People get caught up in the pre-conscious bicameral language...take that away and express it in a "Conscious" way...then it starts to make sense. Also understand that the OT is only history...good, bad and ugly...the T is what they call..."Civilization" for dummies and the NT is an ancient Blog about it all...in preparation for a growing connection to a mind. What screws that up is bicameral rulers, popes...whatever that knowingly or unknowingly keeping people in their bicameral brain instead of encouraging them to access their minds...that part really Pi$$'$ me off.

That description can be a positive or a negative too. I can see it going to the negative with the 2nd or 3rd generation.

That description fits.

Well said Zen. That's why I dismiss the notion of 'he/she (a religionist) agrees with most of what Objectivism says, so it's all OK.' They are agreeing with the politics of things, not the philosophy of things.

The gulch as a HOA. That's a really interesting concept.

there are always disagreements with people. after all, we each have different knowledge and context. This is why agreeing on definitions of things and context of issues is important, but so many are lazy about that kind of thing when entering a disagreement. I would not say that sticking to principles, expecting someone to define their terms is inflexible. The whole living in a Gulch thing to me is not interesting. just another HOA

Excellent. +1

If someone invited and you disagreed, and your actions are guided by your principles, then you won't do business with them, and neither will anyone else unless your opinions are not grounded in logical deduction. The interloper will then either leave due to lack of success or they will resort to criminal activity, or become 100 self sufficient and a burden on no one. So they will have given you a reason for forced removal or you will have discovered a flaw in your initial premise

Someone tried the "value in all things" argument on me yesterday with respect to teachings from the bible. I had to explain that even though the end result of the moral dictates of a witch doctor may be the same as that of an objectively defined morality, they are in fact not the same and not both valuable. Insofar as the moral dictate of the witch doctor requires the abdication of ones rational faculties in order to accept that he or she must do X or Y, it is in fact inferior a result than one who has defined his moral decision through application of the law of identity and logical deductions based on man's life as the standard of that which is good. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the ends justify the means. Of course on could argue for subjectivity in determining value... If they wanted to do so.

Mama; I often think that the problem is the word 'atheist'; like 'selfishness', 'egoist', 'objectivist', etc., has been so attacked and conflated over the years that it's difficult for many to separate the populist negativeness from the rightness on a concept level. I continue to try to explain to non-objectivist and even to some objectivist that we're not 'atheist' in that the word as defined does not really describe the principles of objectivism--Atheism or more plainly, the rejection of belief or faith as a basis of decisions and choices in life, is only one(and relative minor at that) of dozens or more results of deciding to base life decisions and knowledge on rational, logical reason. So I think you're mostly there.

Post script: I do not "Believe" I have never "Believed" anything or anyone...I simply observe and try to do so, objectively...that's what attracted me to Ayn Rand. But I'm not afraid to investigate or learn about the hard stuff, the controversial stuff, even the mystical stuff because there is at least some value in all things, if only to recognize that which is not. If one piece of value weren't there...it couldn't exist, there would be nothing to hold it together long enough to be noticed...quantum physics can demonstrate that.

Wrong...and I'm laughing...First of all, I use the word or concept of creation rather than cosmos, now they mean the same thing...scientist will admit that "Something" created all that we see because it is so specific...one decimal place off and it doesn't exist...that's where I am coming from...it's not mystical...it's quantum physical...is my motto.
Do we know how all that we see was created or what created it?..is it watching?...no...but we are not stupid enough to think that it happened alllll by itself. Equally...to think that it always existed is just as bizarre. There is no reason to organize it, create rituals connected with it...but I do think...at least some degree of thought and appreciation for the fact that we are here, that we can create and survive, have some degree of cooperation and mutuality with each other and perhaps have sometime to let the wonder of it all sink in...now that's a direct observation of A=A...and that too...is amazing.

I would expect how people get invited would be detailed as part of the agreement before one became a resident. If others invited new residents without my prior agreement or without complying with the terms of my original agreement, then I either wouldn't be there in the first place or would leave.

Exactly rmp

It's hard for me to imagine a religious person being able to live with the principles of Objectivism, either for themselves or with others. How could go forth and spread the word or being your brother's keeper or a life begins at conception or a hundred other concepts from a religious belief be able to fit with a group of people whom all begin by questioning all their own beliefs compared with their precepts, and subjected to rationally, logical reasoning. That after-all is the major principle of religion--don't question the belief, just have faith. If that person can't or won't use reason in his interactions with the world or me, I'm not sure I have any interest in him other than to defend myself.

Zen, I've been thinking about what you said. You see, I can't say I am an atheist, but I have never based any life decisions on superstition or religion or magic. I feel that I can take the oath and mean every word. I don't call myself a pure Objectivist because I can't say I am 100% atheist but I am sure that I belong in the Gulch. It's a complicated question. Thanks for responding.

I hear you, Zen.

carl; If one believes that there was a creation, one has to believe in the unknowable and can only do so through faith. There is no other route that can support that concept, except the supernatural, superstition, or magic. That can't possibly co-exist with the principle that Existence exists and A=A.

Mama; a person that was irrational enough to base the decisions of their life on superstition or magic or altruism couldn't function with their neighbors in a Gulch. Remember the oath.

Compromising principles is an absolute NO. There are a number of good quotes by Rand on the topic. My personal favorite: "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . . (emphasis added)

When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil." For the New Intellectual, 216

A gulch willing to compromise is no longer a gulch.

I guess before entering a Gulch most of the major issues would have to be agreed to. I just keep thinking that while strong convictions are a strength they can be a problem as well. You don't sound naive. You're helping me think thru this.

That was why posed the establishment of a physical Gulch in my questions last summer. I was seriously considering being Midas. After the difficulty in coming to agreement on a number of issues, I ... shrugged.

I have. Details of this will be private, however.

That's exactly what I read Mamaemma. Conflict would be introduced by bringing in those that didn't share that philosophy.