Benevolent Universe

Jason,

Why do you care what I believe? As I understand SOLO there is no limus test for members and no topic is forbidden. I came here to avoid the Randoids as probably many have, yet it appears that you want some sort of 'loyality declaration' of me that you do not require of others. I don't, for example, remember you getting hot and heavy when MSK suggested that Rand heroes were turning the other cheek. So perhaps this is purely personal.

Post 42

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 6:55am

Kevin,

I like the way you think. This is particularly nice.

If you are truly benevolent, your universe is benevolent; you cannot be truly benevolent and believe your universe is neutral, because to do that would not be benevolent to yourself.

I still haven't made up my mind on this subject. It appears to me that it is logically tenuous to attribute human characterists to the universe. But your sentence above is appealing. I also believe that once the attribute is extended, it brings us awfully close to (shudder) Deism. I was trying to explore that proximity. Unfortunately there is such a knee jerk antagonism to religion on this site that discussions of this type are very difficult to maintain. The rabid keep interupting. Silly me, I thought the Enlightenment ended religious intolerance.

Post 43

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 6:59am

Hi, my name is Bill Sipes and I am Deist.

Maybe that makes me an outcast here. That's fine, nothing new for me. Besides, my non-intrusive god will probably smite all of you one day. But, if I get a say in the smiting list, I wanna put Robert on the top of it!

It was difficult for me to push the post button as this whole thing seems absurd to me. I may too simple minded to get into the intricacies of this thing or maybe there is some silly agenda on Robert's side of this discussion. An honest discussion could be enjoyable. Still seems too annoying to be above board. I have watched a number of people leave SOLO over arguments and hurt feelings. If I leave, it will be from simple boredom.

Well, I had this big idea that I was gonna post my take on Rand's beautiful and inspiring benevolent universe but the end result would just repeat the body of this thread- SOLO would more than likely slightly enjoy my unshaven gusto for what seems to me to be a clearly communicated idea as far as Ayn Rand's writing and Robert would take his opportunity to be the mosquito on the neck of my post.

Just easier for me to call Robert a pussy and go get another cup of coffee.

Bill Sipes

Post 44

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 7:37am

Maybe Robert didn't articulate himself all that well. I certainly don't think even if he was being vague that he was portraying himself as a deist. He asked a valid question, and heavens help him for the not-so-benevolent way he was treated by a few folks in the answers. But, some explanation got done, and that is a good thing. And, there was this-

It appears to me that it is logically tenuous to attribute human characterists to the universe.

Uh-huh! :) Ain't that where the trouble usually starts... ;), on both sides of the theological fence. Man as the center of creation...

rde
Old school can be cool, but it's normally kind of a pain in the ass at the same time.

Post 45

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 7:53am

Rick,

You are a tonic for flagging spirit.

Post 46

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 8:53am

Ha ha!

Just doing my part to keep things benevolent... ;)

Post 47

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 9:36am

Robert,

How about you provide us with what you think Rand meant, or what you think yourself? You have not offered an actual position or opinion to discuss about the matter.

Post 48

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 10:33am

Robert Davison,

You asked Jason "Why do you care what I believe? "

Well I think you are correct that there is no litmus test for membership. Challenging ideas and discussion almost require including parties with differing views. That said, your profile does state you are an Objectivist. I think Jason may be trying to understand your views from this perspective.

Concept: Objectivist
Evidence: Perceived as in contradiction with Objecivism
Result: Question

Ethan

Post 49

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 11:02am

Rich,

I understand thoroughly your wish to smooth out the agitation a bit because the person under criticism is propounding (in a rather indistinct manner) a view that is aligned with yours.

I personally have no problem with discussing whether or not something else, some so-far unperceived or un-categorized power, is "out there," as you well know. However, I will not give up my senses or reason as a form of knowledge to postulate anything beyond mere speculation on that.

Whatever else that may be "out there" must present itself to my possibility of understanding before I can soundly accept its existence. This is not because of any conceit on my part. It is because of my nature as a rational human being. To negate my cognitive faculty based on sensory input (by adopting any faith that requires this) is the equivalent of suicide by carelessness.

(btw - I have looked over your essay on mysticism on another site and I will get back to you on it later. I found it pretty interesting and I have a few observations. Later, though. I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of that. Just let me say that the guy at the "other site" did a pretty good job of walking you through it. I am glad you did not post it here because, at the present, you would have encountered explicit hostility, not discussion.)

But getting back to the topic of this post, if you really want to bring up a focus on the possibility of intelligent design or any other "higher power" theory, do you think that the best method is to engage in a barrage of constant snide comments, sarcasm, gross insults, backpedaling and just plain boneheadedness?

With an intellectual salesman like that, how can you expect any discussion at all on this? Much less intelligent discussion. Just pot shots in return is the best you can hope for. (How's that for "facile"?) Also, people tend to go after an easy target.

Michael

Post 50

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 11:31am

Ethan,

Appearances are deceiving and Jason is often hostle in his queries. I don't mind disagreement, but I don't like to be attacked. Again, I saw no distress in the hive when MSK was talking about turning the other cheek.

Jason's problem with me is a personal one, which is odd for one who doesn't know me. His shape got bent because I questioned the scientific establishment's openness to new theory, blindspots regarding the teaching of and theory of evolution and my insistance that the guy talking about ID not be shouted down, but be allowed to speak.

I am willing to discuss any of these ideas/issues with anyone, without the hysteria. The accusation that I have some hidden agenda to destroy Western Civilization or desecrate the body of Ayn Rand are madness not argumentation.

Post 51

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 11:36am

Robert-
Why have you ignored Kurt's question and Jason's question, and every other question on this thread that has addressed a specific question to you?

Post 52

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 11:56am

Jody,

Are you still beating your girlfriend?

Post 53

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 12:16pm

Jody,

Are you still beating your girlfriend?

Never have Robert.

There now, see how easy it is to clearly and directly answer a question? Now you give it a shot. Answer some of the questions directly posed to you.

Post 54

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 12:27pm

Jody,

If there are not enough answers for you in posts 42 and 50, I am at a loss.

Post 55

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 12:30pm

MSK- thanks for the good words. I am preparing some new material, one on the quality of grace, another one that goes into the physiology of the mystical experience. As much fun as I'd have throwing around the term "bio-theology," there's no way that's going to happen, anymore than I'd start talking about Ken Wilber and his AQAL model. :) If I want a good whuppin' I just go out and piss off the locals in East Clevo...

The thing here is, I think Robert's question was asked and anwered, at least from an Objectivist perspective, don't you? It is a truly interesting topic- I agree with and understand the idea of neutrality being benevolent here, at least, that's the way I've recently come to view it. I consider it a very healthy, and, yes, pragmatic way of looking at the Divine. Uh, I mean reality, uh, existence, uh.

It seems to me that Robert is an amiable sort of fellow, but he likes a little scrap once in awhile, I s'pose. :) I don't think he was suprised when Jason went up his ass... Jason goes into kill mode as soon as you go anywhere near crossing the O'ist party line, which is perfectly fine with me, not that my take on it really matters. I think it's kind of ponderous that he gets reactive, like he needs to protect something. Why and what I've no idea. He's a good Objectivist, it seems to work for him, so that's a great thing.

I went through the thread and I still don't see why things turned to mysticism so quick.

rde
Uh.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 11/08, 12:37pm)

Post 56

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 12:35pm

Robert's post 50:

Appearances are deceiving and Jason is often hostle in his queries. I don't mind disagreement, but I don't like to be attacked. Again, I saw no distress in the hive when MSK was talking about turning the other cheek.

Jason's problem with me is a personal one, which is odd for one who doesn't know me. His shape got bent because I questioned the scientific establishment's openness to new theory, blindspots regarding the teaching of and theory of evolution and my insistance that the guy talking about ID not be shouted down, but be allowed to speak.

I am willing to discuss any of these ideas/issues with anyone, without the hysteria. The accusation that I have some hidden agenda to destroy Western Civilization or desecrate the body of Ayn Rand are madness not argumentation.

Hmm...I don't see many answers there.

Kurts direct question to you:

How about you provide us with what you think Rand meant, or what you think yourself? You have not offered an actual position or opinion to discuss about the matter.

How about you directly answer that question.

Also, I don't know what kind of games you were trying to play in post 52, but don't ever again insinuate that I beat my girlfriend.

Post 57

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 1:57pm

"Have you stopped beating your girlfriend?" (or more commonly "Have you stopped beating your wife?") is the archetypal example of a 'complex question'. The literal question has an implicit underlying first question (ie. "Have you ever beat your girlfriend?") which is assumed answered affirmatively if you try to give either a direct 'yes' or 'no' to the question asked.

Complex question is a form of logical fallacy and a devious debate technique, so Robert would be valid in pointing this out *if* people were asking such questions of him. However, I fail to see how "How about you provide us with what you think Rand meant, or what you think yourself?" would qualify.

Post 58

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 1:59pm

Jody,

How about you provide us with what you think Rand meant, or what you think yourself? You have not offered an actual position or opinion to discuss about the matter.

How about you directly answer that question.

I thought the purpose of posting to Obj Q & A was to find out what others think? I haven't made up my mind yet, and required input. I didn't know posting to this forum was akin to the Spanish Inquisition? I am older and wiser.

Also, I don't know what kind of games you were trying to play in post 52, but don't ever again insinuate that I beat my girlfriend.

Again I over estimated your intelligence. This is a variation on the old question "Are you still beating your wife" the ultimate example of the loaded question.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 11/08, 2:00pm)

Post 59

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 2:00pm