+1

+1

Good and LOL

Max; Very Well Said. +1

DrZ; Interesting reply and I'm glad you couldn't resist. If one can grasp that mathematics is a language of logic and the verbal (spoken/written) is a language of human concepts and further, that in translation between different languages that there exists in each, terms/words that are not directly translatable--then infinity, which is a shorthand representation of unending measurement (+/-) or repetition, and is only meaningful when used within the language of mathematics from which it's derived.
We encounter similar difficulties when we attempt to describe many scientific theories, discoveries, or facts without the mathematical language utilized by the scientists that developed, found, or proved those things. Attempting to describe Einsteins derivation of theories of Relativity without using and understanding Lorentz transformations as well as the entire realm of mathematics and logic that underlies those transformation equations, is actually not possible in spoken/written language. The same holds for the term infinity.
It also holds for A=A. To grasp the import of that simple representation, one needs to understand that A is shorthand for identity in reality that is factual and repeatable with eyes open, by any human at any time and any place. We could go on and on with this discussion and innumerable examples. But in doing so, we would begin to encroach upon the genius of Rand--her ability to describe her philosophy with a story and to explain and demonstrate her logic with the verbal.
But back to your point about the unknowable/knowable. You use the example of "There's a difference between faith in the existence of a deity (which believers would say is very knowable), or a determination that something is simply beyond our current ability to understand". But what you miss in that statement is the definition of deity and the contradiction of "which believers would say is very knowable". Those exact same believers would not be able to describe that deity, where it is, or a cause/effect that's measurable and repeatable, or why it does what it supposedly does, or dozens of other descriptions that might lead other non-believers to identify, find, measure, apply repeatability--and invariably would fall back on the need to accept belief without proof, faith without demonstration, and that their deity is unknowable.

I like the comparison to the U.S.. Strong argument for insisting on people to adhere to Objectivist principles. I wonder at times if we can get back to our Constitution? We have strayed a long way.

I guess I'm mentally trying to figure out where the line is. Where do we draw the line and say someone is not an Objectivist or they won't be invited to a Gulch? Some points are easy and others debatable.

Well said Herb.

There is tolerance for idiosyncracies and fallibilities, but compromise is usually about principles. A society which tolerates varying levels of education and differences of opinion is critical to lasting stability. A society which is willing to compromise its principles, however, will crumble. This is precisely what we have seen with this great nation over the last 200+ years. At first, the power-brokers were interested in anything but the aggregation of power. Nowadays it is all they can think about.

I still believe that the Constitution was the best thing to be invented by mankind and I would love to see a return to its founding principles. If the Gulch were based on that, I believe we would see what the US saw in the early 1800's - a dramatic explosion of productivity and wealth.

Well said.

Anyone of personal moral integrity is going to reject an opposing moral philosophy. You can't have one foot on either side of the fence. I respect Objectivists for going all in on one side of the fence, even though I choose the other.

That being said, I think that there is no reason that a community of Objectivists couldn't do business with a neighboring community of Mormons or Buddhists. I can tell you this much, if you started with three communities - Objectivist, Mormon, and Buddhist - of equal sizes, in a hundred years the Mormons would outnumber the collective populations of both the Objectivists and Buddhist by probably 2x without a single proselyte. ;)

my comment went away. anyway, I grew up less than 20 minutes from some buddist college that the beach boys supported. when I went away to college, they had achieved i, thru meditation, the "hopping stage". that meant, that they could meditate themselves up off the floor.. hmmm. I was working the fields that summer I learned that-corn leaves slicing my arms, pollen in my face, wet and cold at 5 am. fuck their hopping stage.
mormanism. I grew up across the river from Nauvoo. been to the public part of the TEMPLE freaked me the hell out. it was like I was in the the difecta of mysticism

+1

Just like on the Stossel show. Many different opinions.

Exactly k.

Mormons and probably Buddhists as well couldn't in good faith or wouldn't take the Oath. Sooner or later, their interactions with others would be affected by their faith or beliefs from the supernatural or mysticism. It's unavoidable. Mankind's history and hundreds of millions of murders and massacres throughout that history has taught us that.

Sure. Essentially.

The point is that most of the actions that would matter in the Gulch are about respecting individual rights, so most Libertarians would be welcome, even if their epistemology had huge contradictions.

Also, as an atheist who uses buddhist practices daily, I would argue that Buddhism isn't so much about transcending reality as it is checking your premises about what reality/self is with depth and precision. You can approach it mystically, but I think that is a mistake that the Buddha would counsel against. All the Buddhist religious trappings are cultural heritage (bath water), but the meditative practices are solid (baby).

After reading Rand, it is easy to become deeply in love with the characters. It's hard to think of the heroes as archetypes. You can aspire to the degree of perfection in a Roark or Galt, but you will never achieve it unless you are an automaton. However, they survive as a guide to what is right, what is wrong, what is good, what is bad, what is true, what is false. Humans are continuously variable. In everyone there resides good and evil, so, to be honest, if one becomes inflexible, or a better word might be concretized, they are contrary to much of what Objectivism stands for. That attitude precludes the ability to change, to learn, and to improve.

Exactly, rmp

understand.

this divide is the reason why I started the "would any
Christians be welcome in the gulch" series. . we got
a whole lot of comments -- hundreds. . the overall
consensus was, IMHO, having considered every comment:::
yes, if they did not proselytize or rub us wrong.
it was on the heels of that conversation, and the one
about souls, that I made the original "positive (meaning
net positive) value" comment here. . we have a bunch of
very fine Christian contributors here in the online gulch,
also in my humble opinion. . I figure that they would be
welcome in an actual gulch. . I hope so. -- j
.

:-) I think there is a divide on this. Some feel it is a reason for exemption from a Gulch and others seem to feel if they keep it to themselves it's okay. I think that a true Objectivist would not invite anyone who was religious.

probably a bad example. . I was stretching and it
hurt.... okay ... if Richard were Christian....... ? -- j
.

I don't think Stossel's audience are Objectivists, Libertarians probably and some conservatives, but not O's.