Leitmotif

Announcement: I am Moving Out!!

2006-06-11T17:29:00.000-05:00

So, I’ve decided that I was finally tired of the Blogger/Blogspot platform and needed a change. If I was to continue blogging, I needed a better blogging platform that I didn’t get frustrated with all the time. So, here I am now… just barely moving into to http://ergosum.wordpress.com. I hope the Wordpress platform will prove to be a much user-friendly and enjoyable one to work with. The most wonderful feature of Wordpress I've encountered so far is its ability to import all my posts and comments from Blogger without any glitches. That has truly saved me endless hours of copy/pasting. However, now I'm in the process of categorizing all my previous posts - which is also another lovely feature that Wordpres offers. I believe it'll make it easier to dig up old posts based upon its categorical classification. This should also address the problem of "low-shelf life" that typically blog posts suffer from. Many of you might need to update your links and such. I doubt there should be any problem with your existing links to this site (http://ergosum.blogspot.com/) as I plan to keep it up and running also. I suppose any future links would need to be to my new site at Wordpress: http://ergosum.wordpress.com. All of your comments and suggestions regarding my latest move, the design, layout of this site, and any glitches or problems is most welcome. I’m still trying to figure out all the of complex features of this platform. I hope to keep blogging without too much interruption. Thank you for blogging along with me, and I hope to see you all there!

Sean, Chantilli, Myself and Vodka at Tian's

2006-06-05T16:17:00.000-05:00

Last Sunday, I met with an old friend of mine from high school days. He and I were boarders in a renowned Catholic school in Mumbai. We were in the same school from the 7th to the 10th grade, after which we graduated to junior college and went to different institutions. However, my years in the boarding school are still among the best years of my life. I enjoyed the life, the people, the friends, the curriculum, the teachers, the academic activities, the prestige of the school - everything. Life was truly an adventure everyday! Moreover, being that we were boarders living by ourselves there, I believe we each had a sense of being "grown-ups" in some ways. We tended to "look after" each other, talk about "life issues", think big, think independently, and think freely (in some cases). Anyway, so I was meeting someone who I've been friends with for over 10 years now. Even though after moving out of high school our lives took us to different places, we maintained contact occasionally, and prior to my moving to the United States, we even managed to hang out together often. Needless to say, it was an absolute delight to be able to see him again - this time, it was almost after 5 years! I was looking forward to Sunday evening… we met at the train station. Sean (his name) had suggested that we head over to a nearby "pub" (that's what they call bars here; very British); he had been there only once before but was impressed enough with it to try it one more time with me - Tian's at Juhu. We got into a rickshaw* -- these rickshaw drivers are extremely picky about where they wish to go, so it took us a while to find a driver willing to take us to the place we wanted to go. Along the way, and the whole evening really, our conversation flowed quite smoothly; mostly it was I who did all the blabbering. I guess I was overly excited that evening. I had good reasons: I was meeting Sean, and I was going to a bar for the first time in more than two months since I came to India! I was almost thirsting for some Vodka! It was such a heavenly delight to finally wet my lips with a ruby-red cocktail mix of Vodka and Cranberry juice! :) The bar was surprisingly nice: the ambience was mellow, rustic, almost Irish-like. They played oldies music - Richard Marx, Eagle's California, etc. It was a nice respite to listen to these long-forgotten songs… the sound level was just perfect for a conversation to occur without much effort, as well as to smoothly fill in those moments of transitory silence between sips of a drink or changes of conversation topics. Oh, and we actually started off with a glass of wine each. It was some Indian brand wine - Chantilli Merlot! Lol! :D It was not too bad… though it was incredibly thin, and lacking of any texture. But, I couldn't complain. Hey, I was at a bar, with a great companion, having alcohol! Sean suggested we also get some appetizer to munch on while we had our drinks. I agreed. Food always sounds like a good idea to me. However, the sheesh kebabs that we ordered weren't really that good. They were quite flavorless, actually. I did mention that to the attendant who made the mistake of asking me how I liked the food. I was honest, but polite - I think. Something I noticed about our conversations struck me as certainly worth noting. Given that he and I were high school buddies, we have had years of some very juvenile topics of conversation… like our 10th grade classes, exams and papers, our teachers, homework, gossip about friends, hardrock music bands, mystery novels, Agatha Christie, Hardy Boys, Stephen King, etc. This time, however, our topics were about our jobs, our careers, our goals in life, marriage (yes, marriage came up a quite a bit), bank accounts, financial processes, etc. I didn't happen to notice anything unusual about our conversation while they were happening… I just happened to note the fact later on as I reflected on the evening. It's not that I don't usually have these kinds of conversations with my other friends, but just that being that it was Sean, who I've known since I was much younger, talking to him specifically about such things really highlighted to me the stage of life we are in now. Of course, we talked about Ayn Rand. He had never heard of her, but mentioned that he vaguely remembered hearing about The Fountainhead. I said I would buy him the Atlas Shrugged. He protested slightly saying he could buy it himself. I said, no. I really wanted the pleasure of buying this book yet again, and offer it to him. Sean is a mostly reticent man; but he laughs gaily, with much innocence. And that is a very good thing. He is highly intelligent; loves reading, though he says he is losing the habit now because of his busy work schedules. He strikes me as a person who is utterly self-confident and secure, and because of it, he finds no need of making sure the other person realizes it. I like the fact that he doesn't play conversational games like refusing to answer you because he wants you to insist; or feigning anticipation and interest because he knows that what you want him to do. I don't do those things… and it was superbly delightful to talk with someone who followed a similar discipline. All in all, it was a delightful evening. As we both work all week (Mon - Sat), we decided to meet up again next Sunday - possibly for a movie or some such thing. I look forward to continuing our friendship. He is a rare man of honest integrity. It's nice to surround myself with such wonderful company. *rickshaw: an enclosed tricycle with a motor in the back. Also known as an "autorickshaw." Moves along at a top speed of about 30 miles an hour. Ubiquitous outside the downtown city area. Very cheap means of transportation.

God cannot be Perfect, but Man can!

2006-06-02T15:02:00.000-05:00

Heroism is possible to man only because failure is a very real and constant threat. Bravery is possible to man only because there are instances that generate tremendous fear in man. Humans are heroes only in a metaphysic that permits the possibility of failure, success, loss, achievement, death, birth, danger, and security. Existentialists focus on the constancy of failure, and the reality of death, as corroborating their claim for the "fallen" nature of man. Modern philosophers and post-modern artists highlight human weaknesses and human imperfections as evidence of our fragile and corrupt nature. Death is the point of focus, and their philosophical direction is motivated by the death premise. Ayn Rand's sense of life, her art, and her philosophy showed that human perfection, human heroism, human greatness is a very real fact of reality, and its achievement is entirely possible in this world. Her premise is not death, but life. Death is nothing, it is not a state of being - for there is no "being" in death; it is not a state worthy of contemplation - for nothing cannot contemplate about nothingness; it is not anything that one can speak of, except in negative terms: death is the non-existence of a living being. Death is the end of life. Death is a reality that is no one can ever experience. Life is what living beings have to face everyday; therefore, a universal, objective, and life-sustaining code of principles is what living beings must have to develop in order to deal with the reality of their life in this world. Therefore, Rand's philosophy looks at man as a LIVING being. Her art, her philosophy, projects man as a being that sustain his life by interacting with this world, learning about it, mastering its laws, producing means of enhancing his living condition, establishing his intellectual and moral superiority, and rightfully claiming heroic status for a life well-lived. Heroism, perfection, greatness, are all qualities of men that can only be applicable in this world. Those who claim that humans are not like heroes in a fantasy novel, that humans can never achieve perfection because humans are inherently "fallen", have a corrupted notion of heroism and perfection. The cause and reason for that corruption are religious and altruistic philosophies that almost everyone has accepted as "universal truths about man". Heroism is not an attribute of an invincible, undefeatable, immortal Goliath. Perfection is not an attribute of an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent God. Ascribing those attributes to such fantastical entities renders the concepts of heroism and perfection, utterly meaningless. For God to win a battle against the Devil is not a heroic feat. For God to never commit a sin is not a committment to perfection. God (if such an entity does exist) would require by its identity to be undefeatable, and incapable of sinning. Those are not his virtues, but his limitations. It is only to man - who can indeed fail, who can indeed commit mistakes, who can indeed die - that heroism and perfection properly apply; because only they who have a possibility of failure, can achieve heroic successes; only they who have the possibility of committing mistakes, can achieve remarkable perfection in their lives; only they who have the reality of death ahead of them, can experience the joy of living with every fiber of their being.

Leitmotif

2006-06-01T16:14:00.000-05:00

Introducing: "LEITMOTIF" - the leading motive; a dominant, recurring theme. "The only obligation man has in life--regardless of whatever else he feels--is to act." (Atlas Shrugged). The dominant motive for one's actions, the motive that dictates his choices, implicate the kind of morality he lives by. Faith, whim, power-lust, emotion, reason -- these are types of leading motives -- the LEITMOTIF of one's life. I choose reason. That is my Leitmotif. I intend to have all my actions, as much as is under my conscious and immediate control, to be motived by my rational judgment. I did not come upon this decision only just now; it have held it implicitly for a long time now. I merely chose to make a public statement about it through my blog.

Rand on Racism

2006-06-01T13:21:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Nicholas Provenzo for bringing Ayn Rand's definition of racism to the surface in the light of a recent attempt by the Seattle Public Schools to re-define racism. In her 1963 essay on racism, Ayn Rand said: "Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men." And more: "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage—the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.Racism claims that the content of a man's mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man's convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman's version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science." In the 2006 re-definition of racism, the Seattle Public School system says: "Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers." Do you think Rand had a tendency to overstate and exaggerate the influence of her opponents and their ideas?

History of Philocomedy!

2006-05-29T15:51:00.000-05:00

This is so funny! Dr. Stephen Hicks is a professor at Rockford College in Illinois, and he has compiled a brief "History of Philosophy" from his student papers. Some of the ones I thought were totally hilarious: Against Marx, Rand advocates free enterprise and selfishness, but her philosophy is sort of controversial, in a sense. She commits the fallacy of hoc poc der doc. According to Freud, the child has lust during the breast-feeding stage. Eventually his mother stops, and his lust is suppressed until his adultery stage. To Socrates, having a good life meant dying. Socrates was completely opposed to the Sophists. Not only did the Sophists not have reasons, they also did not have reasons. Sophists felt that there were no real reasons. For Aristotle, the virtuous person can be known as temperature, someone who is under complete control. Aristotle thinks the Principle of Noncontradiction is an axiom is because it is one.

Dissecting the Indian Male

2006-05-29T14:37:00.000-05:00

So, at work, I sit beside this handsome, Indian boy; he’s tall, has broad shoulders, a sharp face, and wears rectangular, thick-framed glasses. As I said, he’s quite handsome. Anyway, the point of my writing this post, however, is not to explore the details of his attractiveness, but to consider his non-verbal interactions with me in light of the larger attitude of masculinity and collectivist mentality in India. This handsome bloke (yes, we speak British here) has this habit of nonchalantly placing his hand on my thighs while talking to me; or holding my hands in his and looking directly into my eyes when he’s asking me for some help or advice (typically, in matters of editing and studying). Needless to say, being that I have the “hots” for men, or in other words, being that I fancy young blokes, his non-verbal style of communicating with me is only slightly uncomfortable – oh, but I’m NOT complaining! Just merely stating the fact that it’s a wee bit uncomfortable – especially the hands-on-my-thighs part. And no, he is not gay – that is a fact. I’m certain of it. In all other matters, he displays the kind of typical straight boy goofiness that young, straight American males tend to display – a kind of hollow excitement of being perpetually at the cusp of puberty, only just becoming aware of their raging testosterone, and consequently going berserk! His physical frankness with me is not unusual as a manner of behavior among Indian men. One could argue quite persuasively that India is an androgynous – if not an outright feminine – culture; its men are very well-adjusted to displays of sensitivity, emotional depth, and homosocial intimacy (I wonder if Bollywood has a big role in shaping the Indian male psyche as such). It is not rare to see men walking around the city-streets hand-in-hand, or arms over their shoulders, or displaying other signs of very intimate affection towards each other. This one time at the train station, I saw a group of young men caressing each other’s hair, one of them combing the other’s lengthy locks with what seemed like so much love in his eyes, while the other men in the group carried on a lively and animated conversation among each other. Well, all of this means, it gets awfully hard for *actual* gay men like to me to figure out who’s in who’s “camp” – if you know what I mean. It’s incredibly risky to assume someone’s gay, or someone has the “hots” for you just by their non-verbal behavior and displays of intimacy. I suppose this could possibly lead to a further psychological burial of a gay man’s homosexual expression because of the ambiguous nature of homosocial behavior he observers among the men around him. Moreover, this ambiguity probably leads Indian gay men to try and seek satisfaction and fulfillment of their psychological desires to be intimate with another man in such homosocial relationships (i.e., in safe homosocial intimacies with straight men) thereby repressing a full-blown expression of their proper sexuality with other gay men. All of that (and other socio-psychological causes) then probably leads some Indian gay men to delude themselves into thinking that they are in fact bi-sexual, or maybe even straight! And not as a matter of fact, but as an act of conditioned force upon their own minds – undoubtedly, with terrible consequences for themselves and for those they come in close contact with. The collectivistic influence: The collectivist expression in all of this is the apparent lack of any notion of individual space and personal privacy. It is deemed rude and disrespectful for one to insist on privacy among friends, colleagues, co-workers, relatives, or family members. In fact, insisting on privacy on any matter is also looked upon with suspicion. For example, if I insisted on closing the door to my bedroom, certainly it must be because I have something to hide! What is it that I do that cannot be shared by others? In fact, at work, I am routinely subjected to all kinds of questions about my personal and professional life that I find quite intrusive and unnecessary for them to know about. One of my co-workers insisted on finding out my middle name and my official signature – and I barely know the guy! Yet, insisting on privacy or declining to answer such questions casts you in a suspicious light; you are considered as possibly dishonest, or at least obnoxiously conceited. It is also regarded as offensive to maintain personal space between yourself and another person. Why would you want to maintain such a distance (a distance that Indians would find inordinately greater than necessary)? Is it because the person has foul odor? Do you not like being next to the person? Maintaining personal distance also could be construed as your unwillingness to be friendly with the person. Thus, everybody wants to be in everyone else’s business and everyone else’s personal space. That is the culture. It is a clear expression of its collectivist influence. The psychological mentality of collectivism and the physical reality of a highly over-populated country exacerbate the rampant disregard for and stifling of individualistic notions. This collectivistic influence probably plays a fueling factor in the kind of social, non-verbal behavior Indians exhibit among themselves. Even when they are being hospitable towards each other, the manner of their hospitality borders on force, coercion, and then even suspicion. It’s too much to get into right now.

Let's Kill Them All (And They Say Atheists Cannot Have Morals!)

2006-05-26T13:54:00.000-05:00

Following the example of the Muslim savages and the Christian idiots, the Hindu crackheads are now getting on the bandwagon of banning all free speech, killing all heretics, or in other words, protecting their religious sentiments with loyal diligence. Here's the latest (via Philosophy Now, Issue 55):

"Let’s All Join In A Hindu group in India is offering a reward to anyone who beheads the artist M.F. Hussain, who produces edgy reinterpretations of Hindu deities. “Those who are endangering our religion and nation should be eliminated for everyone’s good,” said Ashok Pandey, president of the Hindu Personal Law Board. “Anyone who kills Hussain… the Danish cartoonist, and those in the German company printing pictures of Ram and Krishna on tissue paper…will be given (the reward) in cash... Peace will not prevail on Earth unless such people are eliminated.” Pandey commented that Hussain was as guilty of degrading Hindu deities as the Danish cartoonists were of defiling the Prophet Muhammad. A senior advocate at the Lucknow High Court said that the comments were “just an attempt to gain cheap publicity.”"

What I had discussed in previous posts regarding the unholy alliance of collectivism and religion in such regions of the world like India, the middle-east, and some countries in Africa is further corroborated by the recent incidents mentioned above. Notice this: Japan, China, Korea and other East Asian countries are terribly collectivist societies, but where there is no ideology providing an explicit and systematic code of ethics - either political (eg. communism) or religious (Christianity), there is seldom such instances of mass violence and violations of human rights. In other words, Japan is a collectivist society (to its core), but it lacks the cohesion of moral beliefs provided by a systematic code of ethics. Japanese people are not religious - many practice Buddhism, but in its various, lose forms. The Japanese have a variety of superstitious beliefs, but no universal system of religious or ideological moral system today. And very seldom, if ever, do we hear of human rights violations or religiously incited violence occuring in Japan, (I'm not including the pre-World War II Japan, which was very strongly monarchical/dictatorial. A dictatorial monarchy fills in the role of a Diety, its royal dictats serving as a code of ethics or value-system that creates the requisite mental cohesion among its peoples). Now, contrast the collectivism of Japan that is unaligned with any cohesive ethical system with the collectivism of China and its communism, or of North Korea and its communism, or of Nepal and its dictatorial monarchy, or of Pakistan and its Islamic dictatorship, or of Indonesia and its Islamic predominance, or of India and its Hindutva majority (80% Indians are Hindus).

How Wierd is That?!

2006-05-25T07:38:00.000-05:00

My first week at work and I've already come across a mention of Ayn Rand, and a brief statement of Sartre's ideas (the 'freedom is a burden' theory) in the materials I am reading here. Crazy, no!?

Now That I've Started Working Again

2006-05-24T14:00:00.000-05:00

... it feels like I'm actually back in school! I'm an Editor of academic articles and books in the Humanities and Social Sciences. What that means is, in my typical day, I am reading articles, literature, manuscripts, etc. that have been submitted to scholarly journal publications or university presses, editing them for stylistic, grammatical, syntactical, esthetic, and other improvements, discussing/arguing with other editors, authors, and publishers over all kinds of issues related to the publication, and finally, providing our estimate of the overall quality of a submission (i.e. worthy of publishing, stylistically consistent, room for improvement, etc.). Now, ofcourse, you may be wondering - this dude cannot even write a decent blogpost in English, how in hell did he get a job as an editor!? Well, I wondered about that too! But here's the deal: I'm currently undergoing a rigorous training period of three months, during which I will be expected to complete a number of courses and modules in topics such as English grammar, language structure, elements and constructions, etymology and academic vocabulary, style guides for academic submissions, differences in written British and American English, etc. For example, today I spent eight hours studying the eight different comma modules (each module being an hour long). I had no clue that comma usage had some DRAMA behind it! Well, the best part of all this is getting to read some absolutely amazing, cutting-edge scholarly, scientific work. However, I have come to realize that regardless of how brilliant these authors maybe in their respective fields, all of them are not gifted English writers (like me, I guess :-)) And so, their amazing minds and inadequate English writing skills provide jobs for people like us. Which brings me to the most important reason one gets a job (atleast among the most important reasons for me) - that is, to make money. I've heard that my salary is in a competitively high bracket in the Indian market given all considerations to my position, my qualifications, the company, and its growth. I'm being paid handsomely for taking in-depth courses in the English language, for reading and discussing scholarly articles from all over the world, enhancing my language skills, increasing my knowledge base, exposing my mind to new and varying perspectives, and just basking gleefully in a knowledge-driven environment of intelligent people. One of our high-profile customers is the world-renowned Oxford University Press. There are other university presses and publications in America, Great Britain, France, Japan, Korea, and Malaysia that also use our business services; I haven't heard of their names before, but that might be because of my own past ignorance of these matters. My company does more than just provide editing services, though. We also conduct online English teaching modules for international institutions and individuals, and provide transcription and translation services. I'm quite liking the place and the young, intelligent people I work with. Right now, I believe I'm making the best of my situation here in India. I can't complain.

Objectivists and Causes of Homosexuality

2006-05-22T03:04:00.000-05:00

Updated: It seems like some Objectivists are quite in disagreement over the causes and moral status of homosexuality. Of course, wrestling with that issue is not unique only to us, as much of contemporary society is dealing with trying to understand gay people like me and why we are the way we are. Even we homosexuals are divided over these important issues regarding our sexual identities. Over at Trey Given’s blog, a young discussion has arisen over the causes of homosexual identity. Trey is of the opinion that homosexuality is entirely or mostly biological (genetic), and therefore homosexual behavior is simply amoral- and that’s that. Diana Hsieh is of the opinion that while she finds absolutely no reason to hold homosexual identity as immoral, she cannot accept that there are any biological or genetic roots to its manifestation in some people. Diana asks some crucial questions on the topic: How could homosexuality (or any sexuality, for that matter) be innate (i.e. genetic) without innate concepts of male and female…. Are our brains programmed with not just the innate capacity to distinguish male from female, but also an innate desire for one or the other? How exactly might that work? Do we have all kinds of other innate knowledge and desires? Or is sexuality some kind of radical anomoly [sic] in the way our brain works? My own opinion is that homosexuality is a bit of both, and maybe more. The two alternatives proposed by Trey and Diana, of being mostly genetic or entirely psychological, respectively, are inadequate and fall short of capturing the vast range of differences one finds in human sexual manifestations. Moreover, coming from an Objectivist perspective, such disjunctive bifurcation of the human sexual identity in either the wholly genetic or the wholly psychological wrongly sustains the separation of the mind from the body – a dichotomy that Objectivism vehemently rejects in every understanding of man. Trey’s insistence that homosexuality is almost entirely dictated by genetic predispositions does not fit into our current understanding of human sexuality as a rich, complex, and varied phenomena. It furthermore would need to admit that all manifestations of sexual orientations, like heterosexuality, transexuality, bi-sexuality, bestiality, etc. etc. are also entirely determined by genetic causes (as people bearing these identities often claim for themselves). I don’t believe this position can be viably held in the face of current and future revelations on the matter. On the other extreme position that Diana holds, i.e. sexual orientation could not be genetic at all, and must be entirely psychological, similarly goes against current science, and on a more personal level, it goes against my own (and other gays’) experience and understanding of sexual identity. The questions Diana poses regarding homosexuality could also be asked of heterosexuality. [Note: Diana does emphasize that even heterosexuality cannot be genetic and is therefore, psychologically developed - either consciously or sub-consciously.] Why is it that throughout history, the majority of human population have been heterosexuals if it were possible for them to easily develop sexual attraction to any thing or any person (since it is not genetically determined)? Why didn’t people develop a pre-dominantly homosexual orientation, leaving reproduction to the 10% minority? If there are no innate concepts of male and female, and no innate attraction for one or the other, then the overwhelming pre-dominance of heterosexuality needs crucial explanation beyond our current understanding of its evolutionary causes and roles. I’ll copy/paste here some of the arguments I posted on the comments at Trey’s blog. If you are reading this and are interested in participating in the discussion, please proceed to his site to include your comments and get a complete picture of everyone else’s arguments. My post here is mainly for my own purpose of synthesizing my scattered opinions on homosexuality in one place, on my blog. ================================================ Explanations such as physiological suitability of opposite sex organs dictating the *choice* people made throughout history is very inadequate for atleast two reasons I can think of right now: 1) I personally do not find any difference in the *physiological* suitability between heterosexuals and homosexuals (yes, even among lesbians). This notion of "suitability" probably carries some subjective and arbitrary beliefs of the purpose of sex and our sex organs. If the "suitability" of sex organs are viewed with a subconscious view that they are primarily for reproduction, then I would only concede so much that TODAY opposite sex organs have better suitability than same-sex sex organs. If "suitability" is understood in the view of sex as expression of love, pleasure, lust, etc... then to claim that one set is more "suitable" than the other is simply arbitrary. 2) If sexual identity was indeed totally unconnected with genetic causes, then, given the variety of human sexual choices we already witness, the number of heterosexuals should have been far lower - or atleast widely ranging during different periods of history depending on prevailing socio-cultural norms. However, I believe it is a matter of fact that homosexuality has remained at a steady minority rate, and hetersexuality has maintained a huge majority throughout history. Other sexual identities (possibly, as I mentioned earlier, due to random genetic/evolutionary processes) have been typically lower than homosexuality.These trends cannot be explained away by saying simply that the large *majority* of people throughout history just chose to be heterosexual because of the suitability of opposite sex organs. If choice were truly the main factor, then the diversity of sexual choices would have been more evenly spread out. I've always held that homosexuality is not entirely or merely a genetic/biological phenomena. I believe there is certainly some environmental/psychological aspect that probably triggers a latent "gay" gene in the people that have it. I’ve read some studies to this effect – which I find to be the most plausible scenario. Yet, I have also held firmly that homosexuality - whatever its causes - is not immoral in any sense. If given a chance to change my sexual orientation (I don't like the word "orientation", but I can't think of any appropriate one to use right now), I would choose not to do it. However, I don’t mean to imply that I am somehow more comfortable with my homosexuality and Trey – because he leans toward being open to change – is somehow not fully comfortable. I agree with Trey that it is purely an individual decision made in their given contexts. It seems to me that all the "inconveniences" or "hurdles" or "problems" associated with being gay actually has no proper root in the fact of being gay, per se - but of being gay in *today's* cultural environment. Being gay as such does not give rise to any uniquely different or significant problems that would not similarly arise among heterosexuals... I agree that there are real problems homosexuals experience - but it is because we are gay *today*, in *this* cultural environment. However, we must remember that our situation is much, much, better off that gays living only 20 or 30 years ago. My understanding of the "gay" gene does to correspond to a cognitive or conceptual understanding of gay sexuality, masculinity, etc. I understanding genetic basis of behavior dispositions as simply *tendencies* - not a hard-wired *programmed* formula. There are genetic tendencies that different people have to differing degrees... for example, scientists have studied some people's genetic predisposition to a short temper, get angry more quickly and easily, or get hooked on some addiction or alcoholism, etc. However, my argument is that these predispositions are tendencies that typically are latent unless they are triggered early on in a person's life (depending on what those tendencies are) by environmental or psychological factors. Thus, a person with a predisposition for easy addiction (maybe a gene that allows for a quicker neural connection in the brain to process drug-induced chemicals and respond quickly with a positive "high" experience)... might not actually be an *addict* until they actually interact with some trigger in their environment (peer pressure to smoke at an early age, drug abuse at home, etc.). Similarly, the gay genetic tendency is not present in all persons... and even those who DO HAVE that genetic predisposition might not manifest it in their conscious sexual orientation unless it had already been triggered through some means early enough in their psychological development. That might explain bi-sexuality, latent homosexuality, anecdotes of abuse in childhood common among many gay people, etc. If […] homosexuality is *entirely* psychological or developmental, then it implies to whatever degree, a deliberate choice I made after understanding concepts like my masculinity, sexual attraction, other males, etc. But I must say, and I think Trey would agree, that I cannot ever remember making any such choices nor understanding any such concepts in my early childhood - when there were already clear signs of my homosexual attraction. My earliest memory of being attracted to another male (a little boy, actually) seemed to arise automatically and naturally when I was only 3yrs old, and he was maybe only a few yrs older than me. Was that childhood attraction possible because even at that age I had some concept of sexual roles, gender, penis, masculinity, etc? I don't know. But I doubt it. To me, it seems more like the physiological reaction of my gay gene after being triggered positively, releasing positive and reinforcing emotions in me. I take it being analogous to a person who has good genes that respond quickly to muscle-building when the person works-out in the gym only few days a week, while another person sweats out 2 hours everyday at the gym and yet can barely maintain a decent physique (I submit myself as an example of the latter!) I cannot honestly agree with any theory that regards homosexuality as completely devoid of any genetic, physiological, or biological roots. It creates an unresolvable conflict in my mind between what "stomach-feeling" I have and what that theory would espouse. I think homosexuality (its different degrees, and bi-sexuality, etc.) are caused by some interactive influence of both, the biological and the psychological.All behaviors are subject to moral judgement. Harmful addiction is immoral regardless of the person's genetic predispositions - because, as I mentioned, those addictive acts are still under the control of the person's deliberate choices. Homosexuality is not immoral regardless of its causes.

An Epitaph for Memories of You

2006-05-18T14:54:00.000-05:00

I am scared to think of you. You have become… a memory Like so many other things bygone – A mere thought. And that thought scares me. I am alarmed at the fact that you are Only an ephemeral firing of some neuron That bears your name in my mind. Your images Flicker rapidly, Moving too quickly for me to grasp Memories of you jostle against each other Blurring the chronology of events Smudging the precision of your face I am petrified by the sight of your Ghostly image projected on the walls of my consciousness I cannot have you haunting my soul I cannot have you addicting my mind And yet, you are there… somewhere… Inside the dark murkiness of my head I wish I could gather your body into the fold of my arms I wish I could admire the mirthful gaze of your eyes I don’t want you in my thoughts I want you in the body I do not wish to forget you But I do not wish to make you a memory to think of How grotesque it is For a being full of life and vigor and animation For a being that exemplifies “laughter let loose in the Universe”* To be twisted, chained and locked in the chambers of my brain, To be tangled among a sad mess of dendrites. Will my body ever shudder under your touch again? Or will memories like translucent dew Be all that I will have left Of you? ============================================= *Ayn Rand used those words to describe the paintings of her husband.

Christians Against Free Speech in India

2006-05-10T13:54:00.000-05:00

There is a furor rising up among the Christian - particularly Catholic - community in India over two movies that were scheduled for nationwide release. The local Catholic communities in Mumbai staged a protest rally today, calling for the ban of these two movies from country-wide movie theaters. They distributed fliers, in which they describe their objections to the two movies: 1) Tickle My Funny Bone - shows a women [sic] dressed as a Nun romancing, with the Church & Cross in the background. The advertisements read, "Story of a Sexy, Bold, Naughty Nun" and show her in worse scenes than the one on the behind of this sheet. 2) The Da Vinci Code - speaks of Jesus getting married to Mary Magdalene, with they having sex & children. The Church is shows as trying to cover this story, where the chalice of the Last Supper is supposed to be the womb of Mary Magdalene, bearing the blood of Christ.... Furthermore, they demand that the "secular government" of India take note of these movies "as it did with... the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie [and] the Holy Prophet's Cartoons...". They are, in effect claiming, that if the muslims could have their way with their protests and violence, so can they; in fact, so should they! Their corrupt understanding of the concept of "secular" means the government should ban all instances of allegedly insulting and insensitive material against all religions alike. They are asking all Catholic communities, parishners, and church go-ers to email or write to newspapers, politicians, and other authorities and state their protest against the movies. I decided to email them back and express my absolute opposition to them and their views. I also sent the following email to the editors of two major newspapers in India. I hope that those of you reading this, if you have any value for the right to free speech and other basic rights, and if you value living in a rational world that protects those inviolable rights, you will spare a few moments to send a quick email to these newspapers (and other ones if you can), expressing your support for the release of "Tickle My Funny Bone" and "The Da Vinci Code". To: editoronline@dnaindia.net ; toieditorial@timesgroup.com ; divinemedia@gmail.com

Dear Editors, On Wednesday, May 10th, certain Catholics gathered in Mahim to protest the release of two films that they claim are "insulting" & "hurting" their religious sentiments. They claim that India is a secular democracy, and is therefore obligated to respect all religious sentiments. Therefore, the Indian government is obligated to ban both of these movies. I wish to emphatically say that I stand diametrically opposed to these Catholics' demand! Banning of movies, books, or any other form of media violates our most precious value and basic right of free speech. Just as there can be NO compromise to our right to live, there can also be NO compromise on our right to THINK freely and express those thoughts FREELY in speech. India is a secular democracy - and precisely for that reason, every Indian should have the freedom to speak as they wish, and practice their religions as they see fit - as long as that speech or practice does not extend into a credible threat of physical harm. The Indian government has NO obligation to ban these movies. The government SHOULD NOT interfere in this matter. This is a matter of private entities - private studios, distributors, and individual citizens. The Indian government should be secular - and therefore hold NO STANCE or position for one religion or against another. Catholics need to realize that the right of free speech is guaranteed inorder to protect me when I make an offensive speech. Certainly, I would not need any such right or guarantee if I wasn't saying anything offensive. I should have the right to criticize or ridicule Hindus, muslims, or any other religion, just as they have the right to criticize Christians. If I believe that the 300 gods of Hindus are wierd, I should have the right to say it, and make fun of it. You have the right to not listen to me and walk away. You have NO right to force my mouth shut. Galileo Galilei had published his revolutionary book that was highly insulting to the Catholic Church. He was therefore, imprisoned and declared an offensive heretic. We know today how wrong the Catholic Church was, the Church apologized for that instance of denying Galileo his freedom to speak as he saw fit. If we shut every work of media, art, and science as offensive to our sentiments, we will be heading towards a horrible scenario of absolutely no freedom, and widespread stagnation. Let every individual make their own minds about the kinds of speech they wish to subscribe to. If you do not like the movie, do not watch it! If you think it is insulting to your sentiments, don't go see it. But DO NOT DEMAND that they rest of the country also respect your sentiments! A muslim CANNOT DEMAND that catholics stop eating pork because it insults the muslim sentiments. A Hindu CANNOT DEMAND that we stop eating beef because it insults their sentiments. A Christian CANNOT DEMAND that no one in this country should see these movies because it is insulting to their sentiments. Keep this country free. Keep freedom alive. Let everyone practice their own religions in peace and privacy.

Conflating the Identities of Humans and Animals

2006-05-08T17:08:00.000-05:00

In my previous post about Animal Rights, I revealed the two alternatives posed by behaviorists and intrinsicists: the former believes that humans are not much different (if at all) than other animals, while the latter believes that we are positively superior to animals – because we are smarter and more sophisticated. I identified that both alternatives rest on a false premise: that humans and animals are measured for difference on a linear, quantitative scale – that the behaviorists place humans only a few points higher (if at all) than animals, whereas the intrinsicists place humans dramatically higher on this linear scale. The premise is that humans and animals have the same characteristics, only in differing degrees. That the identities of humans and animals are essentially the same, though differing only in some aspects like the amount of intellectual brain development. I argued that there is fundamental and radical difference between humans and animals. That we are not on some quantitatively higher position of superiority than animals, but on an altogether different standard of measurement. Our fundamental identities are dramatically different – not just in differing degrees, but totally, and absolutely. I pointed out that human consciousness possesses the faculty of volition that is only unique to us as a species. This faculty is absent among other species, and therefore our essential identities are radically different. Humans are not animals in any but the most narrow, physiological sense of the word. Just a few minutes ago, I happened to read Roger Donway’s article “How Individualist Is Human Nature?” Given the title, I believe the article is entirely superfluous – one should quickly be able to reject the whole evolutionary theorists’ premise of pre-programmed concepts like Individualism, altruism, selfishness, etc. hard-wired into the brain based on the very fact that those are higher level *cognitive* concepts that cannot exist without a developed *cognitive* faculty! Furthermore, I have deep criticism for Roger’s analysis of Evolutionary psychology. I may critique his article in detail in a separate post. My point in bringing up his article in the context of my discussion on animal rights is to show just one example of determinists and behaviorists positing the complete negation of human identity as a rational being with the faculty of volition – as a being that is radically different from animals based on the nature of his consciousness. By refusing to recognize the different natures of human and animal consciousness, they posit the negation of identity itself – human identity and animal identity – thus, conflating the two and abolishing the proper foundation for morality and rights, and fundamentally, for existence itself. If existence is identity, and that if a human exists he exists with an identity, then to deny the identity of a human being is to deny the very existence of man qua man. Of course, then what you get is human qua animal; a brute; a mindless thug functioning on automatic instinct, and left at the mercy of unknown causes in his brain. In the article, Roger cites an evolutionary psychologist who says ““The brain is a physical system whose operation is governed solely by the laws of chemistry and physics. What does this mean? It means that all your thoughts and hopes and dreams and feelings are produced by chemical reactions going on in your head.” What they wish to argue is that the chemical reactions produced in your brain allegedly precludes, out of necessity, any faculty of free will and volition – even the possibility of such a faculty as existing. Moreover, the entire enterprise of writing a book, or formulating a theory is, according to them, nothing more than the effects of causal chains of chemical reactions. Matt Ridley, whose book is the focus of Roger’s article, “ridicules those who believe that “we are conscious, rational, and free-willed, not like those inferior things called animals.”” The deterministic, behaviorist trend in psychology (and other fields) openly reveal their contempt for human identity and reason. To deny the faculty of volition in human consciousness is to deny the functioning method of our rational faculty. The operation of reason rests upon the faculty of volition. Choice is the effect caused by the nature of our consciousness. If there is no free will, there can be no faculty of reason.

Revealing a False Alternative - Animal Rights or Human Rights?

2006-05-07T18:02:00.000-05:00

Since I wrote the article on “Animal “Rights” Trump Human Rights”, I have thought extensively on the matter and have now been able to identify and formulate a thorough exposition of the fundamental premises of people in the Animal Rights camp. I have also been able to identify, once and for all, the fundamental difference between humans and animals. In discussions on whether animals have rights, there are many notions being loosely held and misused – the most obvious one being the concept of ‘rights’. However, 'rights' is a higher level concept that depends on many underlying concepts and premises. I won’t go into a detailed analysis of rights-concept, as I believe, Objectivism has properly and fully completed that job. What I wish to identify here, then, is the question of difference: Are humans really any different from other animals? If we were to afford animals their alleged “rights”, then it must imply some sort of significant similarity between animals and humans. Are humans also just animals? Aren’t we all just animals? I have identified at least two alternative strains of thought that answer this question of difference – and both, I believe are false alternatives. The first alternative is the determinist, behaviorist argument that claim humans are also animals. We are no different. Humans can be trained and taught tricks just like a chimpanzee. Animals communicate and build homes and protect their young just like us humans. Humans and animals have the same feelings, emotions, loyalties, etc. except maybe to differing degrees. The second alternative is that of an intrinsicist or, what I call, the pseudo-religious argument: Humans are definitely different from animals. We are not only different, but superior to them. We are more intelligent than animals, we can communicate, we can build huge cities, we love more deeply, etc. In short, Humans are superior to animals because of our superior intelligence. No other animal matches us in intelligence. Both these alternatives to the question of difference are wrong, and based on a false premise. The common fundamental premise shared by these two alternatives is that the difference between humans and animals is a matter of intelligence measurement; that the level of intelligence varies among humans and animals. The first camp believes that the intellectual difference between animals and humans is not too large, that we are not very much more intelligent than the smartest dolphin or chimpanzee. Our brains are essentially the same, and that an animal could be trained to be as smart as a human in most tasks. The second, intrinsicist camp argues that our intelligence level is dramatically greater, or higher, than that of animals, recent studies in animal intelligence notwithstanding. Our intelligence has become very sophisticated due to language, social interactions, and other such factors. Thus, we are fully superior to other animals. What both these alternatives reveal is a flawed, inaccurate understanding of human beings. Humans are not differentiated from other animals only by virtue of our intelligence. No matter what the intellectual capacity we possess, there are some of us humans with an intelligence level below that of an average chimpanzee, and there are some of us humans whose intelligence is rarely surpassed by any even over centuries. Beyond this simplistic quantitative view of human intelligence, we must take into account, the significance of the type of intelligence we humans possess: our intellectual abilities vary not on a linear two-dimensional scale, but on multi-layered three-dimensional model with scales that measure different aspects of our intellectual sophistication, like that of musical intelligence, integrative ability, mathematical aptitude, etc. To say it very mildly, human intelligence is tremendously complex and sophisticated in various ways. And yet, philosophically, this standard of a highly complex human intelligence is NOT enough to sufficiently differentiate humans from animals, and ground the concept of “rights” only in humans. This standard fails horribly when we bring in an equal or greater challenger of human intelligence in the form of robots, computers, or other such man-made creations. Despite the paradox of judging a man-made creation as being more intelligent that the creator, the standard of intelligent measurement objectively reveals that our creations often score better on the intelligence scale than many of us humans. Yet, I do not believe any one entertains the opinion of granting similar human rights and treatment to robots and computers. Thus, we see that intelligence by itself is an insufficient standard of arguing for the difference between humans and animals (or non-human entities). A robot maybe highly intelligent, but supposedly, lifeless – and so one may be tempted to then argue for some combination of intelligent *life* as the standard of difference. And yet, even that standard fails. It is an arbitrary insistence on a combination between intelligence and life, with a pre-conceived bias towards a traditional concept of “life”. Would the self-generated and autonomous actions of an intelligent robot or computer not suffice as defining it as a living entity? Does one require a heartbeat to be considering “living”? Is a brain-dead human a living human or a lifeless vegetable? Why do we consider the chemical activities of plants as proof of life but not the electrical activity of a super-intelligent robot? As you can see, insisting on that arbitrary standard of “intelligent life” leads to many complicated tangents and caveats that need resolving. Therefore, it is my argument that the fundamental difference between a human and an animal is not due to our quantitative levels of intelligence, or the qualitative levels of our intellectual sophistication, or due to the idea that we are the “only” intelligent life on earth. Those arguments are not invalid, but they are not fundamental. They are propositions that depend on a more fundamental premise. That premise is the Identity of Consciousness. The fundamental difference between a human and an animal is in the fundamental identity (nature) of our Consciousness. As humans, the identity of our consciousness is one that is volitional. As animals, the identity of their consciousness necessarily excludes the faculty of volition. Ayn Rand said that all living creatures face the fundamental alternative of life and death. Animals, by the identity of their consciousness are automatically equipped to deal with this reality. The nature of their consciousness gives them the requisite tools to face the alternative of life and death, and automatically pursue life, life-affirming activities; life-sustaining and reproducing activities. As humans, we have to CHOOSE one or the other – and that grounds all of our ethics and morality. Do we choose a life-affirming morality or a morality of death? 'Rights' are a moral concept that is applicable only under a morality of life. If one chooses death, one does not need to claim a right to life. If one simply cannot choose death as such, one cannot have any basis for morals, or rights. [At this point, I have to bring in the analogy of God: Since the God (assuming existence) cannot choose death, He can also not be an entity concerned with morals. Read "God's Limitations"]

2006-05-06T15:36:00.000-05:00

Oh my god, how much I miss Chicago.

Atlas Smolders With Sexual Tension!

2006-05-04T17:51:00.000-05:00

It's about 4:00am right now here in god-forsaken land. I recently began re-reading Atlas Shrugged - the new Centennial paperback edition. The cover design on this behemoth of a book is so attractive and stunning, I couldn't resist its temptation; so I bought the book right before I left America. At first I thought I'd give this copy to my friend here, since I already have my own copy of an older version of the book (which is all worn out, tattered, and literally in two pieces due to very abusive reading habits). However, since I bought this new paperback edition, I've been so reluctant to part with it. I feel so selfishly possessive about it, and I am torn between on the one hand, wanting to keep this new, fresh, attractive copy for myself to re-read, and on the other hand, wanting to give it to my friend so he can hopefully gain some value in his life from reading it, which might help us have a deeper understanding and friendship due to a shared context. Ofcourse, I could really do both - re-read it first and then offer it to my friend. Oh, but the pain of parting away from it at all! Ugh. Anyway, well what really motivated me to rise up at this time of the morning and blog was that as I was reading my fresh, new, robust copy of the Centennial edition, I came upon this smoldering hot desription of the sexual tension between Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart - the heroes of the novel. Read this part:

"To reduce you to a body, to teach you an animal's pleasure, to see your wonderful spirit dependent upon the obscenity of your need... to see you in my bed, submitting to any infamous whim I may devise, to any act which I'll perform for the sole purpose of watching your dishonor and to which you'll submit for the sake of an unspeakable sensation.... I want you - and may I be damned for it!..."

Daaayyaaam!! Well, read more:

"... Do you know what I'm thinking now, in this moment?... Your gray suit and your open collar... you look so young, so austere, so sure of yourself... What would you be like if I knocked your head back; if I threw you down in that formal suit of yours, if I raised your skirt-"

Good God! Rand could well have been a Romance novelist! I bet her romance novels would be so edgy, steaming, sexy, smoldering, and as an added benefit - they would actually have an intelligent, philosophical plot structure! (hmm... I wonder if that's what Atlas Shrugged is already?).

Celebrity Baby Names

2006-05-03T18:07:00.000-05:00

Gwyneth Paltrow's baby is named "Apple". Branjelina are rumored to name their upcoming baby "Africa". Tom and Katy have named their just new-born baby "Suri" (apparently, its hebrew, but even the Israelis don't know what it means!) What with baby names like Apple, Africa, and Suri I am so glad I'm not a celebrity baby, My name is, plain old, Jerry. [John, I couldn't help it! The topic renders itself so easily for such rhyme!]

Very Funny Joke! Capitalist Hell vs. Socialist Hell

2006-05-03T12:10:00.000-05:00

A young, ruthless executive died and went to hell. When he arrived, he was given a choice: capitalist hell, or socialist hell. In front of the socialist hell was an incredibly long line; but not one person waited in front of the capitalist hell. Even now the executive believes in informed decision-making, so he asks the guard about the socialist hell. "In socialist hell," answers the guard, "they boil you in oil, whip you, and then put you on the rack." "And what do they do to you in capitalist hell?" "The exact same thing." The executive frowns: "So why is everybody in line for the socialist hell?" "Because in socialist hell," explains the guard, "they are always out of oil, whips, and racks." (Thanks to Smile of the Day for the joke, and Life and Otherwise for the link)

Strange Responses to God's Plan

2006-05-03T10:09:00.000-05:00

I posted a modified version of my "God's Original Plan for Humanity" on the Progressive U site. I disagree with the website's mission and vision statement, but the site has generated a sizeable number of readers for my post there. At the time of this writing, 105 people have read my post. Ofcourse, it is my desire to have my original ideas disseminated as widely as possible. Yet, that also means having to contend with strange and wierd remarks or opinions in response to my ideas. The following is my modified post and some people's remarks to it: "Assume that the Genesis story in the Bible is true. Therefore, God exists. God created man in His image. Then he created woman out of man. Strangely, however, God commanded Adam and Eve to not eat the fruits of the tree of life and knowledge. In other words, God made man and woman in His image except for the knowledge and immortal life part. So, “His image” is quite questionable as to what it means. It is said in the book of Genesis that before eating of the forbidden fruit, man had no concept of sin or wrong or evil. It was after having eaten the fruit from the “Serpent” that sin entered into the world. Sin implies immorality – which also implies a possibility of morality. The book says that after they ate the fruit, Adam noticed Eve as a “woman” and apparently that reveals the human nature of sinful lust that became possible for Adam to experience. So, God originally then intended Adam and Eve to remain oblivious of good and bad, right or wrong, moral and evil, the sexual and the impersonal, etc. Which further implies that God did not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge of such things, and of many other things that arise from such knowledge – like love, values, virtues, hatred, benevolence, choice, freedom, nurture, etc. Thus, it seems like God created Adam and Eve just like He created all the other animals – like just any other species – endowed with life, but a blank stare of ignorance in their eyes. God did not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge – to know what is admirable, what is deserving of praise, what is evil, what is immoral, what is good, what is bad, etc. Knowledge was forbidden. In other words, God’s Divine plan for humanity was to keep us in a perpetual state of ignorant void – there can be no “happy” “innocent” state without the possibility of experiencing unhappiness or evil – an infant is not “happy” or “innocent” in the true meaning of the word, the infant is merely clueless, like any other animal would be, only sometimes responding pleasurably to pleasurable stimuli. But, humans foiled God’s Divine plan (clearly, foiling God’s plan is possible, according to the Bible) in cahoots with the Devil. The Devil liberated human beings from the state of ignorance and animal-like existence and brought salvation upon humankind. The Devil gave us the glimpse of immense possibilities, of achievements, of the concept of happiness, joy, love, of the higher meanings of morality, choice, freedom, failure, etc. The Devil made the world we live in, possible. The Devil free-ed humans to build our own heaven, here on Earth. The Devil makes it possible for us to love our mothers and hate our back-stabbers, to enjoy our boyfriends in sex, and to create great works of Art and literature. The knowledge of good and evil makes it possible for us to have a life that has meaning, that gives us control over our actions, that gives us responsibility, purpose, efficacy, sense of achievement. Of course, because of our freedom, we also screw up a lot. But hey, I still prefer living like this today, as a thinking human being, than living like how God intended Humans to live – as ignorant animals with no knowledge, no concept of any values, no experience of love or sexual intimacy, no worth, no pride, no self-esteem. Ergosum's blog – 105 reads Responses: The last two paragraphs here The last two paragraphs here could have been titled, "Why I am not a Christian." Excellent post. One of the essences of religion here. Michael Allen Yarbrough Protagonist – Tue, 05/02/2006 – 1:28am reply God commanded them not to God commanded them not to eat of the tree of Knowledge, however the tree of Life was open. Adam and Eve were immortal beings until they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. After they ate, they were banished from the Garden of Eden, which made them mortal, at least while on earth. As a Christian, I believe God is sovereign. Satan could not have tricked Eve into eating the fruit if God did not allow it. God's plan for humanity was to create us, then send his son to die for us, so that we could believe in Him and be saved. He knew what was going to happen from the time he created Adam and Eve, because that was what he wanted to happen. The fact that people accept his sacrifice brings glory to Him, and He created the world to bring glory to himself. ~Keri~ KearBear44 – Wed, 05/03/2006 – 6:31am reply Interesting idea, but I Interesting idea, but I noticed one problem. I could be wrong but I don't remember it saying in Genesis that Adam an Eve we're not immortal. I think they were immortal until they ate the fruit and were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. So if this is true then they may not have had knowledge but they would have lived in paradise without the pressures, struggles, and evils that we know about. But on the other hand since thats not what happened I can see your point in thinking we were liberated. Good Post tcole31314 – Wed, 05/03/2006 – 6:33am reply Hey very strong words. Just Hey very strong words. Just remember that these stories were written to help aid us in our relief to the thought of death. But that brings some thought into play. I always wondered if heaven is so perfect when we reach that destination why think. You have done a great job of answering my question. The reason why we are so afraid of thinking outside the world we believe in. Is because animals as we were. wernt made to think. But the devil is only our concept of evil. And evil does not deserve reward for what we have accomplished. Knowledge is due its credit. The "devil" had no part in stuffing that apple down our mouth, curiousity did. Thats the problem with your theory How would it be wrong to eat the apple if we dont understand the concept of right or wrong. What animal goes against his instinct to learn the experience of knowledge. When the bible says we were made in his image i dont think he was talking about flesh and bones but i believe he was talking about the ability to make our choices on the path we were willing to take. That story only illustrates that we as human biengs desire not to live within the restriction of any higher being. but well thought out im not a religious person just showing in defense out of respect for other religions Godfrey G Davis II – Wed, 05/03/2006 – 6:45am

First Month in India

2006-05-01T14:29:00.000-05:00

Today marks the end of my first month in India since I arrived here. I had a first-hand experience today of something absolutely shocking, and to some real extent, very ominous. I went out to watch a movie with an old friend of mine. We decided to watch Aeon Flux, at a downtown movie theater. We sat in the very large, double level auditorium theater, watched the previews (which I very much enjoy watching, in anticipation of movies I’d like to see next), I sipped on my Mangola while my friend munched on some salted popcorns from a ridiculously tiny but exorbitantly pricey paper bag. Suddenly, I was caught unawares by the entire auditorium crowd rising up to their feet; at the same instant I heard the swelling sound of a familiar musical piece. It had bellowing sounds of horns and trumpets – in a funny staccato rhythm. I had not heard this particular piece of orchestration in a long while, so it took me a few moments to register. I had not even noticed that I was already standing up on my feet, though still quite confused. It finally hit me hard as to the nature of what was going on when I saw on the large silver screen of the theater, the flag of India being projected across the entire length of the screen, and the people around me, in low, respectful voices, were singing the Indian National Anthem! I was shocked! Truly! Beyond words! This never used to happen in India before. I’m not sure when and why this sudden tradition started, but I asked my friend why this was happening, and he seemed confused by my question, as if it should be clearly self-evident that this is a normal and desirable activity. He asked me in return, “Doesn’t this happen in America?” I said, “No, not in a movie theater!” Anyway, this experience stuck in my head. The experience had the photographic resemblance of an Orwellian “utopia” of mind-controlled citizens, singing in robotic unison their national anthem, facing a large silver screen that projected the mighty, towering, over-powering, national flag. Collectivism is in every fiber of this nation’s consciousness. Even the mere entertainment of a “selfish”, individualistic argument is met with incredulity and disbelief, as if one couldn’t possibly be serious about it, and if one were – then that is purely their naiveté. The person just needs some time to mature, they say. I am bombarded with collectivist, altruistic statements everyday – in my home, from my friends, the newspapers and the media, the church that I am forced to visit every Sunday, the Indian corporate culture, etc. Mom has a staple line that she keeps repeating to me: “What will society think? We will lose our dignity in front of their eyes. People must respect us, only then will there be a value in living.” The pastor at the Church said: “The prisoners in jail need our help and support. We are collecting money for their rehabilitation. They are in prison for minor offenses like robbing and stealing. They commit those crimes because they are poor, and in need. We must treat their poverty, not punish their crime. Give with open hearts, for God will give you abundantly in return.” My friend and I were discussing the Danish cartoon incident and the Muslim brouhaha. He agreed that the Muslims should not have acted violently, but he said: “I disagree with you to the core that freedom of speech comes with no responsibilities. The Danish newspaper was very insensitive and offensive in their insults. They should have atleast apologized!” The newspaper editorial section runs a column everyday that talks about the mystical benefits of being “One” with our inner consciousness, of the spiritual benefits of altruism and self-sacrifice, written by some Maharishi or Yogi or Guru or some such thing. Yuck. This first month in India has already seemed like a year. I spend my days usually being quiet and unargumentative with my family and friends. I try to keep to myself mostly, on the computer, or reading a book. I try not to go out during the day so I can avoid the heavy pollution, heat, and humidity. The other day, at church, I came across a priest from whom I picked up a definite gay vibe - and a disgusting one at that. He eyed me knowingly, and I think my expression clearly showed my disgust for him. I am desperately looking for a job here. I'm currently in an interview process, infact. I hope it works out. Staying home without a job is utterly damning to my sense of purpose. I don't want to become of those that wait for hours to pass, wait for the sun to set and then rise again, wait for their hair to grow, wait for their life to end. Yet, that is how I feel my life is right now. I detest it fully. I have been immersing my mind in music and books. I sometimes close my eyes and drown the reality of my surroundings in my familiar musical favorites. It reminds me the days I lived, and the times I enjoyed, and the life I had. I try to re-live them again for some moments in my head. In the dismal reality that I am surrounded with, I have come to understand and appreciate even more the importance of works of Art - the spiritual fuel of man's consciousness - that is exalting, romantic, proud, and ideal.

Indian Randian

2006-04-29T03:01:00.000-05:00

I was quite delighted to come across this Indian blogger's website, Yazadjal.com, who shares a positive interest in Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I don't know how developed and accurate his understanding of Objectivism is, but I enjoyed reading some of his posts. This one post onYazadjal.com reminded me of another favorite article I read a long time ago at the Von Mises Institute website. Here's a particularly lovely quote from that article: "[Rand] was a master at what one of my colleagues calls reductio ad claritatem, "reduction to clarity"— i.e., the method of refuting a position by stating it clearly—as when she wrote that "if some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor," or when she summarized the view that human perception is unreliable because limited by the nature of our sensory organs as: "man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears.""

Animal "Rights" Trump Human Rights

2006-04-27T02:12:00.000-05:00

It has finally come to pass - Chicago has banned the sale of foie gras in the city's restaurants. They use terms as "inhumane treatment of birds" to defend their ban. I'm only little surprised by the twisted and corrupt multi-level dishonesty this represents. On one level, they believe there is some modicum of respect for birds (or any other animals) if we treat them well right before we actually chop them into little kababish pieces, or mince them into fine ground meat, or stuff them into tiny cans. Then they talk about avoiding "inhumane treatment of animals" while completely ignoring the fact that the word "inhumane" has at its root, the reference to *human*! It is a corruption of language to rob the proper meaning and references of these concepts and apply it to something totally different. What is truly inhumane here is the legal refusal to allow a human being to enjoy the rewards of his labor and his achievements. It is fully immoral and inhumane to tell a man what he can and cannot do with his own money! It is inhumane to deprive a human being his values and his enjoyment. And it is especially immoral to sacrifice the rights and the enjoyment of human life for a hypocritical committment to the "rights" of animals! It is hypocritical because how can you defend the "right" of an animal to be treated well when alive, when the sole purpose of the animal's being kept alive is for it to be killed, chopped, minced, or canned for our consumption! Besides, on what standard and logical foundation is the concept of rights applicable to animals? Peter Singer, and his ilk, have at best an insanely warped concept of rights. If a right is merely to guarantee the curtailment or abolition of suffering (like of animals) then one must ask: should we stop the regular wars of the jungles by imprisoning predatory animals that hunt and brutally, grotesquely kill their prey? Should we apply the concept of rights to animals in the wild, protect helpless preys from their predators, and "civilize" nature's brutish society of 'survival of the fittest'? If the utilitarian concept of rights is the standard, then every little creature - even a worm on the ground - has rights. In one of my earlier posts on "Response to Singer", I said "rights are tools and requirements to protect life" and by that I mean *human* life. Life is our most basic value, and the right to life protects and guarantees that basic value. However, rights are not existential entities but conceptual things that we are able to grasp due to the nature of our consciousness. Our consciousness is necessarily conceptual and volitional. That is its nature. Hence, it is *only* to human consciousness (and not that of plants or animals) that the concept of rights, violation of rights, morality, evil, inhumane treatment, etc. are all applicable. An animal has no concept of "life" as such, and therefore cannot have a value of life. Their rudimentary consciousness only filters in sensations of pain and pleasure which conveys its physical existence to itself and guides its instintual responses. Its responses of pain, fright, pleasure, loyalty, fun, sadness, play, etc. are simple responses to postive or negative re-inforced stimuli. To claim that an animal possesses conceptual knowledge of values like life, sadness, joy or love, would mean that animals have some degree of self-awareness, that they understand to some degree the meaning of existing versus not existing, and that they enjoy positive life-affirming values like joy, love and fun. If we concede that animals have a conceptual grasp of their existence and of life-affirming values, then we will also have to accept the notion that animals have free will and volition, that they are not instinctual beings, that if they understand what life-affirming values are, then they must also know what negative values must be, and which ones to choose. The introduction of choices and alternatives implies a consciousness that can choose from those alternatives. Thus, we must reach the conclusion that if an animal can choose life and other life-affirming values, then it could also possibly choose death and destructive values - volitionally. An animal does not fight a threat or flee from danger because it values its life, but because it is instinctually and automatically hard-wired in such a way as to remain in existence or maintain the existence of its progeny. To claim that animals have some conceptual value of life would necessitate that one also claim that some animals do infact wish to die, or commit suicide, or wilfully destroy its chances of procreation. To ascribe the concept of value to animals would also necessitate logically to ascribe the concept of non-value. However, humans are the only species on Earth with a conceptual and volitional faculty; with a consciousness that is aware of itself and of the world it exists in. It is only to humans that conceptual values are applicable, these are not natural values like sunlight or water that is common to all species on Earth, but things like our existence, success, joy, pride, etc. - that are unique only to us, and have to be chosen and pursued volitionally to be of value to us - and for which we possess fundamental moral rights commensurate with fundamental moral values so that they are always guaranteed to us. Therefore, a culture that insists on applying the concept of rights to animals, a culture led by intellectually dishonest men like Peter Singer, are infact looking to rob those rights from humans. By declaring the rights of a volitional, conceptual being as invalid and less important than the so-called rights of a beast, they nullify the very basic values life and freedom and happiness that the fundamental rights are supposed to guarantee. This does not reveal their love for animals but their disgusting hatred for humanity.

Wonders of Capitalism

2006-04-25T18:35:00.000-05:00

Capitalism is advancing quite surprisingly in a region of the world least expected to have free market policies given its location - and this region is a kingdom, no less! According to this AP report, Dubai is the fast growing city in the middle-east, and its government's flagship airline "Emirates" is gaining tremendous momentum in its race to compete with global carriers. Emirates Airlines, despite being government owned, "receives few, if any, government favors. In the Middle East, not usually considered a bastion of bare-knuckle capitalism, Emirates was born and raised in ultra-competitive Dubai, where 110 airlines compete under an "open skies" policy." "Over the past six years, Emirates' capacity and traffic have leaped by more than 25 percent a year as its network spread relentlessly wider." It has also consistently received awards and recognition for its superior service. ""That's how you hone your competitive survival skills. You don't do it by getting all kinds of protection," said Daniel Kasper, an airline consultant in Cambridge, Mass. with consultancy LECG. "That's a feather in their cap to be able to do this in a market that's as open as Dubai." Emirates plans on spending around $33 billion on purchasing 123 new airplanes to compete with Western and Asian carriers. According to the report, Emirates Airlines has profited immensely from Dubai's heavy investment on infrastructure and a "zero-tax rate". Dubai also has managed to keep labor costs and salaries low by absolutely prohibting unions. ""European carriers have not seen a competitor like this before," adds the UBS report. "

Indian Slang

2006-04-25T13:25:00.000-05:00

So, being around fellow Indians in this “natural” Indian setting, I have become to privy to a great many conversations happen all around me every time I step out of the house. Given that this country has about a billion people, and the city of Mumbai has around 20 million people, any expectations of personal space, privacy or some such flights of fancy are precisely that – flights of fancy! Anyway, what I wanted to get at was that I have found myself being rather amused by the things I hear people saying here. Indian slang is just ridiculously silly – and I love silly humor! So, I decided to try and translate some of the Indian slang most commonly used here in India. I hope the humor in them is not lost in translation. J Khalli pilli – Empty wempty – used when one wants to say there is no significance or value in something being said. For example, if you said I have dandruff in my hair, and I disagreed with you, I would say something like “why are you saying such empty wempty things?!” Topi lagana – to put on a cap/hat – used when one wants to say that someone lied to him or deceived him about something. For example, if I realize that you lied to me and I believed the lie, I would say that you put a cap on my head. Chapter – Chapter (pronounced as in English, though the last r is emphatically stressed) – used to designate someone as being an odd one of a kind; a derogatory designation for someone who is considered foolish, naïve, strange, etc. For example, that guy is a chapter, he always messes up things at work. High-funda – high logic – used to express someone’s sophisticated mannerisms or educated language, or something smart or high cultured. For example, being that it is common to eat with your fingers in India, if someone saw you eating with silverware, they would something like “hey, don’t be high-funda. Just eat like normal people.” I can't think of any more funny Indian slangs right now. I'll post some more later as I come across them again.

Ayn Rand at Uni. of Chicago

2006-04-25T01:22:00.000-05:00

I recieved an email from David Gulbraa at the ARI, reminding me of the Free-speech event at Chicago. How so unfortunate that I will be unable to attend. I feel it is imperative to engage in this debate over the absolutism of free speech: WHO: Dr. Yaron Brook of Ayn Rand Institute; Greg Lukianoff of FIRE; Tom Flynn of Free Inquiry magazine. WHAT: (1) A display of the controversial Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad (2) A panel discussion and Q & A on the meaning of the worldwide reaction to the cartoons WHERE: University of Chicago, Kent Chemical Laboratory Building, room 107, 1020 East 58th Street, Chicago, IL 60637. Location map: http://tinyurl.com/zwdle WHEN: Tuesday, April 25, 2006, 7 PM (doors open at 6:30 PM) Tickets: $2 tickets can be purchased at the door. Attendees may be required to go through a security checkpoint. In today's world, it is very important that we know and understand what our rights are, and know when they are being violated. The other day, I was watching the "Gospel of Judas" on Natural Geographic Channel. According to the documentary feature, scientists have recently unearthed a rare papyrus document that has been authenticated to be from around 180 A.D., approximately the same time when other early gospels and books of the New Testament were written. This new discovery, apparently, is the Gospel of Judas, and reveals a radically different perspective. It describes the events surrounding the betrayal and passion of Jesus through the eyes of Judas Iscariot. It claims that Judas' act of betrayal was infact required by Jesus so that the prophecies could be fulfilled. That Judas was terribly tormented by the burden Jesus placed upon him of being the betrayer. That all of this was required inorder to establish the messianic role of Jesus. That Judas only took 30 sheckels of silver in exchange for this betrayal (which apparently, is a piddly bit of change, given that Jesus was a much more significant value in exchange). And finally, that Judas was overcome with his grief and anguish at what he did, and so committed suicide immediately after the "betrayal". Anyway. The reason I bring this up is because it should be clear to christians and non-christians that this new evidence of a twist on christian theology is controversial, and already declared as heresy by the Catholic Church. The point, however, is that nowhere across the world, have Christians risen up in armed or violent protest against the scientists or historians who discovered this ancient document, none have asked for the be-heading of the "heretics" or "atheists". Another case I recently heard about involved an art installation of a nude statue that was originally titled "Zarathustra". Apparently, the artist was making the Neitzchean reference, which incidentally bears the same name as the Zoroastrian God/prophet. The Zoroastrian community (also known as Parsi's) decided that the nude statue was offensive to their religious sensitivities, and sent a number of emails to the artists and the gallery in protest. There was no violence, no call to arms, no burning of embassies, no destruction of the artwork or of property. Therefore, in the face of situations like these, when someone finds their most cherished beliefs challenged or revealed in a radically different manner, one needs to know exactly what their rights are and whether they are being violated. That will also guide them to the proper course of response and reaction. The violent muslim reaction to free speech speaks volumes about the character and philosophy of the Islamic faith. And our response to their violent intimidations will reveal the degree of committment with which we hold our values.

24 Year Old Children

2006-04-24T13:58:00.000-05:00

So, today was my first day of being out of the house all day since I arrived in India. I left early this morning along with my dad to check out his factories and just look over the state of the business… I suppose. Frankly, I have very little idea of what’s happening at the factories. Dad asked that I come along, so I complied. Anyway, after that I had a meeting with my old college friend who now works for Disney India as their animation/promo editor. He’s got a lovely workplace, with all the latest and best equipment to do his job. He says the job also pays really well. Yet, he is persistently looking for jobs abroad – mostly in the US – because he just wants to get out of this country. It’s all a matter of the “quality of life”, he says. I whole heartedly agree with him. Well, so I spent practically all afternoon and evening with him; first at his work, then at his home nearby. Towards the evening, I started receiving intermittent phone calls from both my mom and my dad on my cell. “Just wanted to know where you are and what you’re doing,” they said. “Just checking.” Anyway. After I left my friends place, I headed over to the gym (I finally decided it was time to curb my gustatory enthusiasm, tone down the exuberance of my palate, and work up a real sweat). I received a couple more calls from my parents on my way to the gym – oh, just wondering where I was. “On my way to the gym”, I replied. Oh, okay. While at the gym, I usually leave my cell phone in the locker. After an intense and strenuous work out, I showered, freshened up, and checked my cell phone for messages: Twelve missed calls. All of them from Dad. I called back. “Where are you man?” Dad asked, a little irate. “On my way home from the gym now”. “Oh okay. Come fast!” I finally reach home. Mom and dad are glad to see me home. A few questions are asked – “how long were you at your friends? Where does he live? So long at the gym? Long work-out? Did you like it?” Okay, answered everything to their satisfaction. Decided to get some mango juice to drink. Dad goes off to the master bedroom, mom comes up to me and in a soft voice says, “it’s 9:30pm, good children don’t stay out this late. You must come home before 9:30. Don’t stay out late like bad boys.” That finally agitated me to no end. I decided to respond curtly, firmly, yet respectfully. “Mom,” I said, “there are no children here. I am a 24 year old adult male who has lived the past seven years of my life in the United States all by myself. I have made my own decisions, lived my life responsibly, and have made my own schedules. That is exactly what I intend to do here also. I will try my best to come home in the evenings as early as I can. But you should not give me a time, nor can I promise you a time by which I will be home every evening.” That was the end of the discussion. Mom didn’t respond. The topic switched to how my friend was doing and other ancillary matters. Was I hungry? Yes, okay. I got some food… picked up a book and ate while I read, quietly, while mom got herself settled for her evening of three favorite back-to-back soap operas. In the meantime, I wait… For my hair to grow.

Thank You

2006-04-22T02:15:00.000-05:00

I was very happy to read the wonderful, thoughtful, and sincere comments from you all while I was gone. I want to say Thank You to each of you. You are a delight to blog with - I enjoy reading your blogs with regularity, and I'm glad that you find my site interesting enough to warrant your comments and kind support. The famous Aethlos of Weltanschauung and Streaming Weltanschauung, runs a few immensely popular blogs that posits a "world-view whose essence is to avoid viewing the world". His racy, pointed, satirical, and unique writing style succeeds in making me a regular reader. So, I am flattered that he took the time to construct an online shrine for me. Thank you Aethlos, and you are more than welcome to visit me in India if you wish. Innommable, you should be writing more often, especially more poems, because you have a style that I enjoy very often. Thanks for being a fun friend to blog and chat with. I will miss our late nights out - expanding our waist-sizes together, and our all-night discussions of everything and anything. I will miss our talking over each other and still following everything we said, and will miss having our regular Thai dins at Jits. I hope you and Pootie Potter enjoy a great and productive life together. Speaking of which, Detritus, you also should more frequently "dredge up from within" some of that "verbose and cluttersome filth" you are so good at "smearing about with [your] fingertips". The blogosphere is sorely incomplete without the stinging stench of your sharp words. ;-) John Enright from Rhyme of The Day, what a true delight it is to read your superbly clever and so often hilarious rhyming verses! You're a bundle of great talent, as I have evidenced from reading your prose, essays, peoms, and an excerpt from your published novel. Thank you for the great support you offered me with your comments. It is unfortunate for me that I only met you and Marsha so briefly. You now have a regular reader/admirer from this side of the globe! Jason, you are funny! I love reading your blog because it truly makes me laugh out loud! Even when you're discussing some serious topic like religion, or abortion, or some such, you have a way of infusing subtle humor in them all. I wish humor came to me so easily in writing as it does to you. I admire your efforts at investigating the foundations of your beliefs and spirituality. Ofcourse, I hope and pray (pun intended) that you will soon come to understand the truth in Atheism, but I'm eagerly following your intellectual journey on your blog in the meantime. Thanks for your flattering comments to my writings. And finally, to all you sojourners of the blogosphere, those of you who I know read my blog with some regularity but have not expressly commented for a while (or at all), I hope you continue to find things of interest in my writings. I thank you for visiting.

An Era Begins

2006-04-22T00:06:00.000-05:00

My life has just begun a new era; it has taken a significant turn, dividing my adult life into 2 categories: the period of Enlightenment (my 7 years in the United States), and now the dark ages. If that sounds too dramatic to you, trust me it isn't. I couldn't give a more apt description. I have very little desire to talk about India; it is overwhelming in many ways. I mostly feel a mix of emotions every time I step outside my home - sympathy for the poor masses, anger at the socialist government and its policies, disgust at the lack of common civil sense among most Indians, and some wishful hope in the crawling pace of progress in this country. The other day when I visited the downtown area of Mumbai and saw some of the few and new high-rises that have been erected here, I felt a real visceral emotion, like that of freedom for a prisoner, or like a gasp of fresh air. I became fully salient of the tremendous importance of one's surroundings; the expressions of human greatness in physical, concrete structures in one's environment serves significantly in boosting one's own sense of efficacy, esteem, and purpose. They serve as reminders of all that is possible and achievable, as motivation to strive for one's own personal excellence. Progress in India is noticeable, though it is noticeably at a snail's pace. As an example: for a country known around the world as a forerunner in Information Technology, it took me more than 15 days to have my home computer wired to the Internet. The only two largest ISP's in India are both government-owned, and they require long application and approval processes. The other smaller, private ISP's are also required by law to use the government-owned Internet Gateway protocols. So it's pointless in subscribing to private ISP's if you can get the same thing from the government. Moreover, the concept of wireless surfing is practically non-existent here. There is a consistent ideology in manifestation here in India; it is in the behavior of the people, in their rituals, their traditions and in their institutions. At some point, I may be able to write about my observations and analysis in more detail, but for now I'll only say that there is a consistent practice of "faith and force" in practically all spheres of Indian interactions - from Indian hospitality, frienship and relationships to the Indian economy, media and government.

Goodbye, America.

2006-04-01T12:58:00.000-06:00

Gethsemane

2006-03-31T10:42:00.000-06:00

The jolly-light jingles of TV commercials seem awfully contrived at this time. It's trying woefully hard to generate cheer, but I only feel a very detached indifference to it; maybe not wholly detached, because I do ponder its efforts with a resigned, hopeless amusement. I look at what it's trying to entice me with, and I search myself for what to offer in return; nothing comes. The wind is bellowing its angst outside. Why is it so twisted in its torrent? What does it ask of me? Why is it so violent? I hear your pain, the anger in your gust. Stay calm. It's a staccato moment that has now so tragically manifest. I'm suspended above the blankness of the moment - between the richly textured past, and the fuzzy blur of the future. It's unbearably quiet inside my head. The sounds of this world does not seem to reach past the walls of my mind. Words like feelings, emotions like sounds, violent like restraint, they are all so loud, all urging to get out - but my mind is occupied in some quiet meditation: I think of grass, and blades of grass, and beads of dew clinging on blades of grass, and that's the form that my memories take - faceted, ephemeral, diaphanous. I am only waiting now, for the imminence of the hours; for it do with me what it must. It's a quiet Gethsemane in which I am patiently waiting; I'm utterly petrified. But I'm ready.

Immigration, updated

2006-03-28T07:15:00.001-06:00

For obvious reasons, I have much interest in this nation's current struggle with immigration and its laws. For some time, I struggled with the issue of the morality of open immigration and the problem of national security - I thought, like much of the rest of this country, those two issues were in conflict with each other. However, with my more recent exposure to ARI scholars like Dr. Brook and Dr. Ghate, with whom I had personal conversations regarding this issue, and also my earlier discussions of this matter on Noodlefood, I am able to see clearly that we do not need to compromise on security for our liberty - but that pre-emptive and proactive measures must be taken to provide full security *for* our liberties. I decided to link to some of my earlier posts (the ones I wrote before I spoke to the ARI scholars or at Noodlefood) because my position still remains the same, and hopefully, this nation can move towards a more enlightened immigration system that respects human rights with providing full security for people to freely exercise those rights. 1) Immigration: Private Property or Freedom of Movement 2) Immigration, contd. 3) Import Workers of Export Jobs Breaking an immoral law is not an illegal act. Immoral laws should be broken. The immigrants who broke the immoral laws of this country and have arrived here - some arriving more than 20 years ago - have done nothing illegal, but infact have acted bravely, ruthlessly in the pursuit of their human rights, and have refused to morally sanction the oppressiveness of the current laws. They have acted in the same spirit as the first members of the black civil-rights movement - the people who dared to break the immorality of segregationist and racist laws and stood up to forge a groundwork for the establishment of proper, ethical and moral laws consistent with the value of human life as the standard, and the exercise of human rights as a guarantee, without regard for accidental qualities of birth, race, or ethnicity. America is the only country by far that understands what a human being truly is, respects it, and protects it with a body of laws that guarantees rights proper to the living of a human being. Therefore, attaining American citizenship is not a permission to belong to an ethnic or national identity called "American", but to enjoy the status of the ideological and intellectual identity afforded by "Americanism" - the ideology that humans are guaranteed fundamental rights consistent with their nature as rational, conceptual, and volitional beings - an ideology that forms the foundation of this country. To be an American citizen is not to say "I am an American", but to say "I am human" and to fully know and understand what "human" means and what its implications are in living life. Therefore, attaining American citizenship is to gain the opportunity to live among people who accept the fundamentality of individual human rights and to avail the services of a representative government borne out of rational principles, to protect rational human beings who are engaged in the pursuit of their own rational human happiness - an American government for an American people. The American identity is a body of principles that form an integrated concept called "Americanism". American citizenship is the proud public statement of one's voluntary acceptance of that body of principles, required to be recognized and respected by everyone else. American citizenship should not be merely considered an accidental identity thrust upon every new individual born into this country. Americanism is primarily an intellectual, philosophical identity, which must be accepted voluntarily. An accidental birth in America does not guarantee that the individual will accept and value the American values that his citizenship allows him to enjoy (take the eg. of the young American-born citizen who went to fight alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan against the very values and virtues of Americanism that he was priviledged to enjoy due to the accidental incident of his birth in America). I admire and applaud the hundreds of thousands of mostly hispanic/latino immigrants (and every other individual) who marched out on the streets in peaceful protest to demand what should rightfully belong to them. At the same time, I am saddened by the lack of similar courage among most of the members of other ethnic immigrants in this country, many of whom are similarly undocumented. Many of the non-hispanic immigrants seem to furtively exploit the possible advantages that might be brought about due to the efforts of the hispanic immigrants, while still trying to hide in the shadows of anonymity, and perpetuating the prejudicial association of "illegal" predominantly with "latino/hispanic" immigrants.

Ayn Rand the Chauvinist

2006-03-25T14:06:00.000-06:00

John Enright has a notice about Dr. Stephen Hicks who will be giving a lecture on “Ayn Rand as Philosopher and Novelist” during Rockford College’s Women’s History month series. As John correctly notes, it is indeed surprising that Rand is being brought up in a “Women’s History” series – because typically Rand is perceived as being detrimental to the causes of Woman’s liberation. The female heroes in Ayn Rand’s novels embody the true, heroic essence of being a rational human. And as such, Rand does not differentiate between feminism and the heroic. Intellectually and spiritually, Rand maintained that the heroic character of a human being is achievable to both sexes. Her female characters are in many instances more powerful, more driven, more efficacious than the male characters of the novel. Kira, Dominique, Dagny are all fantastic, heroic, Randian creations worthy of any man or woman to look up and admire. Many feminists (of the modern sense) have accused Rand of being anti-feminist, backward, gender-insensitive, and a disgrace to femininity. Rand took great pride in such characterizations. Once she remarked that she was proud to be a male-chauvinist. It is true that Rand also considered the essence of the feminine, hero-worship – the woman’s reverence for her highest value, the man she loves. Rand differentiated men and women only on a purely physiological and sexual level, and appropriately so. She was profoundly anti-feminist and opposed to woman’s “liberation”. Rand said: “I believe in masculine superiority passionately, enthusiastically, delightfully – not intellectual or moral superiority, but sexual and romantic superiority. If you don’t understand this, then I’ll reluctantly say: I’m sorry” (Q&A) And if you wish to understand this, there can be no better way than to get yourself introduced to her philosophy by directly reading her works. She is one of the few writers/philosophers who actually writes in a language that is clear, precise, and unpretentious. If you find yourself disagreeing with her, you'll know exactly what it is that you disagree with. Her premises are always open and clear, her writing is honest, and you will notice no mental gymnastics, no obscure verbage, and no confounding wordplays that would hide the meaning of her thoughts. Such is her self-esteem and confidence in her philosophy, she lays it out openly in the light for everyone's scrutiny, without worry of being proven wrong or ridiculed.

On the Fool's Day

2006-03-25T03:29:00.000-06:00

Saturday, April 1 2006 AIR INDIA Flight 126 17h 45m, 8037 miles Makes 1 Stop Chicago - Ohare Intl (ORD) Chicago, IL Departs: 6:00 PM Saturday, April 1, 2006 To Mumbai (Bombay) Intl (BOM) Mumbai, India Arrives: 11:15 PM Sunday, April 2, 2006 Aircraft Boeing 747-400 (Jet)

V for Vendetta

2006-03-23T09:28:00.000-06:00

V for Vendetta is a very good movie. It is worth a watch, and then one more. The Wachowski brothers display a superb mastery of their art in writing up an intelligent, thought-provoking, witty and engaging screenplay. One does not need to dwell too much on the plot however – it is only perfunctory, and serves mainly as a vehicle to move the story along. The true purpose of the movie is to dish out ideas. It creates characters that cannot quite easily be compartmentalized into the “good” guys or the “bad” guys, and sets them out to enact their ideas with complete consistency. And that is one of the most amazing things I noticed about this movie – all the characters who embody varying premises act out the full logical implications of their ideas. The movie dramatizes and concretizes abstract premises and sets in motion their eventual logical outcomes. Consistency is always potent – even if it is based on false or ant-real premises. Infact, Communism and National Socialism (which are dramatized in the movie to differing degrees) are superbly consistent philosophies developed by highly intelligent thinkers – the power of their logic invariably bends many human minds into succumbing to the potency of their theories. Islamic fundamentalism, as another example, is an ideology that is highly consistent with its anti-life premises based on the Koran. Contradictions and inconsistencies dilute the power of ideas, and consequently, the actions based upon inconsistent belief systems are also tepid, guilt-laden, and thoroughly impotent. However, notice that Islamic militants, regardless of their actual numbers, are the most powerful threat of western values and culture; the consistency with which they hold their ideas make them a truly formidable enemy even for the might of the American military. V for Vendetta generates much fodder for discussion, blogging, thinking, and arguing. The quality of acting of the female lead, Natalie Portman, is average at best, and that of the main character who is masked… well, he is masked. The fact that he is masked is an interesting aspect of who he is – that aspect is itself an embodiment of a very fundamental principle. At one point in the movie, the masked character says “a building is a symbol” and that to destroy a building is to attack a symbol with another symbol, then at another point in the movie he says, “Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. There is an idea.” He also says, (I’m paraphrasing): I am not the face beneath this mask, or the skin on that face, or the muscles under the skin, of the bones beneath it. The common theme in all of those statements is the expression of the mind-body dichotomy; a principle of Platonic Idealism. That fact that the character describes himself solely on the basis of the ideas he embodies (having no regard for his physicality) corroborates my argument. Moreover, the plot of the movie is such that the character’s face or physical identity is never revealed due to the existential necessities of events. The film is slick, the action sequences are superb, there were moments in the film when I experienced goose-bumps going through my body – those moments were mostly when I could recognize and identify the abstract principles which were being dramatized by the characters – it gave me the chance to witness ideas in action safely on the cinema screen without having to deal with their devastating consequences in reality. Film, when used properly as a medium of art, can be a truly powerful medium. link to: IMDB

Love, Me

2006-03-22T05:00:00.000-06:00

I can’t command your tears to stop flowing I cannot demand that your soul stop weeping I can only pretend to not see it Or see past through them And offer only A stony silence in response So that through your blurry vision You only get to see the stoicism I borrowed from the girders Of this city I so love Donning their cold facades Their reticent heights of pride Vicarious expressions are All I permit myself before you They stand proud for me And I do the same for you It’s the way they show the best that can be And I offer all their best to you. Love, Me.

The Islamic Militant's Demand

2006-03-21T13:17:00.000-06:00

If someone points a gun at you and demands that you sacrifice your values or lose your life, exactly what are your options? Is it really a life versus values alternative? If a mother was forced to die or sacrifice her infant child, what are the alternatives she faces? Her life versus her value (infant's life)? The alternative of one's life vs. one's values has to be a false one because the concept of value is inseparable from the concept of life. Without life, there can be no values, and without values, there is no life. In fact, life itself is your ultimate value that makes all others possible. Thus, when someone points a gun at you and demands that you sacrifice your values or die, he is really offering you death as your only choice. Existence without any possibility of values is like existing as an inanimate object. It is a spiritual, psychological, and also physical death. A state of stagnation and slow death. So, when the Islamic militants and fundamentalist ideologues demand that we give up our absolute right to think freely, to put those thoughts into words freely, to draw or write our thoughts out freely, what they are demanding is our death – a death by slow decay. They first attempt to kill our minds, our spirit, and then they let slow decay take us to death. If we only held the meaning of their demand in the clarity of their true essence, we would observe how precarious a situation our very existence in this world is if we let these subversive attacks go unchallenged without overt retaliation. Back in 1989, Peikoff wrote an editorial about the Iran death threat against Salman Rushdie as signs of a religious terrorism that is subversively attacking our fundamental western values. Peikoff had said, “Terrorism unpunished is terrorism emboldened.” He called for immediate retaliation against such threats of violence because if left unchallenged, the terrorists are not only emboldened by our pacifism, but more importantly, we begin to believe and succumb to their demands, their manipulations and lose our convictions in our core values. When we begin to secede our values and compromise on the absolutism of freedom, we lose them altogether in a matter of time. Back in 1989, Peikoff called for the United States to take military action alone or with allies against Iran “until the Iranian government rescinds the Ayatollah’s death decree.” He called for military targets in Iran that include “known training camps where Iranian terrorists are being schooled and bred.” That was back in 1989. Now in 2006, the tepid American government is still trying to figure out how to deal with Iran and other Muslim fundamentalists without supposedly offending Muslims in general. The physical, psychological, and cultural offense against the American people and their core values seem to not hold much importance in the eyes of its own government. In the meantime, Iran keeps emboldening its rhetoric, it openly threatens Americans and Israelis, it builds a nuclear weapons program, and recruits Jihadis to fight American soldiers. Even before Peikoff spoke about any of this, even before Islamic terrorism became a global forefront issue, Ayn Rand in one of her 1960’s essay in “Philosophy: Who Needs It” said, “The conflict of reason versus mysticism is the issue of life or death – or freedom or slavery – or progress or stagnant brutality… Reason is the only objective means of communication and of understanding among men; when men deal with one another by means of reason, reality is their objective standard and frame of reference. But when men claim to possess supernatural means of knowledge, no persuasion, communication or understanding is possible.”

Jim Valliant in DePaul University, Chicago

2006-03-21T10:47:00.000-06:00

via NoodleFood How I wish I could be here to attend this. :-( But I am being forced to vacate this country. I wonder who is the beneficiary of this sacrifice of my values that is being demanded of me? I can't think of anyone in particular... it's like all of AMERICA, the collective glob demands the sacrifice from me, but none (no individual person in America) really will experience consciously any kind of benefit from it. A sacrifice being demanded for its own sake - worse than altruism, which is a sacrifice for others (probably a post for another time).

Kindness and Generosity: Are They Really 'Virtues'?

2006-03-20T16:27:00.000-06:00

Greg Perkins, the newest inductee of Noodlefood, recently posted his thoughts about Kindness, Generosity and Charity - concepts of human behavior that have been typically considered as virtues belonging to the altruistic domain. Greg reacts to Tara Smith's discussion of this issue in her larger study of the egoist ethics in her forthcoming book, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist. It might help to keep in mind that a virtue is that which you do to achieve your rational values, and a vice is that which you do to achieve your irrational values. Therefore, about Kindness, Generosity and Charity, one must ask - what are the values I will be achieving inorder for my kindness, generosity and charity to be considered acts of virtue? Are the values rational? Here are some excerpts from Greg's post:

People commonly presume that egoists must be averse to kindness, generosity, and charity because of the focus on benefit to others. And it doesn't hurt that these are high on the list of altruist virtues that are drilled into people from birth as demanded by said sacrificial code. ...Dr. Smith turned that defensive stance around and talked about how the common presumption is utterly backward. It is the selfish egoists who are naturally inclined to kindness, generosity, and charity, while the selfless altruists are not. ...altruists work to constantly convince themselves that kindness, generosity, and charity are important virtues they must strive to practice -- and no accident that they are reflexively concerned with how we egoists fare regarding them. Well, I for one expect rational egoists to fare wonderfully because our creed actually encourages us to value our lives and the people in them. ...egoists are all about trading on every level and in every way -- people can be very valuable to us... it is easy and natural for us to look well upon those close to us (and at least neutrally on those we don't know) and express our esteem for them and their actual or potential value in the form of kindness, generosity, and charity. Especially when it is an expression of our more important values. Acting this way can be good and is indeed "no big deal," so we certainly don't need to have it drilled into us. We are naturally predisposed to (appropriate) use of kindness, generosity, and charity.

ARI Campaign in New York

2006-03-20T15:47:00.000-06:00

According to this US Newswire press release, the ARI will be sending Peter Schwartz to join a panel to discuss free speech issues concerning the Danish cartoons in the context of the muslim violence:

Summary: ARI's Peter Schwartz will participate in a panel discussion on the Mohammed cartoon controversy. He will explain: Why the eruption of violence and the issuance of death threats make completely irrelevant the question of whether the cartoons are in bad taste. Why the idea that freedom of the press must be "coupled with press responsibility" means that free speech is not a right, but a fleeting permission. Why every Western newspaper and media outlet should have immediately re-published or shown the cartoons in solidarity with the cartoonists. Why the cowardly and appeasing response of many Western governments -- including our own -- will only invite further aggression. Other panelists will present their own views.

It will be held at New York University on March 29, 7pm. Unfortunately, by that date, I will either already have been kicked out of this country or be packing to leave by the next day. If I weren't in the situation that I am, I would certainly make another trip out to the east coast to attend the event. To me, attending events like this are not only incredibly informative and stimulating, but also much fun. It concretizes for me, in very actual and practical terms, the meaning of "pursuit of one's values". I hope that my readers in New York and around the northeast coast (if any) might feel the same way as I do, and make some effort to attend the event.

Hating Men and Praising God

2006-03-20T07:01:00.000-06:00

I was watching American Inventor a few days ago. I liked the show because it is among the very few ones on TV that proudly and guiltlessly claims its purpose as encouraging and rewarding the genius thinking minds that produce and view the materials of this world in a way that no one else does. It recognizes ability and innovativeness and rewards it for that sake. In the same token, the show also openly critizes and insults many ideas for their mediocrity and downright stupidity. There is no shame, no apology, no guilt in any of that. The purpose is to find the BEST, and nothing less will do. On the other hand, I am disgusted by shows like The Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, where the more hopelessly pathetic your existence is, the more likely you will be rewarded with a wonderful home makeover. To me this show represents so much that I despise about the culture of altruism and self-sacrifice. The recipients of the makeover get rewarded not for their ability but for their inabilities, not for their genius, but for their failings, for their stagnancy. They not only breed on the productive capacities of others, but resort to some kind of superior legitimacy over the producers by virtue of their incapacities - that is one of the evil sides of altruism. And ultimately, the height of injustice comes about when these owners of free, new homes go about the streets yelling the praises of the Lord. They fling their hands out and cry out their thanks and gratitude to some mystic deity. It is the worst display of parasitism. These people will never once recognize and utter the glory of man that makes all their wonderful homes possible, but the moment there is a disaster, and unfortunate calamity, a little mishap they pounce of the men of ability and attempt to break their working spines. They are quick to blame the engineers of a bridge that collapsed for whatever reason, but when that bridge was being built, they praised the wonder of God working through the minds of men. They are quick to denounce the businesses that provide food, oil, and jobs as evil profiteers, but in the same breath they praise God for their good fortunes and the food they serve at their table everyday. Men have to make the houses so that these people can yell the wonders of God. If their God were only so wonderful, why wouldn’t He come down Himself and build the homes for the faithful? When there is something praiseworthy, it is directed to some mystical higher power (humans couldn’t possibly perform acts deserving of such praise, they assume). When there is something blameworthy, there aren’t enough men around to place to blame upon.

ARI at Johns Hopkins University

2006-03-20T06:31:00.000-06:00

"Unveiling the Danish Cartoons: America's Right to Free Speech" Dr. Yaron Brook and Dr. Onkar Ghate represented the ARI at this forum organized at the Johns Hopkins University by the campus Objectivist club. One note about the organization of the event: the logistics of the event were handled very poorly. The organizers had made very last minute changes to the location of the event without early notification and without putting up proper signs at the cancelled location. It took me and a few others a whole while to figure out that we were at the wrong place waiting for nothing to happen. Moreover, the organizers had intended to invite one other Islamic panelist but provided such short notice that it was not accepted. I felt the debate could have been more beneficial and engaging with more representation from the Islamic point of view. Anyway, besides the ARI scholars, other panelists included Mr. Charles Mitchell from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and Mr. Bash Pharoan, President of the Baltimore County Islamic Council. Quite frankly, and I am not being biased here, Mr. Pharoan’s arguments were so naïve in many ways – his historical statements so inaccurate – his understanding of his own religion was so inadequate – like for example, he could not get away from the false notion that his “truth” is based on the Koran and therefore, according to him, the Koran speaks of peace and does not permit violence. But it does not take much intellectual effort to realize that even the terrorists base the legitimacy of their actions on the Koran, and even they claim that the Koran speaks the Truth, however their extrapolation of the “truth” somehow is diametrically opposed to the “truth” Mr. Pharoan seems to be reading. Dr. Brook pointed out correctly that any recourse to “truths” based in holy books is meaningless. He said he did not want to get into the nitty-gritty of which verse of the Koran says what. The general principles and ideologies of Islam, Dr. Brook argued, stood in opposition to fundamental Western values. Islam is a religion – and as all religions, Islam demands its doctrines to be accepted on faith. Any attack on those doctrines – even verbal or pictorial – is considered blasphemous, a sacrilege, a spite on the word of God, His prophet, and His religion. It must be smothered. Thus, faith necessarily stands in opposition to Enlightenment values of reason, persuasion, experimentation, discussion, etc. Dr. Ghate and Dr. Brook spoke in some length clarifying how Christianity suffered and underwent the same phase of battling Enlightenment values and finally has now come to accept it – keeping Church and State separate just as it keeps Church and Science separate (although both only to some degree). Islam, they argued, needs urgently to undergo that same transformation in order to co-exist peacefully with cultures that embrace the Enlightenment values. Islamic theocracies and Islamic infiltration in all aspects of a human's life is the ideological cause of its embattlement with Western values. During most of the event, Mr. Mitchell from FIRE was mostly silent – because he really had nothing to say. In the rare moments that he did speak, Mitchell displayed a disgustingly cowardly defense of his values by prefacing every argument he made by a long line of disclaimers. He made it a point to not take a position on the religious and philosophical principles underlying the Free Speech issue (in the context of the violent Muslim reaction), and even though his arguments were supposed to be for the protection of speech, he offered nothing more than mere repeated assertions with no persuasive force of principle or philosophy. There were times when Dr. Ghate or Dr. Brook had to provide those foundations to Mr. Mitchell’s statements. At one point Dr. Ghate even pointed out that while he agreed with Mr. Mitchell’s sentiments, his logic was flawed – and then Dr. Ghate proceeded to trace the proper logical argument. The issue was concerning American political system as being a democracy or not. Dr. Ghate very logically demonstrated that America was not originally created, and we are still not a democracy as such, but a Republic founded on the rights of individuals that are enshrined in our Constitution. Dr. Brook pointed out that the Declaration of Independence is a very insulting document to the monarchy of England and to all monarchies in general. And that is the spirit of freedom and independence that America was built upon. Therefore, Dr. Brook argued, that the right to insult is among the very essential guarantees of the right to free speech. Dr. Brook also heavily derided the Europeans for their contradictory mess of hate-speech laws and pointed out correctly that there is no such thing as hate-speech, and it should not be punishable by law. Mr. Pharoan kept insisting that the militant factions of Islam were a terribly small minority, and that they did not represent the true Islamic religion. Dr. Brook argued that unless the Islam community on the whole did not accept and realize that they have a true and real crisis in their religion, that their religion is truly being hijacked by a sizeable, powerful, and ruthless number of militants, they will not be able to convince anybody that Islam is a religion of peace. The militant ideologues – even if they are only a minority – are certainly speaking louder in actions and slogans than the rest of the Islamic communities. And America has a right to respond to them with equal force, and western newspapers should stand together in solidarity and print more offensive cartoons or publications to purposely spite the violent anti-freedom rioters.

Quick Post from the Capital

2006-03-14T18:25:00.000-06:00

I'm here in the capital of the United States, in a little Caribou Coffee shop, taking a break from a long day's activities. Attended the Johns Hopkings event in Baltimore last night with Dr. Brook and Dr. Ghate from the ARI; there were many uniformed police officers to provide security for the event. At the end of the debate, I was able to privately have a small discussion with Dr. Ghate; I was totally impressed by his deep understanding of Objectivism and his ability to unravel issues to expose their underlying principles. Especially loved his comments on the consistency of religious militants and therefore their consequent successes, the exploration of the meaning of democracy and the American Republic system. This morning, I noticed that the Baltimore Sun ran a report of the Hopkins event. The article is most expert at missing most of the crucial points of the debate and rattling dry facts sprinkled with contextless quotes. My own review is forthcoming. Then drove down 30 miles from Baltimore to Washington DC this morning to attend the National Press Club event of the introduction of The Objectivist Standard, at which Dr. Brook gave his presentation on "Just War Theory vs. American Self-Defense". Very good speech. Clarified many issues for me - I specifically asked questions about my concern regarding the tension between open immigration and national security issues. Again, details are forthcoming in later posts. It's been a great trip so far! Enjoying my last few days in this country engaging in activities that I value deeply. This is the experience of joy - the achievement of one's rational values.

The "Bombing" Times of India

2006-03-11T05:33:00.000-06:00

"Explosives Found in Mumbai Railway Station" - Times of India, March 11, 2006. Here are some pictures of that bomb that was defused safely. Another possible terrorist attack on Goa was foiled "with the arrest of a militant with explosives, including one [kilogram] of RDX, and firearms from Margoa railway station, 30 km from Panaji [state capital]. These events come only a few days after the Varanasi bombings. :-) India beckons.

Beggars Deserve Worse Than What They Get

2006-03-11T05:03:00.000-06:00

I have utter disdain for beggars. If I could think of more appropriate words to describe the true depths of spite I have for those creatures, I would use them. My hatred for beggars is so great that sometimes in my utter contempt for them I wish to throw them a dime or two to demonstrate their worth to me and to this world – but then I stop myself because even a dime is too generous and too precious. In fact, even a momentary pause to contemplate the act of giving them anything is enough generosity already. Furthermore, it would be an insult to the sanctity and value of money, and to the virtue of producers that produce the money to hurl it at a beggar even if it is out of spite. My de facto position is this: one cannot possibly be helpless beggars on the street in a country like America. Given where I am from, I have seen men steal pieces of bread from the mouth of dogs – and no, that is not an exaggeration – I did see that once. In a country like the United States, being a beggar and claiming utter helplessness for one’s fate is not just dishonesty of the most contemptible form, but truly and actually the countenance of evil. It is worse if the beggar is an able-bodied person. There are men and women with disabilities who have achieved far more than many of us will ever achieve. I understand different people have different levels of capabilities that might permit differing standards of achievement. Regardless, the point is that utter metaphysical helplessness is not possible to a free man in a society that allows for alternatives and self-autonomy. The helplessness one succumbs to is of one’s own psychological weakness – or downright lethargic evilness. When I see a beggar on the streets of Chicago here with some lousy sign like “I’m just hungry”, I typically don’t give them any thought at that moment. However, I wish I could be able to muster at least the effort to give them a spiteful look or kick their can of coins out of my way – though, of course, all of that is to ask too much of my mind for such low-lives as them. I am thinking of beggars right now only because it suddenly struck me – and shocked me – that they have the gall to proudly and shamelessly flaunt their worthlessness when what they fundamentally possess is something I so deeply desire and wish I could have. They are citizens of the United States! They have fundamentally all that I only wish I could have – and what I should rightfully possess! So, how dare they exist as worms and force the responsibility of their existence upon the rest of us! If only I had what they have. If only I could be allowed to live in this country and be permitted access to everything this country has to offer – oh how I would prosper! These beggars really have no excuse. There is always a farm somewhere that could need extra hands to harvest the crops. There certainly is a pig-pen somewhere that might need to be cleaned and tended. There definitely is a fast-food joint somewhere in this huge country that needs someone to clean its toilets. You’re hungry? Go earn your burger! You have the right to do it. I don’t!

Nice Gathering

2006-03-10T13:08:00.000-06:00

So, the other day, some of my ex-co-workers and I gathered at Bennigan's on Michigan Ave for a little evening together. It was a nice and totally fun evening. They were among the only people I got along with at work. We laughed rambunctiously, and talked about all kinds of things... our conversations have known to range from female genital mutilation to Nazi co-workers to Elephantisis. Anyway, it was a fun evening - worthy of keeping good memories to take with me.

A Quote to Inspire

2006-03-10T01:43:00.000-06:00

“…only a true atheist can fully marvel at the miracle called "life" and the incredible job our lives have done with this world.” -- Ergo, from Sept. 19, 2005: Thought of the Day

Ayn Rand Institute at the Johns Hopkins University

2006-03-09T01:15:00.000-06:00

Since I am now unemployed with plenty of time on my hands and a decent amount of money saved up, I'm going to make this weekend roadtrip to Baltimore, Maryland to attend the debate session organized by the Objectivist club of Johns Hopkins University. ARI will be sending the really cool Dr. Yaron Brook (whose debate I attended at the University of Chicago, and was fully impressed by him) and Dr. Onkar Ghate. The event is on Monday, 13th of March at 7pm. It's part of ARI's new and really important Free Speech Campaign, which will seek to aggresively disseminate the Mohammed cartoons in a defiant expression of free speech - even if it is offensive speech (which is the very purpose of protecting speech as such!) So, that's where I will be. The way I see it, I have nothing to lose and so much to gain by pursuing this value - something I will be fully deprived of when I go to India.

The Fish

2006-03-07T02:59:00.000-06:00

The fish is wading into shallow waters, distantly feeling the impending sense of panic… it knows the net has been cast; it only waits to be tangled in its web. It cannot see a way out, nor does it have any hope that there might be one. It slowly wades towards the sharp twines of the web. It ponders its tortured, writhing battle for survival as it will be taken out of the ocean in one swift and smooth motion. It will be quiet, it knows, it cannot make a sound. But it's body, it's spirit will twist in pangs of anguish. It will gasp, and choke, and flap, and splatter, spilling its guts and its blood, gashing its flesh, battling for life again. But for now, it only silently ponders the imminent. It makes up its mind - to take one last and final gasp of the water it breathes - one large gulp of the freedom - before it dives into the last battle of its life.

Jesus Had it Way Easier

2006-03-07T02:02:00.000-06:00

So, today was my last day on the job. I had to quit today, tie all the loose ends, complete pending projects, and clean out my desks before the end of the day. Actually, I ended up staying way later than everyone else. All day I had people coming over to my desk telling me how much they would miss me. All the managers gathered for lunch and sponsored a pizza and salad send-off party. I was very pleased and touched by their show of appreciation. I received a card with everyone’s little notes of support and appreciation. I received emails with some really sincere compliments. Leaving work at the end of the day was really hard. Walking out of the tower, onto the cold, wide-open plaza, I felt like I was stepping into an epistemological unknown. It was disturbing and very disconcerting. I looked up at the buildings around me, I heard the blare of the NBC studio news station, I watched the street lights switch signals, and I felt such a deep sense of sadness. I will so intensely miss the evidence and spectacle of this human greatness all around me, of human achievement, of all the materialistic wonders that this city so proudly boasts. As I walked, looking all around me, paying unusually keen attention to everything, I wanted to cry at some moments, but I couldn’t. So, I sang aloud instead. I sang and hummed my way as I walked – aloud; singing anything, just expressing my love for this life, for this city, for this country, and for everything I have experienced here. As I climbed onto a bus, I stood by the door for a moment and watched it carefully as it closed, and for a moment I marveled at the ingeniousness of the mind that created the technology that expresses its greatest achievement by the fact that it goes unnoticed most of the time. Machine and technology so smoothly and undisturbingly applied to the service of human life. I am going to lose so much of what makes me me. A part of me will be lost after I leave America. The part of me that has a greed for freedom and independence. The part of me that has this passionate pursuit of my own happiness. The part of me that seeks to lose itself in the greatness of other minds and their ideas. I will miss the witness of free and open speech expressed in the movies, music, books, politics, news reports, and media. I will miss the challenge of ideas, the battle of opinions, the occasional triumph of truth, and the joy all of that brings. I will miss the myriad of choices for any and everything offered here, the wonderful variety of vegetables and meat at a grocery store, of cuisines and restaurants, of theaters and cultural events. I will miss the capitalist system of competition that allows for so many FREE provisions like free wireless internet, free samples in the supermarket, free give-away prizes, free concerts in the summer, free pulic parks with world-class technology. All these are materialistic values. But they express the most treasured values of my life for me. They express the fundamental values that makes all the rest possible. And very soon, I will be deprived of the material and the spiritual. I am facing a sacrifice of the spirit, of the mind, of my soul – far worse than anything Jesus had to endure. He, assuming he was God and all, WANTED to be crucified. It was part of his divine plan. He wanted to die for us, and so he did. Hardly a sacrifice if what he got in return (the souls of the world) was a far better deal than what he had to give up – his temporary physicality.. Besides, clearly, being that he was God, he obviously had to merely play “mock death” – and then rise up again 3 days later. Only his corporeal façade was crucified, not his divine spirit. I am a full and complete human being. I DO NOT want to die - especially not a decaying death of the spirit. I have no plans of crucifying myself. The sacrifice of my spiritual values is a true sacrifice because I’m getting shit in return. My spiritual values will be taken away, and along with it will also go all my physical and material values. What I get in return is stagnation, decay, loss of direction, lack of self-autonomy, and an environment of coercive repression. I do not want this, and yet I have to face it. Mine is truly a higher sacrifice.

A Quote for a Lifetime

2006-03-05T13:35:00.000-06:00

"You see, I'm an atheist. And I have only one religion; the sublime in human nature. There is nothing to approach the sanctity of the highest man possible, and there is nothing that gives me the same reverent feeling, the feeling when one's spirit wants to kneel bareheaded... do not call it hero-worship, because it is more than that. It is a kind of strange and improbable white heat, where admiration becomes religion and religion becomes philosophy and philosophy, the whole of one's life." - Ayn Rand

Again, Someone Yells Louder than Me

2006-03-03T23:16:00.000-06:00

Below is an excerpt of the article "On Campus: The Abolition of Art" I came across on the internet today, written by Nathanael Blake for Townhall.com. I presume he is a conservative political columnist. The excerpt I quote below has a startling resemblance in my opinion to something formulated independently by another intelligent thinker* who was gracious enough to post his theory** on this blog. The topic of the article - given by its title - is about the rotting degradation of art by modernist movements:

"H. R. Rookmaaker, Chair of Art History at the Free University of Amsterdam, wrote a masterful book on the subject, Modern Art and the Death of a Culture. Modern art did not spring upon us from a void, but came from a philosophical progression spanning centuries. During medieval times, art was primarily created to represent the transcendental. It was religious and devotional in nature, with each painting a visual sermon. Such art sought to represent universal truths about God and man; it was not always realistic in its physical representations, but it sought to present spiritual truth. ... [The] rise of Humanism also inspired a rise in what could be called the portrayal of the ideal. These scenes were not necessarily religious or Christian, but they still sought to portray universals, from heroism to love."

Nathaneal Blake remembers Rand's insight of the philosophical importance of Art in man's life:

"Like many conservatives, I dislike Ayn Rand, but she deserves credit for her insight on this point. In The Fountainhead, the gloating villain explains that to destroy theater, you declare puerile prattle to be a masterpiece; to destroy architecture, you elevate an incompetent to prominence. And, I would add, to abolish art, you declare a manufactured urinal to be a masterpiece. A vital part of our cultural heritage has been raped, and most of us are unaware and unconcerned."

Rand understood that Art served to concretize one's widest abstractions, one's conscious and subconscious sense of life, one's own metaphysical value judgments. She herself concretized those elements of her values, her benevolent and efficacious view of the universe and of man's place in it, her proud and joyous sense of life, and her groundbraking philosophy of Objectivism in her amazing works of literary Art, which are now classics in every sense of the word. In the Romantic Manifesto, Rand gives a very lucid and extensive exposition of the central role of Art in a man's philosophy, and the reciprocal centrality that philosophy plays in the artistic expressions of man.

The Date Has Been Set

2006-03-03T13:55:00.000-06:00

According to Objectivist politics of laissez-faire capitalism, the government has no right to dictate the goals, values, and interests of its people. A government cannot command or even request its citizens to pursue certain goals and sacrifice others, give up certain values or embrace others, or suppress your own interests for the interests of others. The role of the government is merely to police the law and order of the country, protect the rights of the individuals, and provide security from violence or threats. Rand said that we give government the legal monopoly on force to commit those acts in our name that if undertaken by any other individual or insitution, would be a criminal act. Why do we give the government such a monopoly? Among other things, to ensure the objectivity of the standards of law, avoid conflicts of interest, and protect individuals pursuing their own values freely. Thus, it can be clearly understood that under a rational rule of law where the ethics of self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism are the standard, there will never be any conflicts of interest among rational individuals or between them and the government, because given the proper conceptual understanding of sacrifice, none shall be demanded or required from anybody. However, America is not laissez-faire. Nor does it function consistently on the ethics of self-interest. Therefore, in such a system, some people will inevitably and unavoidably have to sacrifice their own selves and their values. In such a system, conflicts are a logical outgrowth of the contradictory practices of mixed premises. Therefore, in America some groups of people have the right to pursue their own happiness in the form of marriage with their chosen partners, and some groups are denied that right. Some groups of people are afforded unearned or undeserved access to opportunities in labor, career, education, social services, food, minimum wages, etc. while some groups are not. These are instances of the values that some are forced to sacrifice while others are allowed to possess without much or any effort. The accidental situation of one's birth in America opens virtually unlimited access and opportunities to them regardless of their indolence or true merits. The arbitrary granting of the right to pursue one's own values based upon a metaphysical accident of nature is the standard of law in this country by which all are forcibly treated equal - the productive, the creative, the ingenius, the deserving, are degraded to a level equal to the slothful, the parasitic, the lazy, the dishonest, the criminal. Such is the imminence I am personally facing: the upcoming date which has been set for the execution of my values. Sixty days from today the United States government will demand that I sacrifice my self-interests and leave this country. I will comply because under force I have no choice. Staying on in this country and being branded as "illegal" would be a worse attack on my liberty and values, the consequences of which I will be forced to bear indefinitely into the long-term future. There is no choice between alternatives that are forced upon me and both of which result in self-sacrifice either way. Sixty days.

Deception of the Senses

2006-02-28T16:44:00.000-06:00

This is a really cool illusion! I stole this from Todd's blog, and I hope he doesn't mind. :) If Descartes were alive and were he to see this, he would go; "See, I told you so! I cannot trust anything from my senses. They could be deceiving me at any given moment. Thus, there should exist a God, because a true and honest God would never deceive me. This is the proof that God exists. And I think, therefore I exist, too." [ha! Any Cartesians reading this, know that I am being facetious. I know there is a whole lot more to Descartes than that. I do respect his mind, to some extent. But then, according to him, I wouldn't really be respecting him as such, only his mind... anyway... I digress.]

People-Watching

2006-02-27T16:30:00.000-06:00

Some interesting psychological observations: Some people like to be asked so they can have the satisfaction of refusing (I noticed this being used by Rand in her fiction) Some people like to avoid others so their absence is conspicuous – it is a way of making their presence felt. Some people have an urgent need to be liked and loved by all, and so they go around claiming they like and love everyone else too. Some people like holding novel, avant garde, minority positions because they feel they are expressing their uniqueness. Many of them have no clue or legitimate reason for holding such ideas. Some people like going against the mainstream – it gives them a sense of direction in their life. Without the mainstream to oppose, they would be lost. Some people try to garner sympathy (or praise) for themselves by showering it upon another person. Similarly, the other person feels obligated to return the “favor”, i.e. praise, even when there is nothing worth praising. Some people escape the guilt of lying by cloaking it as euphemistic criticisms. Some people own things so that they can despise them. Others despise things that they do not own. Dishonest people share a unique comraderie amongst themselves - they are all "in" on the secret. People who are steadfast in holding consistent truths are dismissed as obstinate little minds who simply need to grow up and appreciate the complexity of this world - and complexity almost always means contradictions and confusions.

Freedom as Non-Value

2006-02-27T11:12:00.000-06:00

Since I’ve been reading Sartre for a while now, I’ve been chewing on this issue: Sartre’s notion of freedom is ontological – in that it is unavoidably fundamental in the nature and identity of a human being, i.e. being-for-itself. So in that sense, freedom cannot be gained or lost because it is inseparable from the entity. Therefore, freedom is not a value – because value is something one strives to attain and keep. Therefore, there cannot be any such notion as a “loss of freedom” according to Sartre’s conception of the concept. Therefore, none of us could complain about lack of freedom as such, nor could anyone strive to live in a “free society” as opposed to an oppressive society. However, Sartre still argues for the concept of individual responsibility because he argues that responsibility is inseparable from freedom (despite the fact that freedom itself is not a matter of choice). Sartre says that even at the point of a gun, when you are being forced to do something or be killed, you fundamentally have the freedom to either choose to do it or die. This is because freedom is unavoidable. Therefore, he argues, if you commit the act by convincing yourself that you had no choice in the matter because it was life versus death, you have acted on bad-faith. The action is insincere because you have not conceded that your act was in fact a choice, because you could very well have chosen to die. Such a concept of freedom is at the very least, meaningless, and at most, a grotesque, dangerous, adulteration of the concept. In Sartre’s notion, an entity does not have freedom, but more precisely, an entity is free, and can never be “un-free”. So, once freedom is rendered meaningless, and more importantly, valueless, then it seems understandable to think of freedom as a “burden” and live a life rife with guilt for alleged acts of “bad-faith” because really, no matter what you do in whatever contexts, one could never act sincerely. Sartre in fact sees this problem of inescapable bad-faith as a logical outgrowth of his metaphysics and therefore, struggles with convoluted arguments at trying to define a sound ethical theory. The only statement Sartre makes regarding this issue is that good-faith acts are possible. Yet, nowhere in the entire corpus of his philosophy does he exactly state what could be good-faith acts and how they could be possible.

"Don't be a Gay Swan"

2006-02-23T10:56:00.000-06:00

So, last night I went to see a beautiful and powerful performance of The Swan Lake by Matthew Bourne, also dubbed as the "gay swan lake" as all the "swan" characters are played by men (gay or not, I don't know). I'm at a loss for words to describe my experience, except to briefly say that I enjoyed it immensely. Tchaikovsky's music in this ballet is among the most inspiring and moving pieces of music I have heard in my entire life. I first heard the score to the ballet many years ago as a young boy - ofcourse, at the time being fully naive about any details or history surrounding it. But I remember being struck by its uplifting power, by the strength of its crescendo, by its awe-inspiring sense of life. I remember dancing around my bedroom to the music, as a psychologically self-appointed melodramatic dancer. The ballet performance itself was pretty strong - though I had a problem with the bare chested swan sweating so profusely that his wet, soaked chest glistened under the theater lights. I wished somebody would just get on stage and wipe the sweat off the poor swan. Anyway. Since I am finding myself quite incapable of reviewing the performance, I shall let the following excerpts speak for me. This part review is from NewsPlanet staff at PlanetOut.com -

When the first news of Bourne's London staging of "Swan Lake" -- with the swans played by men, it's bare-chested corps de ballet wearing feather-covered shorts -- people dubbed it the "gay Swan Lake" and no one expected to receive it as serious art. (Actually, a gay "Swan Lake" would be perfectly reasonable, since its composer, Tschaikovsky, was himself a gay man, albeit deeply troubled by his orientation through nearly all his life.) However, the flash of insight he says led him to realize that the size, power and violence of swans was more suggestive of male dancers than females seems to have paid off. He also tampered at length with the story, characters and setting, turning it into a 20th century tale with plenty of palace intrigue, humor and satire, designed to appeal to film fans more than a traditional ballet audience. The original music and the most basic love triangle tragedy remains, with the Prince who meets Swan and falls in love, only to fall under the spell of another, wicked Swan, climaxing in the suicides of the Prince and his first-loved Swan. As for just how gay the all-male show really is, Bourne wants people to find their own meanings in the production, and says many have discovered things he never imagined.

And this one by David Roberts from Theater Reviews Limited:

Matthew Bourne has created an intense psychological drama. His choice of male swans is exactly what Tchaikovsy's music requires. These beautiful bare chested dancers (and the black leathered version of The Swan at the party) are the perfect medium for the Prince to discover and celebrate his sexuality. And although the Prince is unashamedly gay, "Swan Lake" is universal in its appeal and accessible to all persons who know what it means to be misunderstood, confused about sexuality and love, and long for intimacy and relationship.

Further Evidence of Collectivism and Religion

2006-02-22T15:08:00.000-06:00

This news report provides further evidence for, and therefore corroborating my argument that religious doctrine by itself is not a sufficient motivator for mass violence and mob riots that happens to take on a particularly religious tone. There needs to be a reciprocal synergy between a prevailing culture's collectivist mind-set and their religious beliefs. The former without the latter has absolutely no moral grounds to stand on (not even a mystical moral ground), whereas the latter without the former is impotent to incite large scale violence that can sustain any significant period of time. According to this AP news report, the bloody violence in Nigeria is between Christians and Muslims, and their religious tensions have been dire since 2000. Apparently, the Christians were retaliating against the Muslims after some Churches had been razed and some Christians had been initially attacked. The report says: "Residents said soldiers had opened fire on a mob of ethnic Igbo Christians that tried to enter the military barracks after reports ethnic Hausa Muslims sheltering in the barracks had attacked a nearby primary school, killing a number of children. The claims could not be verified and it was not clear if the soldiers killed anyone in the mob. The deaths brought to at least 96 the number of people killed in Nigeria since sectarian violence first erupted Saturday in the northern city of Maiduguri, where Muslim protests against cartoons caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad turned violent, razing 30 churches and claiming the lives of 18 people, mostly Christians." Mob violence - regardless of what religious garb it disguises under - is mostly fueled by a collectivist mind-set. Religion importantly plays a role in legitimizing the patently evil acts of a collectivist mob by giving them self-redeeming philosophical and psychological ammunition such as: martyrdom, heavenly reward, after-life, sin, evil, moral, God's command, army of God, etc. Tag: Objectivism

Mom Made me Gay

2006-02-22T09:51:00.000-06:00

At least going by this little report on a scientific study, my being gay might have to do with my mom's gene's acting sort of queer (pardon the pun!) Well, it seems like science is finding increasingly persuasive evidence suggesting that sexual orientation might be biological. Its implications in ethics and other spheres of our lives are quite clear: that which is beyond our choice (i.e. physiologically determined) cannot be subject to moral judgment and cannot on its basis be discriminated against. However, it's important to note that scienctists have yet to settle this issue; they have not yet firmly established homosexuality as indeed biological or entirely biological. It is not enough that homosexuality be genetically determined to innoculate it from moral scrutiny - it has to be demonstrated as being entirely and unequivocally biological, like having green-colored eyes. There are many things that have some genetic basis but are still subject to our human volitional control, and hence should conform to moral principles. For example, it has been shown that some people might have some genetic predisposition that easily accesses their emotion for anger, or sentimentality, or introversion, etc. However, the rational control or indulgence of these tendencies are possible and expected regardless of the fact that they have some genetic basis. A genetic tendency does not rule out human volition. Thus, having a gay genetic tendency would still require that gays demonstrate their rational indulgence in their sexual orientation as being fully and perfectly moral, and consistent with objective principles of morality. On the other hand, a complete genetic determination would infact rule out human volition - like skin color, muscle mass, etc. - and therefore, homosexual genetic determinism would not be a matter of moral or ethical speculation. I have always stated my position on homosexuality as such: if it is fully biological then it is morally a non-issue. End of story. If it is only partly biological, or fully non-genetic, then it can still be established beyond argument as a choice of sexuality that is completely moral. As an interesting side note: it seems to me that this rule applies in all cases - that which is biologically determined in an individual if it is elevated to a matter of volitional choice it will still remain either amoral or fully moral, but never immoral. It applies to homosexuality just as it would apply to skin color, for example. There used to be a Christian religious sect that actually believed that Blacks had dark skins as manifestations of their sins or the sins of their ancestors. We all know, I don't need to demonstrate, how terribly and horribly wrong they were - and not just wrong, those Christians were immensely evil themselves for believing and advocating such a heinous idea. Say at some point in the future, human technology permits the choice of one's skin color on a routine basis, whatever choice is made, as long as it is made selfishly without coercion, the choice itself could not be immoral. homosexuality

Dervishes in Words: Nature's Song

2006-02-20T12:08:00.000-06:00

Dervishes in Words: Nature's Song I wrote this poem after watching "Brokeback Mountain", a movie which I liked very much (thought not as much as to garner its induction into my 'favorite movies' category). It's a beautiful, sincere movie that depicts a tragic imminence of death and despair of two gay characters set against a backdrop of luscious life, nature, action, and dynamic energy. I thought that the contrasts of the character's lives losing their souls into the currents of the river ("river" for me symbolized the culture of their times, akin to "mainstream", and having to "go with the flow", having to drown in the strength of the dominant current in the river) evoked the images in my poem of the "sad river", "torrent of tears", "soul sinking", and finally the last line of peaceful redemption symbolized in the line "the river stops a moment to sigh with me" -- conveying the death and the stillness of what was earlier dynamic, the opposite of movement in culture and society, etc.

Meaningful Value and Evaluation

2006-02-17T17:56:00.000-06:00

Today was the last day of my boss in my company. We had a little gathering in the conference room where everybody brought in little somethings to eat and share, and express our immense appreciation to her for being a great person to work for. I brought in tasty tasty samosas that everybody loved and devoured eagerly! So, just a few minutes ago, as I was saying my last goodbye's to her privately, I was almost moved to tears by the imminence of the fact; the fact that she will not be here when I get back to work on Monday. She and I had shared a great working and friendly relationship. Somehow she just "got" me. She was also a woman of ideas. We spoke of Emerson and philosophies and our concept of what life and living should be. Over her brief time at the company, she had endeared herself to almost everybody that she came in contact with. She had the loudest and free-est laughter I have heard from anybody - let alone from a lady in the upper echelons of a Corporation. Her sense of life is truly benevolent. I was not the only one shocked and deeply saddened to hear the news of her leaving. Even the VP of the company, who is an ardent Cubs fan and even has his email address referencing his loyalty to the team, while my boss is an exuberant South-sider Sox fan, attempted to bribe her to not leave by saying he would convert into a fan for her team if she decided to stay! Needless to say, I deeply valued our work relationship because it fueled my work ethic and integrity - it was my obligation to offer the best of my efforts to someone who recognized the best in me. One of the last things she said to me in our parting conversation was: "Jerry, I know that you will have a very interesting and rewarding life. You are very passionate and unique person. You will definitely succeed in life, but I wish I could see how you do it, because I know it will be different." That was it. I was quiet, because I was afraid if I said anything, a tear might escape my eyes. After a moment, I said thank you for saying that, and I hope you have fun working where you go. Then we said our goodbyes and I walked out. Felt like a funeral! Ugh. My own reaction surprises me. I didn;t expect to be so affected by it. I guess, this is what it means to deem someone or something so valuable that losing it necessarily should be hard and difficult. This is what it means to value with discretion because only then will the valuation have any meaning. This is why I don't bother with niceties... don't bother being "nice" to people I really don't care about or people I actually despise. Because then that which I value or those that I do like and value, their estimation in my eyes and the praises I offer them retains some meaning and worth. Praises are meaningless if the grotesque is esteemed on an equal level as that which is truly beautiful. Be generous with your condemnation and disdain for that which deserves it, and be equally generous with your praise and upliftment for that which is good, moral, benevolent and beautiful. Toleration of mediocrity or the downright evil is no different from sanctioning it. In practical life, no private business with the motive to compete and succeed will tolerate the mediocre - that would hasten the demise of the company and everyone else who works there. The same attitude should apply to relatiships. This Monday will be strange.

Marriage of Collectivism and Religion

2006-02-16T12:28:00.000-06:00

Collectivism is the mind-set of a group. It is the lack of strong or coherent identify of the self. Many philosophers believe it is even impossible to know, let alone define, what the “self” really is. They argue that identity is only derivable from the Other-than-self. Sartre, among others, held that belief as the crux of his philosophy and his formulation of the Being-for-itself. In fact, according to Sartre, a person would be acting on bad faith and would be insincere in making any claims of “I am” because not only is one’s consciousness always changing and never static, but also there isn’t any concept of self-consciousness that is unamendable to objectification by the Other. Sartre’s entire metaphysics of the human being places individuals in a state of constant conflict against each other. According to Christine Daigle who discusses Sartre’s key concepts in Philosophy Now, Issue 53, “Sartre made such a good case for this conflictual relationship [that] he had made it impossible for him to elaborate a workable ethics…. Sartre is struggling to establish an ethics that rests on reciprocity and authenticity.” My own view is that a metaphysic that does not recognize the identity of the individual is a metaphysic of Collectivism. And any such metaphysic that is based on collectivism simply does not allow or permit any coherent and consistent ethical or moral principle to be formulated and that which can be applicable universally. Hence, every attempt to extrapolate an ethics from such a metaphysic will inevitably run into problems and dangerous inconsistencies. Collectivism, by definition, has to mean the suppression of the individual – the repression of a minority voice or opinion, the lack of self-determinate autonomy. Any mob mentality has to smother individual mentality. Every and all human beings do not think alike, behave the same way, and have similar tastes or opinions. Thus, the concept of majoritarianism, mob mentality, sacrifice of the one for the many, has interpersonal conflict inseparably built-in to the system. A universally applicable ethics cannot ever arise from such a system unless it is accompanied by force or dogma. People can gather in groups and be affiliated with collective bodies based upon their chosen values. However, the attempt to spread those values upon an entire population by force, law, or by doctrine without accepting or recognizing the right of the other to choose their values is the essence of ideologies based on collectivism – at their very fundamental root, they begin by the violation of the rights of the individual, thus they cannot possibly sustain any ethical principle that can be universally applied to all individuals. This is where religion comes into play. An alliance of religion and collectivism necessarily leads to gross, widespread, and unspeakably evil violations of human rights in all cases. As I said, collectivism as an ideology simply cannot support any ethics that could even fake a veneer of benevolent morality. Religion, however, comes in easily and paints a layer of morality on the ethics of a collectivist ideology. For example, if the collectivists wish to get rid of a race of people, or subjugate them for their own arbitrary whims and purposes, the ideology of collectivism will simply not be able to justify such an act on any ethical principle that can be defended and upheld as being a moral principle. In this case, the collectivists can take recourse to religion and spin the collectivist ethic into the religious ethic. Jews should be exterminated because they are responsible for the death of Christ. Christians should be exterminated because we are obligated to establish the supremacy of Islam. Blacks should be shunned because their dark skin colors are expressions of sin and evil in the human race. Muslims should be expelled from India because India is Hindu country. In the above examples, regardless of how many voices speak out in dissent of those activities, if that is in the mind-set of the collective majority, all they need is for religion to paint a veneer of a high-minded moral principle in order for them to feel justified in not only suppressing the minority dissent, but also in carrying out their dastardly evil acts. Collectivism is not only just a philosophical ideology; it is an incredible evil in itself. As Rand said, it is not enough to just study a philosophical ideology as abstract principles, but think of the ramifications in concrete reality if those principles were to be put into practice. That is philosophical detection, according to Rand, and therefore her philosophy of Objectivism is primarily a philosophy of living life on Earth, not just a rich system of principles to be held abstractly. Tag: Objectivism

God

2006-02-15T13:06:00.000-06:00

Atheism [Warning - please leave your rational faculties on the chair next to you. You will not need to use any reason or logic in this case] Why are we here? Why did God create us? Why did God create anything at all?? If God is understood to be outside of time and existence, transcending this Universe, then God must have brought existence into existence and thus created a "beginning" of time and Universe. So, before the "bringing into existence of existence", God must have existed in and among non-existence. So, existing in non-existence and being the sole existent must feel awfully lonely. But that cannot be the case because God is Supremely satisfied, content, and exists in an infinite state of perfection and completeness. So, God cannot be lonely. So, having some companionship could not be the reason God created existence. Maybe God wanted His ego to be stroked? Maybe God needed some supernatural creatures like Angels and some lowly creatures like Humans and animals to recognize Him as Almighty and worship His magnanimity? But does it make any sense to think that God "needed" something? Anything? Does God ever "need"? Maybe God needs love. We all need some lovin' at some point in our lives. Maybe God wants (needs?) someone to love and love Him back, so he created us and all the creatures of the heavens. I think it could also be argued that God does not just "need" us to love Him, but demands that we love Him - or else we will suffer eternal damnation in hell for scorning Him. Certainly, just like anyone else, even God does not wish to be a scorned lover; and He takes it very personally if He is scorned by anyone. So, it seems like because we exist, and because Existence exists, and because creation of Existence implies a beginning of time, God must have had some reason/need/motive to bring existence into existence and begin the flow of time. Well, that raises another question: what was God doing "before" He got the impluse to create time and existence? Furthermore, in His infinite Intelligence, what was His Divine purpose to bring Human Beings INTO existence as mortal beings, and then bestow upon us immortality AFTER fatality, to be spent either in eternal suffering or eternal bliss? (In light of this point, read my previous post "God's Original Plan for Humanity" for further interesting insights into God's behavior). Some believe that we have never gone "in and out" of existence - that we have always existed with God forever in eternity. I suppose that makes us all the "Alpha and Omega" the "immortal, eternal spirit" - terms usually reserved only for God. In that case, what is God's Intelligent design behind forcing our immortal selves to take on the garb of mortality, live on this earth, suffer disease and disaster, experience anguish, pain, joy and exuberance, only in the end of it all to "die" and return back to our immortal selves and then be banished into hell for eternity or taken up into heaven? What's all this drama about? Is all the world a stage and our lives a play for God's voyeuristic pleasure? There is another way to look at all this: because we exist, because Existence exists, and because creation of Existence implies a beginning of time while acting outside of time and existence, God can not exist and must necessarily not exist. In other words, the fact that we exist proves that God cannot exist. Either that is true, or the God-concept will need to undergo inherently drastic, almost diametrically opposite, changes in its meaning - God will need to be understood as frail, jealous, bored, lonely, egotistic, evil, voyeuristic, capable of sinning, angry, etc.

Sartre: A Philosopher of Freedom?

2006-02-14T16:49:00.000-06:00

In one of my earlier posts, I criticized Sartre's conception of freedom as a human "burden". At that time, I was not really and fully clear on Sartre's ideas, but I knew there had to be something wrong about it because "freedom" viewed as a burden that people try to shun and flee from seemed horribly wrong if it were one's real outlook on life in this world. Since then, I have been reading more about Sartre and his theories. The recent "Philosophy Now" Issue 53 was dedicated mostly to Sartre in observance of his 100th birthday. In the editorial of the magazine briefly sketched Sartre's life that I excerpted as such: "[Sartre's] intake of coffee, nicotine, and harder drugs was prodigious, and may have contributed to his one-time delusion that he was being stalked by a giant lobster. Sartre, having constructed an uncompromising philosophy of personal freedom,... spent many years entangled to varying degrees with the French Communist Party - stalwart defenders of Stalin's gulags." To me, Sartre's confused and decadent life seems to be just the logical and practical consequence of the philosophy that he himself formulated. Quite consistently, Communism would be the only ideological system compatible with a concept such as "freedom is a burden" and that "humans are condemned to be free". "The validity and efficacy of ideas are most evident in the actions they generate" - that is the credo of my blog.

Godel and Reason

2006-02-14T14:18:00.000-06:00

Something that Godel said may well have been said by Rand, and it would be no different: "Every error is due to extraneous factors (such as emotion and education); reason itself does not err." - 1972 It might seem strange on the surface that Godel makes a claim about the infallibility of Reason when infact he is most famous for a proof that many have considered a huge contradiction at the very core of mathematical and logical systems (the exemplars of Reason at its purest). Ofcourse, Godel is equating Reason in this context with the purely logical and deductive. Rand did not have such a narrow understanding of Reason, and she further accepted the feedback of one's emotions to the loop of cognition and decision making.

New Boy Band Artist Makes Trip to India

2006-02-13T08:49:00.000-06:00

So, the next big thing in the boy band music scene could most likely be "Dormant Light", an awesome group of boys with some good alternative/hardrock music. I believe they even have a crazy fan-following, with groupies et al at their performances. Dormant Light is the brainchild of my good old friend Curtis Bard who I went to college with me in Hanover, Indiana. Knowing Curtis for many years and having listened to his music firsthand - from development stages to completed works - I can attest to the superb quality of his creations. I think he makes a good-faith effort to add layers of complexities to his music and challenge his artistic capabilities. That might probably be the reason why he dislikes minimalist music. His music reveals his penchant to experiment with unusual musical combinations, eastern and mediterranean sounds, and a variety of musical instruments. He was also a member of an a capella singing group while in college. Certainly, the ladies of Hanover flocked in droves to this crooning hunk! ;) Well, recently, Curtis made a trip to India, and he had amassed close to a 100 pictures from the trip. In his email to me, he described the trip as: "- wow - it was AWESOME!!!! I loved it!!! really blew me away!" I intended to coax him into writing with a little more detail about his experiences in India and why he "loved it". Hopefully, I will be able to post his little essay on here. So check out Dormant Light. Buy one of their CD's to sample their music. Once they shoot to stardom, you might be able to say that you are a proud owner of one of their earliest works! Also, check our Curtis' pictures from his trip to India. (note: Curtis is a musician, not a photographer. So, pardon some of his more awkward and uncomposed pictures ;-)

For Readers in Colorado

2006-02-09T12:19:00.000-06:00

... or even for those of you with the means and motivation to travel to Denver, Colorado: Diana from Noodlefood wishes to notify all about "Front Range Objectivism's upcoming "Weekend Conference on Law, Individual Rights and the Judicial System." It will be held from March 4th-5th in Denver, Colorado. The speakers will include Tara Smith, Amy Peikoff, Eric Daniels, and Dana Berliner. For all the details, plus online registration, visit: http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/2006-law.html "Early registration for Front Range Objectivism's Weekend Conference on Law, Individual Rights and the Judicial System (to be held March 4-5, 2006 in Denver, Colorado) is this Saturday, February 11, 2006. Don't miss this fantantic conference! And register now to save $75!" - Another Reminder Tag:Objectivism

Describing the Muhammad Cartoons

2006-02-08T10:50:00.000-06:00

This is a great article in the BBC that seeks to explain the context that gave rise to this whole Muhammad cartoon fiasco. It also gives some interesting interpretations of the artists' message in those cartoons. Here's an excerpt: "The paper chose as its central image a visual joke about the Prophet among other turban-wearing figures in a police line-up and the witness saying: "I don't know which one he is". It is presumably an ironic appeal for calm over the issue, the suggestion being that, if a Danish illustrator were to portray the Prophet, it is not known what he looks like and therefore a harmless gesture. " Tag: mohammed cartoon

The Perils of the Collectivist Mind-Set

2006-02-08T10:04:00.000-06:00

In my opinion, the mind-set that has led so many Muslims to react violently and in complete disregard to human rights in response to the cartoons may not be an exclusive characteristic of the Islamic religion per se, but might be in a broader sense, a symptom of the diabolic synergy that I think exists between their cultural collectivism and their religious faith. These rioters happen to be Muslims – but I argue that it might as well have been Christians or Hindus – any large world religion. I think there is a specific interplay of influences that we might be missing. The fact the Islam is a religion of large following is a huge factor in generating the collectivist groundwork. That religious collectivism is further bolstered by the cultural collectivism that forms the identity of these societies in the middle-east, Africa, and Asia. These societies are inculcated with the collectivist identity, and hence they have very vague (if any) concepts of human rights – because fundamental human rights can be recognized only in the context of human beings understood as unitary, individual entities. The collectivist tribalism observed among Africans engaged in looting, plundering, rape, and chaos reflect the interplay between their faith and their culture. Many of these Africans are Christians, and many of them are Muslims. Yet they all equally enjoy their depraved existence in violence. The Hindus of India have incited many riots over religious, political, cultural, and social issues, just as the Muslims in India have done. The tendency of these cultures to quickly take up arms and tear the limbs off of other people or destroy someone else’s property reflect not directly a zealous practice of their doctrinal beliefs in religion, but their mind-set of non-identity drowned in a mass of collectivism that recognizes no individual body nor individual property. Their religion merely veils their tribalism and irrefutable evilness in glossy euphemisms of “unity”, “community”, “sacred tradition”, “ sacrifice”, “martyrdom” and “heavenly reward”. Their religion provides them with the psychological and spiritual justification for their violent actions that their cultural collectivism can possibly not provide. This is my very brief and quick observation and thoughts on the matter. I believe I am capturing something accurate. I might need to flesh out the full implication and extent of this collectivist-religious interplay. Tag: mohammed cartoon

Godel's Insight

2006-02-07T17:14:00.000-06:00

So, when Kurt Godel formulated the proof that there are true but unprovable statements, was he talking about axiomatic statements??? Say, for example, would the axiom that "existence exists" be the kind of statement that are unprovable but true? Also, take another example: the validity of logic that cannot be proved, but it can be validated. Would that make the validity of the logical method an example of the unprovable but true? It seems to me that it would. I've just started reading Incompleteness: The proof and paradox of Kurt Godel. I'm excited to read more!

French Philosophers

2006-02-07T10:21:00.000-06:00

I found this article on a very cool site, Arts & Letters Daily. It's a very interesting article that comments upon the interplay between Sartre and Heidegger's existentialism on French intellectual thought. I was particularly interested in this passage I quote below, and I am amused by how Sartre decimates Heidegger's mysticism only to propose in replacement a humanist, man-centered perspective - that in essence is the primacy of the consciousness in Subjectivism. It is strange however, given that Sartre was an Existentialist, that his essential approach was the subjective primacy of the consciousness. I think Rand observes correctly that at their root, these philosophies are simply the two sides of the same metaphysical coin. Anyway, I believe the article is a good read, and the excerpt below is interesting for what it reveals about these philosophers: "Heidegger's philosophy is predicated on a radical criticism of reason and metaphysics. He once observed that "Reason, glorified for centuries, is the most stiff-necked adversary of thought." But by rejecting reason, Heidegger and his French followers simultaneously severed the pivotal link between insight and emancipation. Socrates famously claimed that "knowledge is virtue." In other words: Insight and reflection are the keys to a life well lived. As Socrates declared, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Without the association between insight and emancipation, neither the doctrine of Marx nor of Freud would be possible. For, like that of Socrates, their theories are predicated on the idea that knowledge and human freedom are intrinsically related. As a recovering Heideggerian, Sartre understood the problem better than anyone. He realized that a philosophy like Heidegger's, which demands unquestioning obedience to nameless, higher powers such as Being, the gods, fate and so forth, is a warrant for human bondage. By preaching submission, it is latently authoritarian. As Sartre astutely observed, a philosophy that "subordinates the human to what is Other than man...has hatred of man as both its basis and its consequence.... Either man is primarily himself, or he is primarily Other than himself. Choosing the second doctrine simply makes one a victim and accomplice of real alienation." Further down, the article discusses Emmanuel Levinas, another philosopher, who argued for "Ethics as first philosophy". Levinas argued that western philosophy had predominantly focused on the "Being", metaphysics, or ontology at the detriment and expense of the study of ethics and human relationships. The article goes on to state Levinas' argument: "The basic problem was that, from time immemorial, metaphysics had privileged "ontology"--the study of Being, or of what things essentially "are"--over ethics. In other words, our most intimate and valued philosophical traditions have cared more about "beings" and how to define them than about our ethical dealings with fellow humans." Therefore, Levinas had "sought to redress this pervasive and debilitating imbalance" by reinstating the centrality of human relationships and interactions in a philosophical discourse. In his pursuit of understanding and discovering an ethical theory of humans, he found himself emphasizing the moral and ethical derivative of the "Other" as having primacy over the self or the ego. Levinas criticizes "reason" as leading to totalitarianism. According to him, the rigid requirements of reason, and the "rational approach" can lead to totalitism and "ego-centrism" in its apparent voice of logical authority. Hence, Levinas rejected the approach of "reason" to ethics, and focused more on the "spiritual power of "love", or caritas." I would agree with Levinas that western philosophy has, to a larger extent, given more time and study to the questions of Being and ontology. However, his position on the other end of the spectrum - of jumping to ethics while leaving an undefined, unidentified metaphysics or epistemology - is just the same kind of mistake that he is railing against. The hierarchical nature of knowledge requires that for any attempts at reaching an explicit philosophy of ethics (which is essentially the study of morality in relation to men), one must have an explicit formulation of metaphysics (what is man) and epistemology (how can man know, or gain knowledge). Rand had consistently emphasized that jumping to ethics without a strong philosophical foundation in metaphysics and epistemology was futile and mystical. She observed that ethics flows from epistemology and ultimately from metaphysics. One of the reasons why Rand argued against and eschewed Libertarianism is because Libertarians use moral and ethical concepts like "rights" and "freedom" as their starting point while ignoring the fundamental philosophical foundations. Moreover, Rand emphasized Reason as the only epistemic faculty. Sciabarra had noted correctly that despite, and maybe because of her emphasis of Reason, Rand had constructed a full system of philosophy that had freedom and individualism at every level of its hierarchy. He admired Rand for having constructed such a system without letting Objectivism descend into a totalism or authoritarianism that many of its critics argue Reason invariably leads to. Sciabarra says that Rand may be the only one philosopher yet to have constructed a full system of philosophy that cannot be totalitarian because it is intricately fused with freedom at its very core.

Homosexuality and Pedophilia

2006-02-06T17:42:00.000-06:00

Dateline recently ran a series of stories that busted child-predators and pedophiles on national TV. They did that with the help of perverted-justice.com, an online watchdog of child-sex offenders. I must applaud the amazing achievements of private enterprises like Dateline, Perverted-Justice and Oprah in their agenda against pedophiles. They have done a lot more in much less time than government and law-enforcement agencies. Many people rightfully condemn pedophilia with the harshest of words. It is certainly a very heinous crime specifically because of its nature of creating life-long victims of very young minds. However, I will state this quite emphatically: Pedophilia is not an illness. It cannot be treated with psychological rehabilitation. Pedophilia is the same thing as homosexuality in that they are both expressions of an alternative sexual attraction besides the majority behavior of heterosexuality. The crucial difference between the two is that pedophilia is a CRIME because it willfully and ruthlessly exploits the persona and psyche of an individual who is incapable – psychologically and, in many cases, physically – of assenting to a mutually acceptable behavior. It is a physical and psychological rape of an individual who cannot yet assent to the manner of an activity he or she is being forced (seduced) to engage in. This applies equally to children and adults who are mentally incapacitated. Homosexuality was also at one point considered an illness (and many still do), and homosexuals were subjected to all forms of “treatments” in utter futility, and sometimes to destructive ends. Now, having recognized that homosexuality is merely another kind of expression under the complex diversity noticed in human sexuality, we understand that homosexual behavior is not only moral, but its free and proper expression among consenting adults is also perfectly healthy. Pedophilia is similar in that it is also a form of sexual expression that is borne out of the immensely complicated patterns of human sexuality observed among the 6 billion humans on this planet. It cannot be treated as an illness because doing so – as in the case of homosexual treatments – invariably backfires, is futile, and could be very destructive to the self and to others. Therefore, we should simply reject the so-called “benevolent” notion of “treating” the psyche of pedophiles to cure them of this 'illness'. It is incurable precisely because it is not an illness to begin with! We cannot risk having another child molested because we hoped we had treated the pedophile’s psychological illness. Moreover, it is only when we recognize that pedophilia is not an illness that we can morally condemn the actions of a pedophile as being criminal. The sexual urge is too strong to argue that pedophiles can be forced into abstinence and be taught to live among people and children. Forcing abstinence on a pedophile is similar to forcing abstinence of homosexuals – the consequence of that we notice with some frequency now among homosexual Catholic priests – in a majority of cases, it just does not work. I have some degree of sympathy for pedophiles simply because their sexual urges are motivated by their sexual orientation. I cannot say if it is entirely biological or entirely environmental; that is for science to decide. I lean toward the opinion that it is an intricate interaction between the biological and the environmental. Nonetheless, knowing that Human Beings are not helplessly subjected to biological instincts like barn-yard animals, knowing that we have free-will and volition to understand morals and rights and boundaries, there can be no arguable excuse for a crime against a child by saying that it is determined by one’s nature. Similarly, some homosexuals find it hard to morally defend homosexuality if it is understood to be a choice, and therefore, they hastily try to force their opinion that homosexuality is genetic and biological. I don’t think science has yet come to a conclusive decision on that issue, but the philosophical defense of homosexuality is not affected by any latest discovery of science. The fundamental principles of philosophy are already set, and allow proper guidance to the conclusion that homosexuality – as chosen or unchosen – is fully moral. Actually, to be more precise, the state of being a homosexual is really amoral if it is biological. It is the proper expression of homosexuality among adults that I regard as being subject to moral scrutiny. And in the event that science discovers that homosexuality is infact a choice or an influence, even in that case choosing to be homosexual can be a fully moral and ethical choice. And so, understanding that the sexual motive is strong, and understanding that pedophilia is not an illness, and understanding that demanding abstinence from them while placing them fully within a surrounding of young children is futile and dangerous, I believe that it is best for society – and pedophiles – that they be isolated from society altogether. Pedophilia

Forcing Morality Upon God

2006-02-06T14:50:00.000-06:00

Atheism In the context of all this violence that some Islamists justify as “holy” war, I am compelled to think from where do religious people get their morality? It seems to me that instead of making at least a pretense at claiming that their morality is derived from Divine revelation, these religious fundamentalists blatantly force upon their own God their very own concept of morality. As if claiming an Omniscient knowledge*, they openly claim that "Allah is with them" or "God hates fags" or "God likes this but does not like that", etc. etc. Instead of the “top-down” approach, they are engaged in a “bottom-up” approach. What they consider and deem as moral and good is what their God is now forced to accept. There is clearly no consenses among members of the same religion as to what their stance is on, say, abortion, gays, free speech, holy killing, capital punishement, etc. All these arbitrary dictats on religious morality is why, some time ago, I had made the argument that an Atheist can (and does in many cases) have a higher sense of morality than even the most "moral" religious person. I had argued that:

“a righteous and moral atheist has no supernatural or superphysical reason to be moral and righteous. He or she is moral because s/he CHOSE to be moral out of their own free will. The entire locus of morality is situated within their own beings and arises from within themselves.”

*Omniscience is the problem also with Pascal's wager argument that I hear so many people throw around... like as if believing in God is an insurance policy!

Mohammed Cartoons

2006-02-06T09:33:00.000-06:00

If the crazy muslims are going to kill each other and destroy their own communities over these cartoons of Muhammed, then we should publish more of them with more regularity! There is no better cure for this Islamic fundamentalist disease than to have them eradicate each other in their quest for heaven. If Christian fundamentalists of America (who are also a crazy bunch of people) can stop short of actual large scale riots when Hollywood releases movies like "The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ" or "Sarah Silverman: Jesus is Magic" and voice their protests legitimately, then I find no ounce of legitimacy or understanding in the violent behavior of the muslim fundamentalists. This is not an example of muslims having a more intense sense of religiosity than Christians, but an inherent difference in the concept of what it means to be a human being. Now, to be fair, yes I certainly agree that the cartoons are irreverant. Furthermore, I would support an apology and a retraction of the images IF those muslim thugs would have not descended into riots, and instead demanded an apology through legitimate means (voicing opinions through the media, peaceful protests, etc.). But the fact that they have descended into violence as their first and immediate resort just goes to show that they care less about the actual irreverance of their prophet and more about the simple excuse to use their newly smuggled guns out on the streets. Their idle, animalistic minds are tormented with boredom and incompetence. They pounce at any excuse to drown in a collectivist glob to hide their worthlessness and seek the brutish power in a pack of like-minded animals. The pictures of these rioters show that some of them are not even a self-righteously angry bunch of men, but thugs who gleefully enjoy the chaos, noise, and violence of their acts. And so, in solidarity with everyone who believes in expression without physical violence, I post these pictures too. Tag: mohammed cartoon

Week of January 30th

2006-02-03T17:15:00.000-06:00

Glad this week is over.

2006-02-03T13:31:00.000-06:00

I am so upset. My favorite boss is leaving in a couple weeks. This comes as a total shock to me. And I'm very very deeply saddened by it. It has been such a great working experience with her around. When I first heard the announcement at this morning's department meeting, I wondered if its time for me to leave too. This is sad. She is leaving to go to one of our competitors.

"Arrival" by John Enright

2006-02-01T17:34:00.000-06:00

"Arrival" is a beautiful, short poem written by John Enright about about Ayn Rand. He has more poems, essays and other works on his website. I believe he has also published a book.... all that info is on his site. It's certainly worth bookmarking!

Axioms and Irrational Numbers: Philosophy vs Science

2006-02-01T15:45:00.000-06:00

The other day, in my History of Philosophy class, we talked about Irrational numbers. Such a peculiar name for numbers as such, isn’t it? I suppose it’s to reflect our disposition toward these numbers, in that they make no sense to us, hence irrational. Anyway, the discussion about Irrational numbers arose because the professor was trying to argue about the duality of things – at least some things – duality in their nature, as having properties of one and many at the same time, or of being and non-being at the same time. I suppose this discussion was apt in the context of Plato’s Theaetetus that we were reading that tackled the perennial question of “what is knowledge?” Is knowledge wisdom? Is wisdom that by which the wise become wise? So, Irrational numbers – according to their nature – exhibit a certain duality of sorts. They can never be expressed numerically as a distinct and discrete quantity. Yet, one can illustrate an Irrational number in figures and diagrams with discrete boundaries and measurements. Hence, the apparently confounding nature of these numbers that render themselves entirely distinct in one feature, but utterly boundless in another form is, to say the least, very puzzling, and very interesting. In class, I thought of how interesting a parallel these Irrational numbers have with newer discoveries about the nature of Quantum particles. Based upon latest scientific knowledge (which may or may not be changed in the future), it seems like quantum particles exhibit similar “irrational” dualities of have different natures of "being" in different situations. To the novitiate Objectivist, this new revelation of duality in existence comes as a shock and repudiation of some deeply held convictions. Does this mean that the Aristotelian principle of non-contradiction and the Objectivist axiom of Identity have been invalidated? On the surface, that is what it seems. However, these doubts and hasty conclusions typically have at their root, a fundamental misunderstanding – or maybe a complete lack of understanding – of the nature of axioms and the role of philosophy. Take water for example: The atomic elements that constitute what we call "water" remains the same regardless of what state of "being" we observe it in - water can be solid, liquid, or vaporous. The apparent existence of discrete boundaries when water is ice and the lack of it when water is liquid or vaporous has no bearing on the fact that water exists with an identity. One of the most illuminating insights of Objectivism is that causality is an expression of an existent's identity, i.e. an existent's identity determines its actions; the law of causality is not attempting to explain the action of one existent over another but of the existent's nature and its actions/manifestations. So, regardless of what new scientific discoveries tell us, we must understand that once we have a set of valid axiomatic principles, they cannot be disproven, changed, or modified by any new bits of knowledge. In fact, all knowledge should consistently conform to the fundamental axioms, and that is one good way of fact-checking. The role of philosophy is not to constantly change and adapt its principles with every new wave of scientific knowledge. This has been a great error committed by many philosophers of the past. They have seeked to have their philosophical theories corroborated by Science, rather than observe the dynamic and reciprocal relationship between the two fields. Philosophy certainly provides the most expansive ground of principles for Science to build upon, but above that, Philosophy relies on Science for inductive principles and Science relies on Philosophy for logical methodology, insights into nature and identity, etc. As Rand said, Philosophy says that things exist and that they have specific natures; it is now the job of Science to discover the specific identities of these existents, classify and categorize them, and build a hierarchy of information. In his book, the Russian Radical, Sciabarra explains Rand as seeking a "reconciliation of philosophy and science." Rand had argued that "Philosophy cannot depend on a changing physics for its ontological foundations... [but] genuine science must depend on philosophy to validate its modes of inquiry." Quoting further from the Russian Radical:

"...cosmological speculation depends on an imaginary omniscient standpoint. As Peikoff emphasizes, Rand's Objectivism makes a distinction between metaphysics and fantasy. There can be no purely deductive attempt to reveal the ultimate substances of reality."

When Einstein broke out with this theory of Relativity in Science, there was a flurry of activity in non-scientific circles to emulate Einstein's brilliant theory in their respective fields - thus, a culture of relativism gained influence in the Arts, in philosophy, in anthropology, etc. Before that, Newtonian physics and possibly also Darwinian theories of evolution influenced philosophers into rigid reductionism, atomism, and determinism. In Evidence of the Senses, David Kelley makes the argument that there are also Galilean influences in Cartesian, Kantian and Lockean theories. According to Kelley, the subjectivist and representationalist theories of consciousness borrowed their credibility from the scientific discoveries Galileo made in studies of perceptions of color and temperature. So, going back to my philosophy class, the professor discussed the "problem" of Irrational numbers in such a way that I think left an impression in the minds of the students that reality is in a state of flux. Things are neither this nor that but can be both and not both. Contradictions are a part of reality. It is easy to see then how mysticism and supernaturalism can easily creep in under such an unruly and chaotic epistemology.

CEO's Making Too Much Money

2006-01-31T09:55:00.000-06:00

There has been much hoopla made about large corporation CEO’s having multi-million dollar salaries and benefits packages. I don’t see why not. Before I begin to agree that CEO’s may be undeservedly making too much money, I need to be convinced of some good reasons why major sport athletes command multi-million dollar deals. Given the role of an athlete and a CEO of a corporation, given their function as such in society, given the kinds of risks and rewards they play with, I need to be convinced that an athlete deserves all that money but a CEO does not.

Culture of Truthiness

2006-01-27T11:18:00.000-06:00

"Truthiness" is the word of the year, nominated by the American Dialect Society. Wikipedia defines "truthiness" as "the quality by which someone purports to know something emotionally or instinctively, without regard to evidence or to what the person might conclude from intellectual examination." Isn't there already a word for that - faith? "A firm belief in something for which there is no proof." And to that I would add, a belief in something for which there is no need or regard for proof. I think I see the reason behind the rapid and immediate acceptance of this new word 'truthiness'. People are too afraid to come out explicitly and say they hold whatever beliefs just on faith. Faith has come to have a rather religious connotation, and outside of the sphere of religious discourse, it is almost always perceived negatively or condescendingly. A journalist cannot put out an article based on faith - but now, he can argue for the 'truthiness' of the work. G.W. Bush might not be too successful in defending his reliance on faulty intelligence because he had faith in it, but he can probably be more convincing if he says he felt some truth in it - it had a quality of truth that he could feel instinctively and emotionally. Contemporary culture now have an expression to convey their desire to evade the hard demands of proof and reality, and express their opinions based on an instinctual, emotional, whimsical foundation. They have typically shyed away from using the word "faith" to justify their convictions, but the word 'truthiness' gives them a good recourse to atleast the semantic similarity with actual and real truth. It helps them control or ignore their cognitive dissonance when they spout something so utterly lacking of any evidence and yet pass it off as kind-of-sort-of-true by classifying it as "truthy", having "truthiness", not necessarily being "true". Is only "morality" meaningless today? "Truth" is also clearly getting to be meaningless. All this talk about "truth" reminds me of Rand's response to the philosopher John Hospers. Hospers challenged Rand's definition of truth as "the recognition of reality". Hospers argued that truth is not recognition because it is not contingent upon anyone to 'recognize' it. He argued that whatever is true, is true regardless of whether one recognizes it, accepts it, or not. Rand replied by clarifying the mistake Hospers was making. She pointed out that "truth" is an epistemic concept to refer to the activity of the mind in relation to reality, not to point at reality itself. The concept that points to reality itself is fact. The difference between fact and truth is that facts exists as they are, regardless of any recognition. Truth, however, needs to be identified, realized, and accepted. One can twist the truth (or call it "truthy") or even refuse to recognize a fact as true, but that does not render the fact as non-existent. Existence exists as is. For example, one can deny that a tree exists, or even evade the need to affirm or deny that a tree exists. This does not mean that the person has blasted the tree out of existence by evading it or denying it. The fact of the tree remains, though the truth of the tree has not been, known, recognized or accepted. The former is a metaphysical issue and the latter is an epistemological issue. So, our culture is ever so eager to deny or evade the truth of the facts, but need a face-saving contruct to hide behind. They are well aware that in matter of facts - metaphysically - there are no gray areas possible. Hence, they create the grayness of "truthiness" in the epistemic realm of what they accept or recognize as truth. Some of them are too secular to honestly concede that their convictions are merely matters of faith.

Democracy Wins In Palestine

2006-01-26T10:46:00.000-06:00

I don’t understand why G.W. Bush says he will not deal with Hamas despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people of Palestine have democratically elected Hamas leaders to power. Bush argues that unless Hamas gives up its agenda of destroying Israel, the United States will not engage in any dealings with the new government. But I see no reason why Bush holds this position! The people of Palestine have spoken their will through this election, in effect saying that “we the people of Palestine agree and support Hamas in their contention that Israel is an enemy and a threat that must be destroyed.” If morality is that which a majority or plurality of people say it is, then in a society of Islamic fundamentalists, being a freethinking, atheist individualist should be completely immoral. The Palestinian agenda to destroy Israel is perfectly moral because it is what its people want. Intellectuals who argue social and political theories based on “reasonable pluralism” within a society or what is practically expedient and acceptable to the majority of the people should be quite pleased with the election results in Palestine. The Utilitarian principle of the greatest good for the greatest number has borne fruition in the democratic voices of more than 75% of Palestinians who chose Hamas as their representatives. Some might argue that it is not utilitarian because Hamas, as an organization that undisputedly practices terror tactics, is not good for the greatest number – harmful for other countries and the whole world. But a quick response to that would be: well, it’s only a matter of time. If the standard of the “good” is merely a numbers game, then I suppose we could always wait for Hamas to increase its numbers of allegiance and gain support from other terror-supporting nations. Once we reach a majoritarian situation of more countries under dictatorships, tyrannies, and fundamentalists, then we can proudly sing the praises of Utilitarian morality. Or, let’s discard Utilitarianism and accept morality as derived from Divine Revelation, or some such thing. Well, again, it’s only a matter of time before the Muslims either convert all Christians to Islam or just blow up the one’s that don’t, and establish the authority of Islamic morality in the world. Or, even better, let’s discard all these collectivist moralities; let us be progressive in our thinking and allow for greater tolerance and acceptance of diverse, cultural moralities. There are different people from different cultures, from different backgrounds, from different mind-sets, and hence their concept of right and wrong is different from ours. Each individual has his own sense of right and wrong. Let’s be tolerant of them all and let morality be subjective - promiscuous. Well, then my original question arises again: Why doesn’t Bush accept the authority of Hamas and their subjectively moral agenda of destroying Israel? Also, why are we at war with terrorism? What we condemn as terrorism is infact benevolent martyrdom. It is the ultimate, supremely moral sacrifice of one’s life to one’s personal convictions. It is immoral to wage a war against those who sacrifice their lives for a cause that they so ardently believe and hold on to. Actually, here is the ultimate truth: There is no morality. It is a meaningless construct.

Is Poetry Only That Which Rhymes?

2006-01-25T08:30:00.000-06:00

John has an essay that attempts to answer the question, "Is Poetry That Which Rhymes". It is an interesting read, and I was surprised to discover his more "serious" works of poetry besides the funny couplets he has on each and every one of his posts. Clearly, as evidenced from his blog, he has a bias towards rhyming verse. Hence, his essay invariably leads him to propose (though, he does it rather timidly) that writings that do not have a rhyming scheme is " for most part... either an inferior species of poetry, or not poetry at all." Ofcourse, if my creative-writing blog is any indication, my position is in stark opposition to John's. In his insistance that "poetry" should have rhyme that "stirs the soul", and that it is only or mostly accomplished by words that have a certain rhythmic "sound effect", John has, I believe, unnaturally twisted and obfuscated the purpose and nature of what poetry is and can be. Interestingly, Rand had once declared (in one of her serious lapses of good judgment) that free verse was on a level "lower than free lunches" (Ayn Rand Answers: Q&A) So, Rand would presumbly have agreed with John's requirement that poetry be necessarily constituted of rhyme and rhythm. However, I believe that John's argument that poetry as Art should have rhyme reduces the expansive breadth of poetry-writing into a ludicrous and juvenile caricature. I think John is committing the fallacy of reifying one isolated characteristic of poetry and holding it as its most essential constituent. In committing that fallacy, I think John opens the door to any self-professed "poet" to peddle any work of writing of substantial length with a catchy rhyme as poetry that is Art. However, to give John his proper credit, he does expressly state that not all rhyming constructions can be considered poetry. And similarly, I argue that not any random collection of metaphors and alliterations can be accepted as poetry either. Note that the fallacy in accepting indiscriminately any construction of rhyme or any collection of metaphors is the fallacy of isolating a constituent from the context and whole that gives it its proper meaning. What differentiates poetry from regular fiction is not only that poetry has a rhyme - though it is certainly one possible differentiating property - but also that poetry seeks to express values in a medium and method not typical in common parlance. Poetry deals heavily with metaphors, abstractions, and emotive tools. Other forms of writing - whether fiction or non-fiction - cannot so exclusively and heavily depend on metaphors and abstractions because by their very definition, they are seeking to convey reality as it is (in the case of non-fiction) or as imagined to be (as in fiction). Novels, as an example, cannot be drenched with metaphors and abstractions or esoteric references that steal the objective purpose, theme, plot, and motive out of the story, such that the reader is honestly lost and cannot decipher those elements of the story. On the other hand, poetry as Art combines and integrates convincingly elements like rhythm, sound effects, rhyme, metaphors, personifications, abstractions, etc. without giving any of these constituents undue emphasis or priority over the other. Poems have the liberty of being esoteric, while still maintaining their unique expression of values - those values have the freedom to be expressed in rhythmic metaphors, unsual placement of words, unique construction of lines, etc. The specific set of constituents that a poet chooses to use will dictate the kind of poetry that will be created. Poems that can be considered Art should be the ones in which it is unequivocally clear that the poet has skillfully, deliberately, and creatively used a group of, or a set of, poetic tools that convey the predominant ethos in the piece of writing. Rhyme, in of itself, cannot legitimize a piece of writing as poetry, just as a collection of metaphors can not. Similarly, requiring that every poem have rhyme is as vacant as requiring that every poem have metaphors. Reifying any one constituent exclusively or heavily while compromising others accomplishes only a feeble grasp of the vast landscape of expressiveness that the medium of poetry provides.

My Invisible World

2006-01-24T11:50:00.000-06:00

I am not a “one world”-er. I despise the concept of drowning individuality into the masses of collectivism. I do not wish to see the countries of this world consolidating power and creating monolithic institutions of governance over all. And similarly, I do not wish to see countries that carve their boundaries in the hearts and minds of people. I do not want governments telling their people where to travel, who to live with, who to fall in love with, where to buy from, and who to sell to. I am shocked at how our governments even dare to prescribe the kinds of relationships individuals can have with one-another. I am appalled by the brazen interference of the government in my decision to have a family or a relationship across political boundaries. I believe that the only reason we have let governments become so viciously powerful and have anesthetized ourselves to their interference in our lives is because collectivism and the acceptance of the majoritarian opinion is considered valid, 'democratic', and even morally fair. Just as in our private lives, we have tended to accept the collectivist opinions of our culture, our tribe, our religion, our tradition, our race, our sexual orientation, our class, our nationality, our ethnicity, our status, our society – we accept and become obedient to these collectivist forces in our lives and so, extrapolating that to the geo-political scale, we find it only logical that we become obedient to what our government tells us to do – regardless of whether that is even the proper role of the government. We are so used to subsuming our individuality to larger collective voices that we now think it is only proper to be obedient to these masses, and we sometimes even actively seek to identify ourselves with it. In our lives, we listen to our parents about who to marry or what career to choose, we look to our race to decide who to select as a romantic partner, we look to our priests and religious leaders to tell us what to believe and what is moral, we observe the trends of our socio-economic class to decide which clubs to join and who to be affiliated with, we look to our traditions to decide how to act and what to celebrate – all these are instances of our collectivist desires to seek our personal identity in things above and beyond ourselves. It stands to reason then that these same collectivist tendencies allow us to stand by the roadside nonchalantly as the government (the collective replacement of the race, or the tribe, or the religious leaders) decides to pass law after law, dictating how we live our private lives. Ban smoking. Ban gambling. Ban drugs. Don't ban alcohol. Ban foie gras in restaurants. Ban mowing your lawns on Sunday. Ban personal travel to Cuba. Cannot bring your lover from Brazil to the US just because you love them, etc. etc. I want a world where the government is invisible. I want to live in a world where there are no nation-states interacting or trading with each other, but individuals – only individuals – from different countries freely trading and interacting with each other. A world of invisible boundaries and invisible governments. A world of individuals who seek no higher identity above their own selves. Wishful thinking? Yes.

Pictures From My Balcony

2006-01-23T13:35:00.000-06:00

Pictures of the beautiful Chicago skyline as seen from my 3rd floor balcony. :) I am in love with the view I have.

I'm Trying to Understand Rawls

2006-01-20T12:47:00.000-06:00

Dr. Dan Slater, from the debate of a few days ago, insisted on not basing his 'practical' policy suggestions on any philosophical principle, and yet with some insistence from the opposition side (myself included), Slater conceded that he had been influenced to some significant degree by John Rawls' fairness theory of justice and Utilitarian-Majoritarian moral principles. Now, I have had only a cursory knowledge of Rawls, mostly through secondary sources that have cited him or have critiqued his works, such as Rawls' colleague at Harvard, Robert Nozick and some liberatarian articles from the Mises Institute. I intended to read more of and about Rawls and the works of other authors in the relation to his ideas. I believe it is necessary to examine as much as is possible, differing viewpoints before I can settle with and accept honestly any particular intellectual framework. But from what I have been reading, it is amazing that the Rawlsian inconsistencies have not been cited as an effective reason to dismiss atleast a part, if not all, of his theories. And quite the contrary, he is regarded as one of the most influential political philosophers of the 20th century. Rawls argued against bringing metaphysics and epistemological studies into Political Philosophy because, based on his Kantian influence, he accepted that "reasonable pluralism" on what constitutes human nature and the pursuit of a good life is an "evil" that is best left avoided. Attempting to study the underlying motivations of human nature and pursuit is, on principle, defeatist because those aspects are, in typical Kantian fashion, unknowable. Thus, Rawls basis his theories of justice and moral policy not on any metaphysical or epistemic understanding of the human beings that constitute society, but on the majoritarian opinions of whatever is accepted as "reasonable" by the current society. This, ofcourse, then logically leads him to endorse different and even opposite policy behaviors based upon seemingly insubstantial factors like geographic boundaries. This means Rawlsian political theories would stand in starck opposition to mine in the specific issue of Immigration and human mobility. It seems contrary to common intuition that you can arbitrarily claim certain acts or modes of behavior as "good" without giving any reason why - or, like Rawls does, insisting that there need not be any reason why. Well, to be fair, Rawls does place the reason for accepting any given policy in the hands of the society in question. It is the only method consistent with democracy, he argues. On the surface, that argument seems fair enough - unless you unfortunately happen to fall in the minority category, in which case you will most likely be unhappy about the rules and policies you are expected to obey. I guess one could justify it as the collateral for having democracy. Aristotle, so many centuries ago, recognized this fact and called democracy an evil that must be tolerated. So, what is Objectivism and libertarianism advocating if they vehemently oppose Rawlsian theories?Are they railing against democracy? Do Objectivists inadvertently advocate a form of oligarchy veiled behind euphemisms like individual self-determinism? It seems to me that "democracy" has been so adulterated as a concept, that people no longer understand democracy as separate from majoritarianism. I wish to ponder why democracy cannot be compatable individual autonomy. Why does democratic policies almost always mean policies that are constructed by the majority group of people according to their consistencies. At this point, I understand Rand's position that government and legislative bodies should stay out of any area that does not directly relate to security, protection, and defense. Under an individualistic laissez-faire system, there would not arise a situation where the majority would be creating any social or economic policies. That would not be the role of the government or of the legislative bodies. It seems to me that democracy is popularly assumed to mean that the government is in charge of creating and enforcing policies that determine how individuals will act in a society by authority of the majority group that entrusted the government with such power. But democracy can clearly be separated from such an assumption. A democratic system could also mean that the citizens of a country elect their representatives and entrust them ONLY with the powers to enact security and defense-related policies - policies that would ensure the protection of fundamental, individual rights that is common to all human beings. It would also create judidicial bodies to arbitrate on matters that solely concern any alleged violation of such fundamental rights. Under such a democratic system then, there is no need for "reasonable pluralism" because there is no question of legitimizing or compromising anyone's personal understanding of what the "good" life is for themselves. The good life would be whatever you wish to define it as within the boundaries of your rights without the violation of someone else's right. There is no need to enforce the "majority" consesus of the "good" life on any member of the minority. Each individual would be and should be free to be autonomous and self-directed. I admit that political philosophy is an area that I have not given much attention to, and so my thoughts might be racked with problems and inconsistencies. I am open to any criticisms or insights to the matter.

Objectivist Discussions of Art

2006-01-19T10:12:00.000-06:00

[On Noodlefood, in a post titled "Chimp Art", Diana has some great links for those of you art buffs who would like to test yourself on true or fake modern art pieces. The following post is a slightly modified version of my earlier discussions about Art and its purpose in human life. I also highly recommend reading "What Art Is" by Torres & Marder Kamhi. Also check out their website at www.aristos.org for much more interesting discussions of Art from an Objectivist-oriented perspective.] The Objectivist philosophy correctly understands Art as spiritual nourishment for the human consciousness. And just as you would not feed your body foul and rotten food that is infested with worms, you should not feed your mind and your consciousness with foul creations of charlatans masquarading as Artists. You have the right to insist that Art be as nourishing to your mind as the food you eat is to your body. The works of Art created by the Greats like Da Vinci, Raphaelo, Giotto, Beethoven, Michaelangelo, all have one common theme running through them: they lead the human mind to visions of greatness, to the idealization of the human form and of the human condition -- while that greatness was perceived to belong to or come from Divine Beings, nonetheless, the invariable consequence of focusing on such greatness was to create a desire within feeble humans the urge to get as close as possible to that sense of the highest height. The notion that humans were frail and feeble and the Divine was the ideal of everything good and desirable, was accepted as self-evident in a culture that believed in God, heaven, hell, souls, spirits, and ghosts. So, how did we regress from that wonderful vision of high ideals being recorded in Art, to the rubbish being splattered across our faces today, to the trash being piled up in front of our yards as “Ready-made Art”, to the jibberish being recited in our schools, to the maniacal gyrations of modern hip-shakers? If history can give us any indication, the nature and sophistication of Art in a civlization gives great predictions to the future of that culture. European and western civilizations have flourished the most with its Art indicating idealistic representations of the Human individual form, of Human life and endeavors, of Human achievements, while African and South Asian civilizations in particular have grotesquely disfigured the Human form, idealizing, for example the cow or the snake over the human form. And we can see evidence of robust, thinking minds are primarily in cultures that have nourished their spirits with the visions of greatness in their own human images, what they perceive to be "God-like" images. Infact, the judeo-christian culture made God look like Man, in Man's image and in Man's creation, and thus elevated Man itself to the status of God.This must have obviously served as a great boost to the human ego, allowing Man to gain such tremendous self-confidence in his ability to know more and become more like the God he created. This self-identification with God Himself allowed Humans to perceive the Universe with the Intelligence that was only thought possibile to gods. Primitive man did not understand the Universe nor did they seek much to understand it. They merely bowed their heads and worshipped it. The consequence of the Christian movement was to elevate man's pride in being Human, and thus seek to perceive the world as God would. In what was truly man's greatest act of conceit, he captured all the greatest notions of his God and manifested that in the body of ONE HUMAN BEING - Jesus, which meant that the Human body was idealized and to withhold the essence of the fully Divine. The representations in the Art forms that resulted from such a boost of human ego caused by the Christian movement, I believe, captured that human-divine idealization, which also spurred the nourishment of the Human consciousness that was pulled to elevated levels of aspirations, which increased the level of our own assessment of worth and intelligence and esteem... finally, resulting in the amazing and enlightening evidences of human genius in other spheres of the physical sciences and technology. On the other hand, evidence of mal-nourished minds are also closely associated with mal-nourished cultures and societies. They have plenty of hissing snakes and meandering cows to worship, but very few thinking minds that have a vision to look up to. And so, I am afraid of what might happen to our culture now if we permit the unrestrained assault of all that rubbish being dished out as art to the sanctity of our minds. Are we deliberately permitting the poisoning of our spiritual food? Will we be witnesses to the fall of our own civilization, to the stagnation of mal-nourished minds, to the vile odor of decaying consciousness?

Nature's Song

2006-01-18T09:36:00.000-06:00

On ebbing crescents of silver waves, I see memories gathering percolating crashing It's mournful sighs whispered to pearly pebbles like faded stars twinkling slowly swaying Every blue memory reflected every stony silence rejected it's gushing sounds echoing through Van Gogh's clouds in muffled hearts weep a lover's Psalm Mine eyes add another drop to the torrent of his saline tears my hands reach out to grasp his soul sinking in dark nights of fear Under the grey moonlit mantle A sad river reveals my passion water-colored paintings of pearly smooth pebbles with every smile for your thoughts in me The river stops a moment to sigh with me

Debate: Is America Obligated to Provide Foreign Aid

2006-01-17T11:16:00.000-06:00

So I attended last night’s debate at the University of Chicago between Dr. Yaron Brook from the Ayn Rand Institute and Dr. Dan Slater, assistant professor at the Uni. Of Chicago. So let me first begin by saying, both debaters were HOT! :-) Dr. Slater is a surprisingly young, attractive, man with the most perfect set of white teeth I’ve ever seen. And then, Dr. Yaron Brook – despite him being older than Dr. Slater, was certainly a very attractive man himself! And coupled with his incredibly sharp intellect, a deep sexy voice, and a strangely funny accent made all the more so irresistible. :-) Anyway, getting down to the important matters. The topic of last nights debate was “America should NOT be obligated to provide foreign aid”. Of course, Dr. Yaron Brook was the proposition and Dr. Slater presented the opposition side. Due to a strange debate format, after the main speakers presented their sides, the debate floor was opened briefly to audience members who could present up to 3 minutes for or against each position. It was during this period that I witnessed a sadly disappointing and very embarrassing display of “pro-Objectivists” individuals who zealously took the stage to present their argument (if you can call it that). While the opposition speakers could be dismissed easily as being subjectivists, holding internally inconsistent positions, appealing to random whims and emotions, the pro-Objectivists were far worse, in that they spouted obediently memorized “Objectivist” phrases like “human dignity”, generated floating ideals that they clearly had no rational understanding of why they held them, and presented dogmatic, half-baked arguments that did nothing but harm Dr. Brook’s presentation. After that debacle of audience participation, Dr. Brook got up to the podium and seemed daunted by the task of not only having to respond to the opposition but also undo the damage done by the “Objectivist” audience speakers. I loved Dr. Brook’s clear and precise tone. There was no doubt that he had an incredible depth of understanding the issues being discussed. I was simply amazed at the breadth and expansiveness of Dr. Brook’s knowledge in global economic and political history. Throughout the debate, Dr. Dan Slater undertook great pains to remind the audience that his expertise was not in philosophy or even economics. He desperately wanted to place the debate on “practical” grounds and discuss “practical” solutions. I thought to myself, if Dr. Yaron Brook, who is a professor of Finance and has his expertise in economics, can still coherently, comprehensively, and persuasively give a strong philosophic foundation for holding his eco-political positions, then why can I not expect or demand the same from Dr. Slater? It is strange how Dr. Slater’s academic training has disposed his intellectual capabilities into such a narrow scope that his thinking skills are stunted in the areas he believes are not directly related to his chosen field. One must wonder how such isolated bits of knowledge and narrow expertise can ever be held validly and be accepted as enough criterion to be labeled an “intellectual”. Anyway, the debate got really exciting and tense as Dr. Brook spelled out exactly all the practical implications of an objectively ethical and moral foreign policy. I thought the best moment in the debate came when a student asked Dr. Brook if he would demand his $5 back that was taken by the government to cure the whooping cough of a little child in sub-Saharan Africa. Dr. Brook responded, in his typically consistent fashion, “Yes. I would”. His argument in effect was that how could anyone point a gun to his head and extort his money without his permission, regardless of the reason? He asked, what if he needed that $5 for his own son who had whooping cough? Today you demand $5, what would stop you from demanding $10 tomorrow? Why not demand half of the paycheck to cure the malaria of dying children in Africa? Where does it stop? Who stops it? Dr. Slater responded to this “slippery slope” argument by claiming that it is among his most hated arguments in a debate. Dr. Slater wanted to argue that in the real, practical world, there isn’t any “slippery slope”, that this concept is an invention of thinkers for argumentation and reflect nothing in reality. Dr. Yaron Brooks came back with a robust explication of real and concrete examples of where the “slippery slope” was clearly in effect. Another criticism Dr. Slater leveled against Dr. Brook was that he was being “utopian”, “idealistic”, “impractical”. Sadly, I felt that Dr. Brook never directly and explicitly responded to those charges, even though I must point out that the bulk of his arguments were concrete examples from a sound knowledge of geo-political history, littered with dates, statistics, and events, and concrete scenarios of eco-political consequences of ideologies. However, because Dr. Brook prefaced these concrete examples with a philosophical foundation, I think the audience and Dr. Slater were able to cunningly dismiss him as being “philosophical” and not “real”. I wished that Dr. Brook had stated explicitly that the practical certainly flows from the philosophical, and that a dichotomy between the two is false and dishonest. During the Q&A session, I decided that someone ought to challenge Dr. Slater’s insistence on practicality. I spoke up to point out the fact that despite Dr. Slater’s own admission that the current practicalities are inefficient, corrupt, and somewhat immoral, what makes him have so much faith in the status quo as an evil that is necessary nonetheless. I asked him, how did he decide what is practical from what is not practical as a solution? If he eschewed principles as too abstract for this discussion, I demanded to know on what authority was he basing his ‘practical’ approach? And who got to decide what is practical for everyone else? I alluded to the fact that his so-called non-philosophical stance was in fact certainly settled upon randomly held abstract principles. His responses were incoherent and generally dismissive, as if that were something remote from the topic at discussion, and he did not want to get into that. Another important realization I came upon during this debate was that there was a clear discord of accepted terminologies in the audience. I realized that Objectivism has a radically unique, and I believe accurate, understanding of certain terms that non-Objectivists are oblivious to. And so, at this debate forum with considerably more non-Objectivists, Dr. Brook may have lost his audience to naïve confusions about terms like ‘value-systems’, ‘rational’, and ‘self-interest’. Many of the opposition arguments ran with their misunderstood terminologies to attack the proposition’s arguments. I think they equaled ‘rational’ with ‘rationalization’, ‘self-interest’ with ‘hedonism’, and ‘value-system’ with subjective ‘whim-worship’. Of course, this is no fault of Dr. Brook. In the allotted time and strange debate format that he had to work with, Dr. Brook could not solidly explicate the meanings of his terms and concepts at the outset of the debate. In the end, it didn’t seem too clear which side won the debate. In my opinion, Dr. Brook’s argument was seriously undermined by the young, over-zealous, pro-Objectivist individuals who could not coherently present their case. Yet, regardless of who “won” the debate, I thought it was an exciting and incredibly stimulating event. I was surprised by the large crowd it drew (and I was especially pleased to notice many young and attractive men in the audience) :-) Tag:Objectivism

Private Discussion with Dr. Slater and Dr. Brook

2006-01-17T11:08:00.000-06:00

I did get an opportunity to speak directly and privately with both, Dr. Slater and Dr. Yaron Brook at the end of the debate. Dr. Slater and I got into a brief discussion of logic and I was baffled by his blatant inconsistencies and lack of understanding logical concepts. When I pointed out that his so-called “practical” solutions were based on the philosophic principles of Utilitarianism – the greatest good for the greatest number, and Altruism – the sacrifice of the self for the benefit of the other, he responded by saying that those principles are grounded in the practicality of a democratic nation. I then asked him, would his concept of democracy then also allow for the tyranny of the majority? If the majority is your standard of practical morality, then what obligates you to respect the rights of minorities like gays and lesbians? Why extend civil rights to gays and lesbians and create a furor in the majority American society that is fully against it? Anyway, my private discussion with Dr. Brook yielded much more important intellectual ammunition for myself. All this time, I have been unsettled by the Objectivist position that not only should the initiation of force be retaliated against, but the also the initiation of a credible threat to use force must be responded to with force. In other words, the concept of pre-emption, I could not intellectually wrap my brain around it. So, I brought up this issue with Dr. Brook. I argued that if the opposition has not attacked yet, but merely made a threat to attack, why must one respond with preemptory retaliation? If someone draws a gun out at me, I could also draw a gun out at him simultaneously. Thus, I could create a level field, and then engage in every attempt at convincing the attacker to drop his gun before I shoot him. I argued that isn’t the right to life applicable to all human beings and not just to myself? Shouldn’t I be prudent in my response to this attacker in that, I give him a moment of pause to reconsider and respect my right to live just as I am respecting his right to live? Dr. Brook, however, insisted that I must shoot him without giving him any need or chance to pause, hesitate, or speak. That I am obligated to do so if I have any ounce of self-esteem and selfish desire to live. That anyone initiating force or a credible threat to my rights has already lost all of his own personal rights. There can be no rights in front of a gun. It’s either my life or his. If I had any true desire to live, I would not even allow for the remotest possibility for this attacker to kill me. Later on at night, as I was at home thinking about what Dr. Brook argued, I realized what my error was. I realized that I was reifying the concept of “human rights” without any regard to “human beings”. I realized that rights exist only in the context and existence of free individuals. I was wrong in ascribing a reified status to “rights” without understanding that there can be no rights without the context of free people interacting with each other voluntarily. Tag:Objectivism

Dervishes In Words

2006-01-16T12:39:00.000-06:00

Recently, I gathered some of my creative writing works and placed them all in a blog of their own. I titled it “Dervishes In Words”, cuz that’s kinda how I think about creative writing. So, this post serves as an official Introduction to my new creative-writing blog. :) Also, I was thinking of how my poems can be classified under different genres. For example, I have written “Feasting on Seconds” that can be understood as a dark poem in the genre of horror. I’ve written a few light and Romantic poems, like "Your Eyes" and "Silhouette Romance". "A Lover’s Death" could be classified under Melodrama or Tragedy – a “tear-jerker” of sorts. "Stolen Music" might be in a strangely unique category. I’m not sure where that would fit. Maybe a cross-blend of Romance and Suspense? I also have some Erotica, believe it or not! Certainly, "Living Like Gods" and "I Jumped" could be considered “R-rated” works. And then, I have a few others like "God was having Lunch at the Picasso" and "Mundane Morning Commute" that are just light, fun poems inspired by strangers that I’ve come across randomly only for a few moments that I decided to idolize them through my poetry. An homage of sorts – to man, beautiful men, in particular. :) I suppose they could be classified as “Religious/Spiritual”! There are many other works that I have not placed into Dervishes In Words. I have some reasons for doing that - mostly they have to do with my own disatisfaction with their artistic quality.

God's Original Plan for Humanity

2006-01-16T10:14:00.000-06:00

Assume that the Genesis story in the Bible is true. Therefore, God exists. God created man in His image. Then he created woman out of man. Strangely, however, God commanded Adam and Eve to not eat the fruits of the tree of life and knowledge. In other words, God made man and woman in His image except for the knowledge and immortal life part. So, “His image” is quite questionable as to what it means. It is said in the book of Genesis that before eating of the forbidden fruit, man had no concept of sin or wrong or evil. It was after having eaten the fruit from the “Serpent” that sin entered into the world. Sin implies immorality – which also implies a possibility of morality. After they ate the fruit, Adam noticed Eve as a “woman” and apparently that reveals the human nature of sinful lust that became possible for Adam to experience. So, God originally then intended Adam and Eve to remain oblivious of good and bad, right or wrong, moral and evil. Which further implies that God did not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge of such things, and of many other things that arise from such knowledge – like love, values, virtues, hatred, benevolence, choice, freedom, nurture, etc. Thus, it seems like God created Adam and Eve just like He created all the other animals – like just another species – endowed with life, but a blank stare of ignorance in their eyes. God did not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge – to know what is admirable, what is deserving of praise, what is evil, etc. Knowledge was forbidden. In other words, God’s Divine plan for humanity was to keep us in a perpetual state of ignorant void – there can be no “happy” “innocent” state without the possibility of experiencing unhappiness or evil – an infant is not “happy” or “innocent” in the true meaning of the word, the infant is merely clueless, like any other animal would be, only sometimes responding pleasurably to pleasurable stimuli. But, humans foiled God’s Divine plan (clearly, foiling God’s plan is possible, according to the Bible) in cahoots with the Devil. The Devil liberated human beings from the state of ignorance and animal-like existence. The Devil gave us the glimpse of immense possibilities, of achievements, of the concept of happiness, joy, love, of the higher meanings of morality, choice, freedom, failure, etc. The Devil made the world we live in, possible. The Devil free-ed humans to build our own heaven, here in Earth. Of course, because of our freedom, we also screw up a lot. But hey, I still prefer living like this today than living like how God intended Humans to live – as ignorant animals with no knowledge, no concept of any values, no experience of love or sexual intimacy, no worth, no pride, no self-esteem. Atheism

Teaching Ethics - And The Dialectic

2006-01-13T11:01:00.000-06:00

It is interesting that for all the naive accusations leveled against Objectivism as being dogmatic, absolutist, and "black-and-white", the official Ayn Rand Institute's position on teaching ethics in the classroom is that of broad alternatives. As referenced by this blog in "The Vice of Applied Ethics", the ARI promotes an approach of self-determined choice in the particular ethical principles that can be adopted by students after they have been educated on the broad range of ethical theories, their merits and their pitfalls. There is a certain tendency among many college students to go through a usual phase of philosophical thinking that start out with being "Absolutist" in their freshman-sophomore years, then after being introduced to the diverse theoretical arguments in various disciplines, they invariably tend to move towards a sense of "Relativism" in their view of the world, and finally, if all goes well, very few students who actually engage their minds in critical analysis of the information they learn through the years in college, come out with the ability to think in terms of "Dialectic Synthesis". Dialectic synthesis is a very powerful method of thinking because it can often lead the thinker to discover hidden nuances and diverse perspectives; it trains the thinker to think in terms of integration and synthesis, not in terms of isolated, disembodied units of knowledge. Some of the most well-known dialectic philosophers are Hegel and Marx. Infact, some scholars have referred to Marxism is the dialectic. Recent scholarly studies on Rand's philosophy has discovered a tremendous application of the dialectic in Objectivist philosophy. For example, Rand's obstinate refusal to grant any dichotomies in thought and reality, fact and value, moral and practical, mind and body reveals her commitment to the dialectic approach. Chris Sciabarra's The Russian Radical, in my opinion, presents a very convincing thesis to that effect. Tag:Objectivism

Problem with Tabula Rasa

2006-01-12T09:39:00.000-06:00

I recently finished reading Scott Ryan's Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality, and it has got me thinking and researching all the potential problems he raises in the book. Ryan is highly critical of Objectivism and presents numerous arguments that in the end, are quite unconvincing. His lack of persuasiveness comes not because he is not an astute thinker, but mostly because his theoretical framework from which he launches his attacks are itself too abstract and fundamentally depend on mystical faith. Rational Idealism, the philosophy of Brand Blanshard - that Ryan subscribes to - has a fundamental principle that I refuse to reconcile with, and that is it purports human rationality as omniscient, and posits that atleast in theory, knowledge of everything is possible through Reason. Furthermore, Idealism is opposed to realism and materialism, emphasizes the primacy of the Consciousness, and ulimately believes that all existence is essential Ideas. Ryan's Idealism is similar to Hegelian Idealism in that they believe in an theistic Absolute in which all ideas exist. Anyway, there is one point that Ryan makes that I have been grappling with for some time now. And it is one of the fundamental principles of Objectivism - the principle of the Tabula Rasa mind. Ryan argues that if the mind is tabula rasa, then it means that an infant is born with nothing in its consciousness. But, Ryan argues, that goes contrary to Rand's postulate that a consciousness being conscious of nothing is a contradiction of concepts. So, either the mind is tabula rasa, in which case the mind qua consciousness exists but is blank - or that consciousness does not exist at all because a blank consciousness is no consciousness at all. I think Ryan raises a good question there. If we begin with accepting that an infant has no consciousness, then how does it eventually bring consciousness into existence? Is it possible to bring consciousness into existence? Wouldn't it be logical to assume that a "blank slate" exists first inorder for something to be "written" on it? If there is no "slate" (whether blank or not), then nothing can be 'written' on that which does not exist. I have yet to find a satisfying response to Ryan's challenge. Something to think about...

Back to School

2006-01-11T15:23:00.000-06:00

Great News! I will be going back to school (college) again! No, not as a student... atleast, not officially. I was able to secure permission from one of the professors teaching Philosophy at my alma mater to see if I could attend his Spring semester classes. He's fine with it... so that's what I'll be doing! :) And the best part is, I won't have any homeworks (it's my choice, really)... nor will I be graded... this is purely my voluntary interest I'm pursuing. So that's exciting! :) Oh, the name of the course if "History of Philosophy"

Evidence of the Senses

2006-01-11T12:45:00.000-06:00

I just got my new (used) book in the mail yesterday, and began voraciously devouring it already! It's by David Kelley and it's called "The Evidence of the Senses". It is a powerful defense of realism and the primacy of existence. The book is slightly 'technical' in its philosophical exposition, but with my basic understanding of metaphysical and epistemological concepts, their meanings, and their traditional uses by different philosophers throughout time, I am able to grasp Kelley's arguments without much difficulty. Obviously, his philosophy is greatly influenced by Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology, yet he uses a somewhat traditional realist approach in its defense. From what I've read so far, Kelley is convincingly exposing the loopholes, insubstantiation, and circularities of Descarte's Representalism and Kant's Transcendentalism. Read a review of Kelley's book at this site. Interestingly, Rand had offered qualified and limited support to Lockean theories of Ideas, which in this book, Kelley categorically refutes. His argument is that Locke started out with the correct premises of the primacy of existence and the tabula rasa mind, but then ventured out into Empiricism and an implicit acceptance of Cartesian Representationalism. According to Kelley, Locke then has no business explicitly basing his epistemology on tabula rasa if his implicit inconsistencies lead him to accept Cartesian epistemology.

My Theoretical Expansion of the "Frontier" Model

2006-01-10T16:21:00.000-06:00

We humans seem to have a predilection for beaches and large bodies of water. We seem fascinated by the blurry boundary between land and water, and gravitate towards the edge of that indeterminate ground. I suppose the idea of the solid earth disintegrating into a million little pieces of sand particles, dying and being dragged under the feeble waves of the sea seem like a rare and enchanting paradox of distorted demarcation and union – air, wind, water, and earth – the natural elements interacting and fusing together at the shore. However, having given this phenomenon some thought, I think there is probably another psychological effect at play. A concept of “Frontier mentality” has been studied by social scientists as a possible influencing factor in the exuberance of the American productive pursuit. In 1893, Frederick Turner first postulated his hypothesis of the physical vastness of the American landscape as having important ramifications on the people that inhabited it. According to that theory, the vastness of the American landscape may have generated an optimism of unending possibilities in the minds of early American immigrants who looked upon the unending lands of this continent as grounds for further exploration, production, trade, property, and experimentation. The theory purports the Frontier mentality as a possible cause for the concept of the “American dream” where everyone can have “more”, and the “more” would never run out. While this theory has been challenged vigorously over the years, scientists still admit that the American "frontier past, real or imagined, is indelibly imprinted upon our soul as a nation." So, strangely enough, while I was watching some rubbish on TV about “million-dollar” homes typically being erected along beachfronts and shorelines, I wondered – why? What is this penchant for a view of the water? Or is it that people do not seek the view of the “water” per se, as much as they seek to reach the edge of the land? In that train of thought, I came upon a possible theory in the same vein as the “Frontier” model. I think that while the vastness of the American continental land signified a sense of unending possibilities and opportunities for people, I posit that reaching the edge of the land – or reaching the edge of the “vastness” – and erecting a million-dollar home signifies a symbolic “end of the journey” of sorts – a pinnacle achieved such that there is no frontier ahead to conquer, no distance further to go – literally and symbolically. Hence, the almost synonymous juxtaposition of “million-dollar” homes with “beach-front” location – it serves to convey an achievement of the American dream, a successful culmination of the pursuit for happiness. Furthermore, I believe there is a similar psychological phenomenon occurring when people like us – the not-so-wealthily-endowed – display exhilaration, a thrill, or sometimes even a serene calmness when we go to the beaches. It is the same effect of experiencing for a few brief moments an illusion of having reached the end of our “journeys” with nowhere further to go – and hence the celebration of reaching that destiny – or that serene calmness that is similar in experience as when standing on top of a high mountain. Of course, the mundane and the obvious also play a role in our experience of the beach or the mountain-top trip – the family or friends one is surrounded with, the sun, the vacation, the break of “normal” life, etc. But I think there is a definite subconscious influence on our minds in the symbolic nature of standing at the edge of land or on the top of a mountain – and its corresponding images of end, success, achievement, rest, pinnacle, etc. that it elicits. There is definitely more that can be researched and developed around my theory, and therefore is open for further speculation.

"Import Workers or Export Jobs"

2006-01-10T12:24:00.000-06:00

Robert Murphy, an economist from the Austrian tradition, has written a very good article in defense of free trade and open markets that very neatly exposes the underlying tribal and primitive mentality gaining popular support in today's global economic culture. Critics of free-trade, immigration, and profit-driven businesses use terms like "outsourcing", "predatory business tactics", etc. to make their case for more and more restrictive socio-economic policies. Murphy correctly points out that these socialist policies wrongly divide the human endeavor of production and trade in to a "us versus them" scenario. The intellectual and technological advancement of China and India are perceived as a threat to the American economy. Immigrant workers are perceived as threatening the jobs that American workers are "entitled" to. Murphy makes a very enlightening statement by pointing out that "Indeed, to ask whether it is fair to allow workers to seek a better life for themselves implies downright slavery—that they are "our" workers and can only be allowed to migrate with our permission." My own moral arguments for immigration rights rest upon Murphy's statement that I implicitly accepted as the premise. Freedom of mobility is an implied requirement to secure the right to gain ownership of property, which consequently rests upon every human's right to life and survival as they see fit. I cannot recommend Murphy's article highly enough.

Kierkegaard Said:

2006-01-09T16:42:00.000-06:00

"Subjectivity is reality; subjectivity is truth" According to whom? This question necessarily arises from his statement. Subjectivity is reality. According to somebody, because reality is subjective, according to somebody, because truth is reality and reality is subjective, hence truth is subjective, though only for somebody, therefore truth could not be reality or subjective, subjectively for somebody. :-) Pearls of wisdom!

Is Wal-mart Good for America

2006-01-09T12:25:00.000-06:00

I must admit I don't have all the details and knowledge of the relevant issues in this debate over Wal-mart and its economic impact on the lives of people across the world. Nevertheless, the more I learn about the issues and watch news reports like PBS - Frontline's "Is Wal-mart Good for America", I can't help but come to the conclusion that clearly Wal-mart has been tremendously beneficial to American and world economies. The Frontline report - despite its attempts to be objective - displayed a veiled but transparent bias against the Wal-mart position. And even through that, I could see the many admirable qualities of this retail giant. It seems to me that people isolate what the retail giant has become today from its historical contexts, and they simply attack it as if it were always this mega-monolith of a structure. One should remember that Wal-mart started out a small and innocuous little store on a street in Arkansas, and the man behind store simply dreamed big. In those days, there were other giants sleeping in their parking lots - giants like Sears and K-mart. Whatever the criticism - one must admit Mr. Walton's brilliant maneuvering of doing business in an efficient system that America had never seen before. In Frontline's report, all of Wal-mart's critics were ironically consistent in praising the efficiency of the new production and supply system that Wal-mart pioneered. Ofcourse, the rewards for such brilliant innovation, ruthless competition, and great value-exchange is that Wal-mart today is the most successful business in the world. The critics keep cribbing about the "ruthlessness" of the competition, the loss of entitlement wages and jobs, the reckless profit-motive that drives the Wal-mart business strategy, and I have to wonder - well, it's a business, for god's sake! If not the profit-motive, then what?! If not an open market of competition for goods and labor, then what?! Anyway, well, so far I have yet to come across some truly convincing argument that Wal-mart is bad for America and the world. Incidentally, Economics Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman considers Wal-mart a blessing to the American and world economies. Personally, I'd prefer to side with the creative/productive mind of Friedman - who speaks with considerable legitimacy in such matters - than take the word of neo-collective-socialist-communist hippies with hollow heads.

Pasha

2006-01-09T09:51:00.000-06:00

When Pasha walked his innocent gait, the twinkling lights of the city danced down the streets with him; each the harbinger of a happy day, singing a glorious surrender to the youth of his gait, a joyful laughter at the inspiration in his eyes. Pasha smiled back. He smiled at the men who built this city. He smiled at their pride and their spirit - to the testament of their power. For this one moment, Pasha wished there were a God in heaven, for He would have lowered His head in quiet homage to Man.