RailSignals

So many ideas over time take on enthusiastic heralds.

Proponents trumpet "this is the way, follow me and you will

find truth". Entire theologies, call them precepts, are developed,

signaling the way to some nirvana, ultimate peace, or 47 virgins.

The more sturdy movements have developed logical, even elegant

roadmaps to a way of thinking or acting along their prescribed

pathway. My goal here is to discuss one popular idea, that

concept labeled 'Objectivism' brought to the mainstream by

Ayn Rand in 20^th century. I do not propose to criticize, debunk

or proselytize, but instead, speak to its strengths and explore

possible limits. Here you will learn some of the what, why,

and how of Rand's philosophy. I cannot presume to cover but

a fraction of the subject here, I instead will attempt to lead the

reader into his own exploration.

Ayn Rand (Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum) at 21, came to the

US in 1926. The Soviets confiscated her father's successful

pharmacy in Saint Petersburg so she was educated in Crimea

after and then Petrograd University where she graduated in

1924. Her studies in social pedagogy exposed her to the

Greek writers Aristotle and Plato, which became major

players in the formation of her thinking.

Ayn wrote two major novels. The Fountainhead in 1943

made Howard Roark a household name, selling 6.5 million

copies by 2008. Her primary Objectivist work, Atlas Shrugged

was published in 1957. The hero's name can be seen on bumper

stickers even today. "Who is John Galt ?"

She writes "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a

heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,

with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his

only absolute." She wrote in 1962, the individual "must exist for his own

sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."

This seems to be moderated slightly (LOL) from her writing in

We the Living, where she said "What are your masses but mud to be ground

underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?

Would a dictionary type definition of the subject help here, I think so:

"Objectivism" derives from the principle that human knowledge and values

are not created by the thoughts one has, but are determined by the nature of

reality, to be discovered by man's mind"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html

Just look at Modern Library's 100 best novels list from today.

http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html

where 4 of the top 10 are Rand's works. When a 1991 survey by the Library

of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club asked what

the most influential book in the respondent's life was, Rand's Atlas Shrugged

was the second most popular choice, after the Bible.

Now, after all this, which seems to sound like a giant unintended

sales pitch, my personal feelings. Just a few thoughts.

1. Yes, Rand's works have been formative in my life where I would also rate them on my top 10 must read list, behind the scriptures and Bill Bryson. A guy has got to laugh.

    

2. Yes, Aristotle developed ideas of reason, choice, and individuality, which are the basis of a man. Suffice this, you can read more. Do you do Greek?

    

3. Plato's idea that reality is unknowable is antithetical to reason. His view of stateism and tyranny are classical collectivism. It is the height of defeatism to believe man is powerless. A hopeless condition leading nowhere. Everyone can do something. Everyone can have purpose. I can't believe I'm criticizing Plato. It becomes clear why Rand contrasted these two teachers.

    

4. Ayn's experience from her Soviet youth informs us greatly to the bitterness and injustice of that system. Her writing in Anthem shows a world without individuals. Without achievement.

1. Rand's belief "Man must exist for his own sake" is not incorrect in itself. I am reminded of a phrase "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?" In the end, without identity, man can't exist. Selflessness is powerless without self, we only have lessness left, what is that.

    

2. "happiness as the moral purpose of his life" is a truly relative phrase. To achieve "happiness" as purpose might require some clarification or at least personal definitions. You know what, it is not any ones business what might make me happy, satisfied, or fulfilled. Me getting my YaYa's is what makes me me. I am afraid that the purpose of my life may be beyond the scope of this blog. I am not unwilling to discuss this if you can provide a useful definition of "purpose". I dare you to try.

    

3. "reason as his only absolute." This is tough, I know some things for sure, I also fully understand I am biased, and many ways blinded by prejudging. Reasonableness is not absolute, a fine goal for sure, but absolutism in a physical world is non sequitur.

I might conclude that "Objectivism" as proclaimed by the Randites

is not the be all guiding light of life. Also, to look here for salvation

from whatever comes up short for those absolute values needed when reason fails. But also, I am happy to have Rand's work to help motivate

me to be all I can be. To treat myself and my ideas with respect.

Betting on the US economy has been a good one most of the time.

With modern financial markets we have come to the point where

risk can be controlled very tightly. Not only can an investor profit

from growth of companies, but also he can bet the other way and

gain from a companies demise. Short selling, put options, and covered

calls are some methods to reduce the risk of loss in an investment.

It seems to me that one major key to maintaining and growing an

investment is to understand the direction that instrument is headed.

Wouldn't it be great to know that tidbit of information. Some hints

are gleaned from trends and policies of the sector and even the

national political direction. It is no secret that the US national debt

is increasing exponentially of late, and that has a direct effect on the

value of the dollar. Equities such as (UUP + UDN) US dollar up, US

dollar down, reflect these changes albeit inversely to each other.

You might use this knowledge to build a strategy giving positive

return in the face of the debts affect on the dollar.

The successful portfolio will be the one that looks at the world the

way it is, not the way we want it to be. If you put your dollar under the

bed, you will lose for sure. If you invest it wisely, you may still lose, but,

chances are it will grow thus making Bob your uncle. Dave 8-)

"YouTube Enlists Users as Newscasters", this is to fill a void that followed the state takeover of most of our traditional news companies. It isn't as if they were bought off, but instead, they gave up questioning because they have fallen in love. The explosion of amateur-produced content will fill the need for independence that was enjoyed variously in the past, but now seems like the good old days. For example, two young filmmakers completely destroyed "acorn" exposing the systemic corruption of that group, and by the way, the press, who to this day has not covered the scandal. Even congress was so outraged that they pulled millions in funding and kicked them out of dozens of programs slated for their involvement. It is not hopeless for the "not so big anymore" networks, but as you know, trust is not easily earned and when it is betrayed, given back begrudgingly. It takes a lot to earn my automatic mute button, but once you have it, the honored speaker never gets to talk again. That is death to a politician, as they live by the minions eating up their bs.

Questions and Answers Regarding Estimating Deaths

from Influenza in the United States

How many people die from flu each year in the United States?

The number of influenza-associated (i.e., flu-related) deaths

varies from year to year because flu seasons often fluctuate

in length and severity. CDC estimated that about 36,000 people

died of flu-related causes each year, on average, during the

1990s in the United States

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

My math says 36000 dead/365 days is 100 dead per

day or 4 per hour. But this in a small country of less

than 360 million this is only 1 in 1000 per year, if

the Lotto only had that good of odds.

Here is another source--à

In the U.S., an estimated 25–50 million cases of the flu

are currently reported each year — leading to 150,000

hospitalizations and 30,000–40,000 deaths yearly. If

these figures were to be estimated incorporating the

rest of the world, there would be an average of

approximately 1 billion cases of flu, around 3–5

million cases of severe illness, and 300,000–500,000

deaths annually.

http://www.flufacts.com/impact/statistics.aspx

So we can conclude 1 in 10 get the flu each year

in this country, but only 1 in 1000 die. But also

we know that 2.55 million die here each year

which is about 4000 per hour going home. This

means we have 1000 times better chance of

perishing by something other than the flu like

the 20+ people that die on the highway each hour.

I have found it very easy of late to settle arguments using the

Internet. Oft times we wonder—How tall is the president?

well a quick search gives 5' 11", argument settled. Other times

the answer comes with much more effort. For example—

What is the industry sector contribution to the US gross national

product? The answers come back too broad to be useful, like:

So trying to dig deeper we find tons of data and few

useable graphs, what is this, do I need to build my own?

Where are the government number crunchers?

Well I find these to start our chart:

GDP (official exchange rate): $13.84 trillion (2007 est.)

GDP - composition by sector: agriculture: 1.2%
industry: 19.8%
services: 79% (2007 est.)

Imports: $1.968 trillion f.o.b. (2007 est.

Exports: $1.148 trillion f.o.b. (2007 est.)

Military expenditures: 4.06% of GDP (2005 est.)

So this needs a lot of work-what industries did what part?

Watched the public policy forum hosted by Saddleback's Rick

Warren last weekend. What a deal that was! Here the general

public got to see our presidential hopefuls in the raw. For an

hour each started out with very personal and reveling questions

to answer and they got no easier as the interview progressed.

Not having knowledge of the others answer, our guys showed

their thinking on a long list of identical lines of questions.

This was the best and most helpful set of interviews I have

seen in a political race. Not only did we see the social inclination

of each, but also, their demeanor while on the spot. I did not

look for a winner and loser, but instead was interested in

the vision for our future each holds. Intellectual or gut,

convinced or decided, the core holdings of each. I saw what I

wanted to see and encourage you to check out for yourself.

A overall good deal. Dave 8-)

Was just thinking about my friend Shawn and his cat races. You

know, where you give them a few seconds head start before

jumping from the skydiving plane. The cats always win. What

brought it up was my perfect record in the stock market. I watch

an equity spiral to its death, and when it bounces I buy it. Every

time without fail, I find that one can fall much farther than all the

way. It almost seems that the stockholders end up in debt to the

company for having invested. Don't get me wrong, the market is

the only game in town and if used wisely will provide good returns,

somewhat safe parking, and endless entertainment. Just remember

the old blues songs about the killing floor, these players eat meat,

so if you play, as Miller says "grow some snickers". Don't worry, it's

an inside joke.

A quick thought about risk tolerance, what raises your brows?

+ 10% tight wad banker w/ no snickers

+ 20% the market does this all the time

+ 40% riding the waves w/ no vest

+ 60% kahoona flavored snickers

+ 80% betting the farm and the horses

+ 100% pure faith, you will lose everything several times

Every single living person can be "rich beyond the dreams of

Averist" but so often they value the useless and forget the gem.

Here is a little test, lookup "saddleback social forum question rich"

take two and call me in the morning. LOL Dave 8-)

My 17 year old is at that age of many questions. This in a western society, accustomed to instant gratification, one might imagine the necessary effort is not expended in pursuit of answers to his "why is that " inquires.

One of the wonders of his magical world is the way large bodies attract each other like bowling balls dropped from the roof onto my car. This is often called gravitation, from the Latin gravitatem used first like, well like when they spoke Latin. I made the big mistake to think I would look it up and find out about this gravity stuff so I could explain it to him. Ha, that would just figure, for like 6000 years of written history and unknown more time than that, mankind has ask this question. From the start I will say, no one has a clue. From Newton back to Kanada 8000 BC, it was determined that things fell because they were heavy.

Now don't get me wrong, the physics of acceleration and attraction in the post Newtonian world has become very sophisticated. One might even predict the path of a moon, a space shuttle, or a bowling ball and know with precision the impact speed and force to be absorbed by the now a convertible. As far as the pre20th century, this thing worked as far as it went. Just a few little bugs in the system, you know how a bug bugs a theorist. Anyway a couple of out of the box types moved physics past Newton like AutoCAD smoked Euclid's protractors. Albert did the quantum dance, the universe became a very jerky place, always hopping up and down the stairs. Ahem, they are even setting the GPS satellite cesium clocks like 0.00000003 sec slow because time runs slower when you get up there 50 miles from the earth. It's something about the space time fabric bending near large masses.

I have come to know that space is not flat, time not linear, and that gravity is an illusion because of where you are standing. They should make a law or something, what the heck am I to tell him now? I could try the "old people don't know anything", but he already knows that.

But even now I type into this Word editor and after years of usable and intuitive menus, now long searching often gives no joy. Any way, Hi all, if this configuration and test meets with success, Bob has become my uncle. Is that rambling or what. Again the phone lines are back up, the dialup account makes me wish I had a high back chair, and my questions have taken on quantum jerk function analogues. Luckily this will not go thru relieving you of much blather.

The pressures of family, job, and lack of ambition have conspired

to keep me offline during Gonzales entire term. I have not been

dead though, and continue to grow in heart and mind. With the

changing of the guard at the top cop office, It would seem

to be a natural place to jump back into the fire.

First, As I watched the mob attack and overcome even the

apologetic public persons, my attitude has changed to one

of asking forgiveness only in the privacy of the confessional.

Second, My weakness of dissecting everything down to the

subatomic level often halts the putting down of markers along

the way. this stops today. If my judgments appear half-baked,

on some issue or another, drop me a line, we can cook it a few

more minutes for that metaphysically perfect cookie.

And on the problem I have been working on even from last year,

that is , how does one define "purpose" ?, how does it come about?,

What are the rules?. Can we go and get some of it?, is there more or

less in this or that ? Are there larger and smaller purposes?

Is purpose a physical thing like a hammer or nail one can get and use?

As you might have guessed, this question is not being ask the first

time, and moving thru Aristotle, Kant, Husserl, Heidegger, Sellers,

Mohanty, Sokolowski, Lask, McDowell, and even Crowell, or in a

different vein, Rick Warren, one might be confused or even derailed

on the way to finding this answer. We already know purpose exists,

you can see it everywhere. Like a US Supreme court justice said

"I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" speaking on another subject.

So here goes, I must needs be first to put this into context in order to

begin any rational definition. A distinction must be made between

speaking of the purpose for a physical (natural) thing and that of the

ethical (free will) . I am only looking to define the purpose of living and

as such, must leave aside questions of "why is the rock". Can one know

a definition of the purpose of life, is there more than one ? Does it change?

The answer is yes we can know our purpose in life, there is only one,

it never changes. I found the answer to my question about purpose,

even after much research, in what I already knew. The problem of putting

this into words still is burdensome for me, so I am reduced to quoting others.

"To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose

under the heaven"

This is not my final word on the purpose of life. Dave 8-)