe following. Outside a tiny band of true believers, few people counted themselves as disciples of Ayn Rand. But many people absorbed much of her thinking and incorporated it into their worldviews. Public figures as diverse as Hillary Clinton, Clarence Thomas and Cal Ripken have cited her influence, on top of millions of other unfamous people. In time, her work bore fruit. By the mid-1970s, wage-and-price controls had wrecked the economy, in perfect accord with Miss Rand's predictions. Her view of capitalism not as a necessary evil but a moral good helped turn public opinion toward free markets, opening the way for the Reagan Revolution. Her celebration of individual joy also echoed in the leftist counterculture of the 1960s, which rebelled against the sterile conformity of the Eisenhower era. However, Ayn Rand had no use for the irresponsible hedonism that spawned the saying, "If it feels good, do it." That was a perversion of her insight that pleasure is not cause for guilt. You can hear Miss Rand even in Bruce Springsteen: "It ain't no sin to be glad you're alive." That's just one illustration of how her influence went beyond economics and political theory. In her eyes, there was no greater good than each person's integrity and self-fulfillment. One of her essay collections had the surprising title, "The Virtue of Selfishness." Looking back, it's hard to recapture how jarring that phrase was a generation ago, when altruism and self-sacrifice were seen as the central elements of an exemplary life. Today, Americans take it for granted that they are entitled to live for their own happiness, without apology. It may seem curious to honor a writer who merely defended free markets, preached the superiority of reason over blind faith and extolled the American ideal of the pursuit of happiness. David Kelley, head of the Rand-oriented Objectivist Center, jokes that he's reminded of the theatergoer who complained that "Hamlet" was full of cliches. Miss Rand's beliefs have been so widely disseminated and absorbed that we have forgotten where they originated. The truth is that for all she did, they are no longer her ideas. To a large extent, they are ours. -- Steve Chapman is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Some more Objectivist Jokes! -- sooo funny!!

Q: What's two plus two? A: Whatever Ayn Rand said it was. ============= Letter to Ayn Rand: "Dear Ayn Rand: Help! I've lost my car keys! My wife says they're somewhere in our house, but my son says they're not. What should I do? Signed - Keyless in Milwaukee. Dear Keyless: Check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. Signed - Ayn Rand. ============= [Apparently, Ayn Rand herself said this one:] Q: Why did the non-Objectivist chicken cross the road? A: To mooch off the productive achievements of the Objectivist chickens who had already shown the way to the other side. (Fortunately, since A is A, a tunnel collapsed on the mooching chickens and they died as they deserved.)

Knowledge or Life

The other day I was having a conversation with innommable, and iin the course of our conversation he said something like "If I tell you then I would have to kill you", to which I replied, "I'd rather dying knowing than live in ignorance." You know, it is very easy, I think, to say such things; to say things like "give me liberty or give me death" or "give me knowledge or give me death". But it is obviously very difficult to put that into practice when the situation arises. Very few people are truly willing to fight for their ideas, their values, their beliefs and then face death rather than live in abnegation of those values. Some values are truly so fundamental than one has a moral obligation to fight for them. However, what differentiates a mindless fanatic or suicide-militant from one who fights for fundamental values to the point of death is that the former (the mindless fanatic) infact seeks to die as an act of virtue and considers death a value in and of itself to be achieved. Martyrdom (as they so admiringly call it) is their HIGHEST achievement. Death and non-existence, as martrydom should rightly be called, is the value they aspire to reach. The goal of these fanatics (like mindless religious and patriotic idiots) is not to see the realization of their beliefs in the living world but to seek the negation of their existence in a world where their beliefs are not realized. The goal of the latter, the rational person of integrity, is to seek the realization of their beliefs, and fight, if necessary, for that to happen in this real and living world. If that fight leads to their own death, that is accepted as a consequence. But death is NOT the goal or the value that they seek. Death is NOT glorified as martrydom and aspired to as the highest value. Infact, they fight so they can LIVE, and keep on living and enjoying those values that they hold so dear. They aim is to live the way they want to, in the rational sense, and enjoy those values in this world. If those values are being denied to them, they will fight. They will NOT fight to die. But they will fight to want to LIVE, to have what they want from life, and they will fight even at the risk of losing their own life. Infact, it is so much harder to LIVE consistently in practice and defence of one's rational values than it is to die for them. Thus, if I consider liberty and knowledge such important values in my life, I will fight to protect and preserve these values in my life so I can enjoy them as I live. I will not seek to DIE, because seeking death is the negation of every one of my values. The acceptance of death as a consequence of my desire to live with the values I hold dear is not the negation of my values, but a vindication of those values. After having rejected religion and all other forms of mysticism, I find myself in such a perfect mental and psychological location of peace and confidence. I find death NOT as a fearful fact of uncertainty -- remaining in fear of the unknown, of some warped idea of death and possible suffering or punishment or torment. I see death now as a fact of life. Death is merely non-existence, and therefore worthy of no further thought or contemplation. Contemplating the non-existent is futile and pointless -- unless you are exercising your imagination skills. For example, contemplating the idea of a Unicorn is pointless, unless you're writing a fictional story. What rightly deserves serious contemplation is present life in this real world. "Living life is not the same thing as avoiding death" -- Rand

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Sept. 20: Thought of the Day

"If you're lonely while you're alone, you're in bad company." -- Jean-Paul Sartre "Silence should be the barometer of effective communication." -- Ergo Sum, Pasha

Paul Tillich

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him." -- Paul Tillich (Existential, Christian philosopher) Go figure! -- Ergo Sum (Rational Atheist)

Monday, September 19, 2005

Sept. 19, 2005: Thought of the Day

I wish I could express the urgency and frenzy with which I meet every day of my life -- And this is not fully apparent in my external demeanor. It is locked up inside my mind, floating only in my thoughts. Infact, part of the reason I can't express it outside is because I understand how clearly futile, inadequate, and almost insulting that physical expression would be to the awesomeness and reverence I feel for life and for the human ingenuity. This world I'm living in is SO AMAZINGLY fascinating and incredible, and the best part is, this is just the beginning! The foundation has been layed for generations of more baffling, awe-inspiring, ingenius realizations of ideas. How can one go through life wanting to rush through it so they can reach some mystical place after they have died? How can they be so blind to the WONDERS of this real world (all the suffering and pain notwithstanding) in the pure fanciful hope that there is another world more marvellous than this waiting for them, if there is infact such a world!? I think it is such a waste of human life -- those lives that are lived in abdication of wordly pleasures, those lives that are 'sacrificed' for the attainment of a "pass" to the other mystical world. Such a waste. An incredible wast. I feel only a true atheist can fully marvel at the miracle called "life" and the incredible job our lives have done with this world. So, here's my thought of the day: "There can be nothing more barbaric than to despise the human mind for what it is and to abdicate all desires to enjoy the fruits of that mind. Any creed promoting such abdication is the true enemy of humans and of productive life in this world." -- Ergo Sum

Atheists Do Not Exist

When I came across this post below, I just smiled. Its attempt at logical reasoning is amusing! :)

Over the course of time, one is going to run into an atheist from time to time. If you are the type to discuss such things with them, there is a very simple argument that will prove that it is impossible to logically be an atheist. This is assuming that the person in question is stating that there is no God, as a 100% fact. This is the only true form of atheism. I know there is a God. A person approaches me and states that there is no God. This is basically what they are saying. There is a painting. Each person is able to see 1% of the painting. Person A sees their 1% and sees a tree. They turn to the other person and say, "there is a tree on this painting." The other person looks at the painting and sees a vast ocean, with no land in site. They reply, "There is no tree on this painting." Instantly they are making the statement that over 100% of that painting, there is not one tree. The person who saw the tree is only saying that on the 1% of the painting that they can see, there is a tree. In order for someone to say that there isn't a true, they would have to know 100% of the painting. Now the universe is vast and in 100 years, we only can know a microscopic portion of it. However, if in my portion that I do know, I encounter a God, I can state with 100% assurity that there is a God. Now the other person, in order to state that there is no God, would have to know 100% of the whole universe to state that there is no God in it. Since this is impossible, it is impossible for him to truely state that. Since all he can say is, "As far as I know, there is no God." he is not a true atheist. Therefore, true athiests don't exist.

Okay, so... a few things to point out in the above argument. A person looking at a painting (presumably, the atheist) does not say that there is NO tree... according to the analogy, the person should say that all he sees are landscapes and oceans. Anyway, the point is, the analogy is incompatible with the logic of a true atheist. An atheist does not say "there is NO God because I don't SEE one", what the atheist says is: "given concept 'God', it is a contradiction to hold such concepts of "God" with other concepts like "morals" and "reason" given the world we have and the system of logic the way it is." In other words, it is not that we say "a tree does not exist", what we say is "if a tree should exist, it should look like one, feel like one, be consistent in its nature as a tree, and the painting should make sense with the tree as a part of it." Obviously, the analogy given is highly inadequate to describe the issue of God and atheism.Incidentally, while we are on the topic of atheism, I do have a problem with the courts deciding that the mention of "God" in public schools is unconstitutional. Infact, I feel that their having taken away the right of someone to mention "God" is against the right of free speech.

Friday, September 16, 2005

Corporate America is Stealing my Sanity!!

Okay, so this is crazy! I received a text message today while I was at work from my boyfriend who had spent the night over at my place last night. And apparently, I had gone CRAZY last night! He asked me, in the text message, if I was okay! I asked him, 'what are you talking about'? He said I woke up last night and kept telling him to 'be careful'! "Be careful??" he asked. "Be careful of WHAT?", he wanted to know. And I apparently told him to 'be careful of the healthfairs!" "The what!?" "The healthfairs!" Obviously, he decided I was just going crazy! Now, I had like ZERO knowledge of saying or doing ANY of these things! But the way he says it is pretty convincing... especially given the fact that I am really going CRAZY during my waking/working hours here at my job... coordinating 10,000 heathfairs at a time! Damn! I say. Corporate America isn't paying me enough for me to lose my sanity! But I am definitely going crazy. Which is ironic because, my job is in providing corporate benefits and corporate counseling to help deal with stress! And here, I AM MYSELF in dire need of corporate counseling to help deal with my stress!! Ugh! The things one has to deal with inorder to make some money in this world. *sigh*

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Sept. 15: Thought of the Day

Words of a holocaust survivor speaking at an event I attended: "Desperate people do desperate things in desperate situations. All logic and reason flies out the window and people switch into automatic mode. There will always be some evil in every good, and there will be always some good in every evil." Are her statements true? She claims to be highly influenced by Paul Tillich. I happen to disagree with many many many of the opinions of Paul Tillich. How much do I agree with her views stated above, I'm not sure yet. I have to think about it. Hence, this is the thought of the day.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Sept. 14: Thought of the Day

"The real act of discovery lies not in discovering new lands, but in seeing with new eyes." -- Marcel Proust (1906)

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Sept. 13: Thought of the day

" A man dismisses without notice his thoughts, because it is his. In every work of genius, we recognize our own rejected thoughts. They come back to us with a certain alienated majesty. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within. Otherwise, tomorrow a stranger will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to take our own opinion from another with shame splashed over our faces." -- Emerson

Forgotten - by blog queen, Pallavi Dhody

I blew bubbles with the soap solution we'd bought from a roadside hawker. I watched them rise up; their rainbow colours looking resplendent against the backdrop of the black night. One by one, they all burst. I hurriedly blew some more. You laughed at my childishness. Re-living my childhood you'd called it. I smiled. I wasn't re-living it. I was living it then, consciously, for the first time. I think you could tell. Maybe. There were a lot of 'firsts' with you. With you, I saw more than I knew existed. It was like a new world. Books, music, people, places. Love. Maybe. You held me close and said that I was beautiful. I felt beautiful. I believed everything that you said. I still want to. Maybe. The cold glass of iced tea. I finished mine before everyone else. My hands then groped around in the air for your glass, like always. Only this time, it wasn't there. I ordered another one. Its been a while. They tell me its love. For your sake, I hope it is. Maybe.

Paradox of Design and Designer

Intelligent Design being the most stupidest idea ever, notwithstanding, there's another slightly nuanced inconsistent issue that needs to be revealed. While many scientists might reject Intelligent Design "theory" in favor of evolution, many of them do not necessarily reject the idea of an Intelligent Designer, a.k.a. God existing and having desgined the Universe. I find this to be a very unique paradox: on the one hand people would like to think that Intelligent Design is not an explanation of the way things are, and on the other hand, they believe that God exists and has created this world. It would seem to me that if God does indeed exist, and supremely Intelligent that God is, God would likewise create something (this Universe) in a very Intelligent and marvellous manner. Yet, if you reject the "intelligent" character of the way things are, then you are in effect saying that God created chaotic elements and allowed it to have its own way. Well, that latter part does not quite fit well with concepts of Omniscience, Omnipotence, etc... nor does it fit will be biblical notions of God and stories about Jesus pre-ordained to come to the Earth (assuming you believe all these things). To me, the only consistent position in this matter would be to REJECT equally Intelligent Design and Intelligent Designer. I have talked about this concept in my previous posts titled "Artificial Intelligence" and "Hero Worship" on my blog.

Monday, September 12, 2005

Okay, Final Thought of the Day

"It is not a question of whether man chooses to be guided by [philosophy]: he is not equipped to live without it" -- Rand

A Lover's Death

Along with every passing minute As you lay still on stranger’s bed I stood watching, With scales for eyes, No room for emotion Not any more. Only attempts at inadequate expressions. The emaciated hands of that clock on the wall Peeled away an hour, and then another I felt every deliberate pull of time Tearing tiny fibers of my heart. Maybe you noticed, Or maybe you heard the soft sound of muffled pain Because you mumbled something. I jumped at the feeble sound of your voice, Anchoring the possibility of my life On the very strength of those words – Every breath you took Pumped air into my lungs I focused on the rhythm of your heaving chest And learned the art of survival. I never loved you more as I had loved you then. In some time, You woke up and looked at me. It was a curious gaze – Like one would look at a fish in a bowl: Not important enough to contemplate But fascinating enough to stare Perhaps it was the scales in my eyes Or perhaps that is how I always seemed to you: An object of simple fascination I should have known this day would come. But how could I have seen the signs through my scaly eyes, They reflected nothing else but you, only you. How could I have heard the sounds of the siren, When I was drowning in the depths of viscous emotions? While time had further bruised my tattered heart, You struck the final blow – And no, not a loud and violent blow. No. Just a sharp, precise, and gentle sting. Like a needle in the hands of a surgeon, You pierced my heart – so expert your actions that I had not even felt the blood oozing. In fact, not blood, it was Love oozing from my heart. Pushing out through that tiny hole you made, Slowly but surely it kept flowing. And then the slow poison of indifference Crept into my head It was only then that I noticed what had happened I had felt no pain – just the void where love should have been I felt indifference where burning passion should have been The blow was struck And I had not even known. You had drained all the love in me And I had not even known You killed me so gently, You did it so lovingly.

Thought of the day

"[The mind] is not a vase to be filled, but a fire to be lit." -- Emerson

End With a Thought

I've decided that at the end of each day of my blogging (typically, that's at the end of my work day!), I shall post one last brief thought about something, or anything. It could be a quote from any random person who I think has said something worthy of being quoted, or it might be a thought of my own. I think it will serve to keep the mind occupied to some degree when there's nothing much else to think about. I also encourage whoever else to post their own interesting quotes or thoughts at the end of the day if they so like, or comment and respond to other posts on that thought.

My Personality Profile

Free report for: [my name] Rationals, are the problem solving temperament, particularly if the problem has to do with the many complex systems that make up the world around us. Whatever systems fire their curiosity, Rationals will analyze them to understand how they work, so they can figure out how to make them work better. In working with problems, Rationals try to find solutions that have application in the real world, but they are even more interested in the abstract concepts involved, the fundamental principles or natural laws that underlie the particular case. And they are completely pragmatic about their ways and means of achieving their ends. Rationals don't care about being politically correct. They are interested in the most efficient solutions possible, and will listen to anyone who has something useful to teach them, while disregarding any authority or customary procedure that wastes time and resources. Rationals have an insatiable hunger to accomplish their goals and will work tirelessly on any project they have set their mind to. They are rigorously logical and fiercely independent in their thinking--are indeed skeptical of all ideas, even their own--and they believe they can overcome any obstacle with their will power. Often they are seen as cold and distant, but this is really the absorbed concentration they give to whatever problem they're working on. Whether designing a skyscraper or an experiment, developing a theory or a prototype technology, building an aircraft, a corporation, or a strategic alliance, Rationals value intelligence, in themselves and others, and they pride themselves on the ingenuity they bring to their problem solving. Rationals are very scarce, comprising as little as 5 to 10 percent of the population. But because of their drive to unlock the secrets of nature, and to develop new technologies, they have done much to shape our world.

Greed is Good

"It is precisely the 'greed' of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking [motive], which is the unexcelled protector of the consumer." -- Alan Greenspan

Thursday, September 08, 2005

Hero Worship

So, I simply cannot express how serious and sincere I am about this. When I say, I revere Einstein as my GREATEST HERO -- though, I have some close contenders, but still none that can beat Einstein -- I am NOT stating a hyperbole. Recently, I've been reading more and more about Einstein, his life, his works, his ideas, etc... and my admiration for him just keeps increasing exponentially! (hmm, interesting use of a mathematical term there. Very appropriate in this context, I think!) Ya know.. the nature of ideas this man came up with -- he perceived them like no one else before him had done before! People who talk about "Intelligent Design" in the Universe are clearly blind to the reality of this world. In Newtonian times, those "Intelligent Design" -ers would have made the same argument, saying that everything makes so much sense... Newton had discovered the beautiful Intelligence of this Universe, the works of an Intelligent Designer are so evident in the logical causality of this Universe.... Then along comes Einstein, and he turns some very crucial Newtonian ideas on its head. One for example, that TIME is NOT an Absolute as Newton thought it was, Space is not made of a continuoud medium called ether, that Gravity is not an actually existing force, causes and effects are not always so readily apparent, that reductionism may not always give you a clear understanding of the whole... Einstein's theories of relativity inspired a whole culture of relativism in almost all aspects of life (though, clearly Einstein was against such relativism)... and now, even now... the Intelligent Designers believe they see such beautiful design in the Universe. I'm confused as to which "design" they now subscribe to, to Newtonian, Einsteinian, or the recent chaotic Quantum? It's funny how with every new achievement in our understanding of the Universe made possible by the ingenuity of the Human brain, there are people who ascribe all the credit of that understanding to some vague "Designer" even whose name and identity they are afraid to confess! It boggles my mind when I try to understand those mystics who would prefer to feed off of the scientific understandings of this world inorder to pursue their own mystical agendas of supernatural realms! How can people not realize that with every major paradigm shift in our perspective of the Universe -- whether it be from Newtonian physics of determinacy to Einsteinian physics of relativity to Quantum physics of indeterminacy and potentialities, IT IS NOT THE UNIVERSE THAT HAS CHANGED AND REVEALED TO US A NEWER MORE "INTELLIGENT DESIGN", RATHER IT IS OUR OWN HUMAN MIND CHANGING AND CONFORMING ITSELF TO THE IDENTITY AND REALITY OF THE UNIVERSE THAT EXISTS AS IS! THUS, THE INTELLIGENCE OBSERVED IS OUR OWN GRASPING OF THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE, NOT ANY METAPHYSICAL DESIGN OF THE UNIVERSE ITSELF. I believe that if there were to be a God (which I know there isn't), but hypothetically, if there were to be a God, science would eventually discover His (or Her or Its) existence. The very concept of "God" should render that Being to the intelligent, rational, and logical scrutiny of the Human mind. An IRRATIONAL God, an ILLOGICAL God, a NON-INTELLIGENT God cannot exist, by definition. Thus, if God were to really exist, it should be only a matter of time before our Human logic, Human Intelligence, and Human reason catches up with God and begins to discover that Being's existence. As far as I am concerned, there is really no other entity worthy of all our reverance and admiration other than a true specimen of Human genuis. Einstein was one. And so, I believe Albert Einstein comes closest to the purest sense of what I would regard as "God".

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

Rand on Sex

So, Rand totally turns my whole conception of sex upside down (regardless of how cool that position might be! ;)) Anyway, so what she says about sex sort of confounds me... and I wonder if she is right. But here it is, for analysis: "Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love." --- Rand WHOA!! SO that is ME! And all my ideas about sex!!! Depraved?!? WHOA! OKay, here's more:- "The subjectivist severs concepts from percepts and holds that sex is a mere sensory reaction, devoid of all intellectual cause. [Objectivism believes that emotions - like love is - is necessarily composed of sensory AND intellectual causes, which I agree to]... he tells men to go ahead and revel in it, to grab whatever animalistic sensations they want without reference to any principles or standards. In this theory, love is an abstract myth with no necessity of real manifestation, and sex is merely a wriggling of meat. ... Man's spirit gives meaning to insentient matter by molding it to serve one's chosen goals. This course of action leads one to the moment when in answer to the highest of one's values, in an admiration not to be expressed by any other form of tribute, one's spirit makes one's body become the tribute, recasting it - as proof, as sanction, as reward - into a single sensation of such intensity of joy that no other sanction of one's existence is necessary," regardless of the context of their union. -- Rand.

Katrina versus the guns

Among the many reports from the hurricane-impacted zone, one issue was fleetingly mentioned and then buried for whatever reason under other, more "human-perspective" stories. It was reported that one of the factors that induced uncontrolled chaos in the after-math of the hurricane was the looting and rampant lawlessness. Compounding the situation was the reality of countless assault rifles, guns and other weapons that were in civilian possession. Law enforcement agencies complained that they could not manage any control of a crowd that had took to defending themselves at whatever costs with their own weapons, or took to the streets as self-desginated law-enforcers. Police authorities felt incredibly helpless in the wide-spread possibility of being fired at and being killed amid the chaos of all that destruction and disorder. For some reason, I feel this is a very important and highly political issue that has been deliberately been stifled by news media - possibly for good reasons that national attention be not diverted from the gravity of the human crisis for the benefit of some political agendas. Nonetheless, being a STAUNCH believer that gun-ownership is NOT A RIGHT but a PRIVILEDGE, I believe that such a dire situation of risk to human life would have not been augmented had it been the case that guns were NOT so easily and readily available in this society based on the FALSE NOTION that gun-ownership is a RIGHT. Regardless of what anybody's PERSONAL interpretation of the Constitution is, RIGHTS are NOT CREATED by a group of men writing anything on a piece of paper. NOR are RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY by any one person or group by legislating/writing anything on a piece of paper. The so-called "Right to bear arms" is ENTIRELY UNJUSTIFIED and has NO LOGICAL foundation in any objective principle or value of self-preservation. To make this point clear, let me illustrate with an example. Rising from the choice to live and therefore the need to survive, self-preservation becomes a value. One of the MANY means of self-preservation is access to resources and higher values that allow for self-preservation. Having access to resources, in some situations, implies mobility and self-movement, i.e. to RIGHT to physically (at least) gain access to those resources. So, in practical terms, one has the RIGHT to move to locations and places to find jobs inorder to fulfill ones values. Now, I have the right to move from this city to another city in search of a job. HOW DO I MOVE? Well, I can use one of the various means of transportation. For example, I can choose to fly, or to drive. Now, my CHOOSING TO DRIVE is PURELY A MEANS to exercise my RIGHT TO MOVE. Thus, DRIVING is NOT a RIGHT but a MEANS to exercising the RIGHT, which is self-mobility. There is the ubiquitous saying, "Driving is not a Right but a priviledge" -- and this is very TRUE. Similarly, the RIGHT to self-preservation and ownership of property (which arises from logically objective foundations) can be EXERCISED by certain MEANS, i.e. build gates around property, hire security, use technological devices, pay taxes to support law-enforcement agencies to protect your life and property, etc. These things are MEANS to help you EXERCISE your RIGHT to protect yourself and property. The OWNERSHIP of GUNS, therefore is merely ANOTHER MEANS of exercising your RIGHT... it CANNOT BE DESIGNATED A RIGHT IN AND OF ITSELF!! Whether you choose to have cameras installed around your property, or install high-tech gadgets, or hire a home-security company to setup alarms, or trust in the expediency of law-enforcement agencies in protecting you, or OWN GUNS... all of those things are your CHOSES MEANS TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, your Right to Property and self-preservation. You DO NOT have the "Right" to install a camera... that is a CHOSEN LEGITIMATE MEANS of wanting to protect what truly is a Right. Just because a bunch of old men decided to write about it on a piece of paper as having that Right, does NOT make it so! Remember, those men also wrote that Rights are "God-given". So for an atheist in this country who does not believe there is God, will there be no Rights granted?? Is that how this country functions?! One can debate endlessly on whether gun-ownership is a LEGITIMATE means of exercising one's Right to self-preservation and protection of property. However, it must CLEARLY SIT IN YOUR HEAD that gun-ownership is NOT a Right. Anyone claiming that it is, is creating a very dangerous and risky situation for the protection of the VERY same values they purport to protect.

EUREKA!! I've figured it out!

After SO MANY DAYS of thinking and agonizing over the HUGE problem of the ethical imperative for an Objectivist facing an emergency situation, I have finally figured out what would be the moral thing to do according to objective ethical principles! There was no gaping hole in Objectivist ethics in explaining the moral imperative. It was merely in my own thinking. I'll have to write it out entirely... but it's a long process... and I still need to gather all my thoughts. So not now. Later. But I know. The key to the whole issue is, the Objectivist premise of epistemology: how does one know what one knows? Through perceptual integration and reason based on the axioms of existence and identity. Therefore, the moral imperative is to seek to know and understand reality. Evasion of reality or faking reality are cardinal acts of immorality according to Objectivist ethics. Reality is as is, and identity is the recognition of that reality. Denying either one or both of these premises is not only anti-reality and anti-reason, but also immoral.

Love and Humanity - Some quotes.

“…shame at the utter blank-ness of many people also labeling themselves as members of the human race.”
-- Sasca D’Agostino, a.k.a. “just an ordinary girl”
“’One can’t love man without hating most of the creatures who pretend to bear his name. It’s one or the other. One doesn’t love God and sacrilege impartially. A person who loves everybody and feels at home everywhere is the true hater of mankind. A pig is [his] symbol of love for humanity – the creature that accepts anything. He expects nothing of men, so no form of depravity can outrage him…. He who has the filthy insolence to claim that he loves the clean, steady, unfrightened eyes of man looking through a telescope, and the white stare of an imbecile equally… he is the true hater of mankind.’ ‘ What will you say if I give you the answer people usually give… that love is forgiveness… or that love is pity?’ ‘ It is bad enough to hear things like that. To hear them from you is revolting---even as a joke…. Love is reverence, and worship, and glory, and the upward glance. Not a bandage for dirty sores…. Those who speak of love most promiscuously are the ones who’ve never felt it. They make some sort of feeble stew out of sympathy, compassion, contempt and general indifference, and they call it love. Once you’ve felt what it means to love as you and I know it---the total passion for the total height--- you’re incapable of anything less. … So, if you seek a glimpse of greatness, if you want exaltation, if you ask for God and refuse to accept the washing of wounds as substitute – you’re called a hater of humanity… because you’ve committed the crime of knowing a love humanity has not learned to deserve.’”
-- The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand
“Humans, he thought, lacked the simple honesty that these tall buildings portrayed… These tall structures of steel and concrete, of glass and stone stood in naked display of their ornamented pride and utilitarian purpose. There was no hiding of their conceit, nor was there any hint of shame in their function. Pasha wished he could be complete in that way. He wished all humans could atleast have a shred of that innocent pride and frank nakedness. But he was keenly aware of the fact that people hid behind more layers of ostentatious facades than the buildings they erected.”
-- Pasha, Ergo Sum