About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Friday, February 15, 2008 - 10:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lucke's article seems useful, and very nice, but just seems,   however after I knew later that he is still in a church, his article became something like the ":Holly Bible" completely worthless in life.

By my point of view, from Brasil,  much more than  Michael  Marotta said,  Neo-Tech is not only useful in life, it is vital.    I should say it would be vital, because in Brasil, it will take us some 100 years for the ordinary people be able to read books like Neo- Tech's,(what to say in English) and be able  even to think and to get knowledge enough to see how our lives have been usurped for centuries,  by government, church and media.

The reading of Neo-Tech's books brought me a new understanding of how much one must be responsible for his own life.
Of course it brings a great  value for anyone who reads it.
Sorry Friends, for  the bad quality of my English. And also for my late joinning to this blog community.
Regards,
Rogério O Martins Jr.(Oiregor)




Post 21

Friday, February 15, 2008 - 11:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Comment on Post 19

Dear  Amanda,
If you still have some ordinary beliefs, such as God, Saints, Politicians, Gurus, etc, you should,  for sure, read something of Neo-Tech Philosophy.  You will get another view of life. Objective view of it.
I spent some money buying their books, here in Brasil, but it seems now it is possible to get them  freely thru Internet.
Try it. You'll add some good value to your thinking. I am sure  you will.
Regards,
Rogério O.Martins Jr




Post 22

Friday, February 15, 2008 - 11:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rogerio,

Luke is not in another church. You can take your neo-tech BS and go back to Brazil. FEEL MY ZON POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Post 23

Friday, February 15, 2008 - 11:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan -- LOL!



Post 24

Friday, February 15, 2008 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dear Ethan,

Will you please forgive me for my "stupidness"( or "ty"), but I practically did not understand anything of your comments.

For instance:
Luke's    another church ?????
BS  - ????
 
as well I coudn't feel your      ZON POWER!!!!!   ?????

or  the   LOL!     from Jim Henshaw

My  knowledge  of the English language is too limited, elementar, to understand the  ?"underlines"? ? "interlines"?  of a native English speaker.
Thanks,
Rogério O.Martins Jr.




Post 25

Friday, February 15, 2008 - 1:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rogerio -- didn't fully under the cultural context of the ZON POWER!!!!! thing, but I gave it a LOL (Internet abbreviation for "Laugh out loud") because it was reminiscent of the no doubt drug-addled, last night, manic burst of energy that gave rise to such internet in-jokes as when some anonymous person typed something along the lines of LOLCATZ!!!ONE!!111!!ONE!, leading to thousands of folks repeating variants of it when someone else types some totally lolo stream-of-consciousness thing.

Basically, a stoned-slackers-on-Teh-Intertubez moment.

Any of this making sense, or are you just shaking your head and muttering, "Frickin' gringos with too much time on their hands"?




Post 26

Friday, February 15, 2008 - 1:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Actually the zon power thing was a reference to the founder of neo-techs claim about zons. He published a piece called zon power, I believe.

Wallace's Neo-Tech philosophy claims to be an offshoot of Objectivist philosophy. Besides supporting full laissez-faire capitalism, Neo-Tech also makes several fringe claims, such as saying that the luminiferous aether exists,[6] and that non-supernatural intelligent beings, called "Zons", created our universe.[7]
You can read about that at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_R._Wallace




Post 27

Friday, February 15, 2008 - 6:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Can someone point Rogerio to a link where he can purchase a Portugese language edition of Atlas Shrugged?



Post 28

Friday, February 15, 2008 - 7:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
http://produto.mercadolivre.com.br/MLB-65592847-quem-e-john-galt-atlas-shrugged-ayn-rand-1987-_JM



Post 29

Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 4:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Robert!  I did an exhaustive Google search before finally posting my request.  I knew someone here would be resourceful enough to help.  You da man!

Rogerio, since you have difficulties with English, I strongly encourage you to purchase and read the book to which Robert just linked.  It articulates in novel form the ideas that make Neo-Tech work while omitting those that make Neo-Tech not work.  Let us know what you think of it.




Post 30

Monday, February 18, 2008 - 7:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Luke for your  suggestion. I have bought Atlas Shrugged (In English).
I have just started reading it. (making of course some extra effort to understand some native ways of writing,  naturally difficult to a foreigner, but I am making some progress) 
I didn't know there were a Portuguese language edition of it.
 
I also read The Fountainhead.
(Both readings were suggested by Frank Wallace thru his books. If it weren't by him I wouldn't even had got in touch with Objectvism /Ayn Rand and so forth.)
 
Thanks as well to Luke, Ethan  and Jim.

I am very much honored in receiving the attention of so many inteligent and important  persons.
Thanks again,
Rogério O. Martins Jr.




Post 31

Tuesday, March 4, 2008 - 4:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
New to RoR, I found Luke's article on Neo-tech a mirror of my own experience. After reading mountains of literature from the Neo-tech society, I began to see the irony in what they were preaching. At first it seems they are explaining a whole new philisophical paradigm, but under closer scrutiny their using differing vocabulary to define Rand's "objectivism". I do agree with the authors of Neo-tech on many things; I just find their lack of depth uninspiring. Not to mention, their promise of Love, wealth and ever-lasting life, to lure new customers, is far from the reality of social dynamics. For them to pat themselves on the back for every good decision that a person makes, and to say it was Zon-power, Neo-think or defending against Neo-cheaters is absurd.

People need answers. That is why we are all searching. It is a beatiful thing to witness the different perspectives of everyone on this posts. In all, no philosophical idea will match perfectly with the dynamic human mind. We are constantly influenced by all stimuli. Trying to define every persons' ideas, thoughts, emotions, needs of faith, and futures is like trying to eat an egg with out cracking the shell. I am just glad that we as a human race have had people like Rand, Wallace, Jaynes, Aristotle, Plato, Jesus, Mohammad and us to keep trying. I hope everyone enjoys tomorrow. For, it is a beautiful day.




Post 32

Tuesday, March 4, 2008 - 8:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Welcome to RoR, Jon.

I liked the overall sentiment of your post, but I suspect that I may disagree with you here ...

=================
In all, no philosophical idea will match perfectly with the dynamic human mind. ... Trying to define every persons' ideas, thoughts, emotions, needs of faith, and futures is like trying to eat an egg with out cracking the shell.
=================

But that's not what philosophical ideas are for -- nor is the omniscience of defining what's in everyone's heads, a noble goal.

Your 2 sentences above are correct as far as they go, but -- taken as a means to communicate something to others -- they don't go very far at all. For me, they tell me not just what I already knew -- but of things I wouldn't have even made an effort to question in the first place.

A more common way to say this is that they are so straightforwardly true that they are effectively uninformative.

Ed



Post 33

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 2:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon Hollis wrote:

Trying to define every persons' ideas, thoughts, emotions, needs of faith, and futures is like trying to eat an egg with out cracking the shell.

If you like raw eggs a la Rocky Balboa, grab a straw and one of these cool machines:


Home > Cooks' Tools > Specialty Tools > Ronco
Inside the Shell
Egg Scrambler

Click to enlargepad

Ronco Inside the Shell Egg Scrambler

Amazing ... it scrambles the egg right inside the shell!

The Inside the Shell Electric Egg Scrambler from Ronco is one of the coolest products Ron Popeil ever invented. All you do is place an egg on the slanted needle, push through the shell, and then press down. The needle whips the egg into a perfectly smooth blend!




(Edited by Luke Setzer on 3/05, 2:50am)




Post 34

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 2:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hmmmm - then ye can boil it, I suppose, into an egg shaped omelet, huh.... ;-)



Post 35

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 5:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon Hollis mentions love, wealth and everlasting-life.


I respond:

The first two can be gotten. Forget the third. That would involve a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. No immortality. Period! Long life - perhaps. Immortality - never.

Bob Kolker




Post 36

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 9:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob writes:

Long life - perhaps. Immortality - never.


Ed retorts:

The funny thing about that statement is it's lack of Popperian (read: empirical) falsifiability. I thought that you weren't the type to utter those kinds of statements, Bob. Have I been wrong about you this whole time??

;-)

Ed




Post 37

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 9:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Write me when the second law of thermodynamics is falsified.

Bob Kolker




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 10:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It depends on how you define immortality.

It may be possible that human life spans will be limitless if the aging process and diseases are conquered. That doesn't mean accidental deaths or killing would be ruled out as a possible means to death.

But in any case, the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with that. The human body just like any machine can be replenished and repaired, no violation of the laws of thermodynamics there.



Post 39

Thursday, March 6, 2008 - 1:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob (which is the same thing backwards, as forwards),

=================
Write me when the second law of thermodynamics is falsified.
=================

It's this kind of obviously-limited understanding of the things which you type -- which makes me question whether you really are some kind of Turing Machine, Bob (instead of human with real intelligence). If the 2nd law of thermodynamics applied to individual organisms -- as it would have to in order for your point to make any kind of sense -- then growth would be impossible.

The reason that growth would be impossible here is because it's the opposite to entropy. So then we have one of 2 choices. We can either

1) throw-out the 2nd law of thermodynamics -- because it doesn't hold for individual organisms (at least it never holds for them during their growth phases)

2) use a superior understanding (of the 2nd law) -- superior to the one which got us into this paradox in the first place

Taking the 2nd option here (i.e., the only reasonable one), we come to a better understanding of the 2nd law -- a natural entropy of non-living matter.

In order for organisms to grow in their own complexity and order then, they have to break-down some of the order and complexity in their environment.

As natural processes have cycles, a successfully-immortal organism would have to be able to plan long-range in order to continue to take advantage of the up-cycles while avoiding the down-cycles.

A successfully-immortal organism, for instance, would have to plan for our sun burning out (either by space travel to another solar system -- or by somehow intervening in the natural process of stars burning out).

Ed



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.