Karl

Doing a few calculations for those who are interested. Working on the guy having a resistance of 2125 ohms the resistance of the bulb being 733 ohms given a 60 watt bulb. Total resistance in series 2858 ohms Voltage 220 Current flowing through circuit is 0.077A (77mA approx twice the safety breaker circuit of 30mA) V1 volt drop across man 163 volts V2 volt drop across bulb 56 volts. All things being equal the lamp will light but at 25% of the usual intensity. 163 volts is survivable but not pleasant. 77mA is enough to kill but it isn't excessive current and I've survived a lot more many times for short bursts. Certainly wouldn't particularly like to connect myself up like that. The hot plate and blender are interesting tricks. In the case of the hot plate he lowered his resistance through his skin by using multiple coils close together. No attempt was made to examine the equipment for batteries or other devices. The hot plate might have been gas powered. Was anything chemical applied to the skin as a conductor ?

I thought it might help throw a bit of light into a murky corner regarding some of my comments. Yes, most definitely having fun and I agree there is no need to add labels. Pity that Lerner went all out to shoot the fox as that could have been an interesting conversation. Can't see many here joining in-LOL I reckon I'm just about on everyone's ignore list, so much for my popularity. We are more alike in outlook so it was a safe bet we would be able to hold a discussion, I don't think others are, they are where I was a few years ago so this sort of philosophy is as welcome as a fart in a wet suit.

I thank you for the comment, but I don't see a connection between success and criticism of Nietzsche. Most people buying her novels wouldn't have a clue about the philosophical underpinnings. Certainly the intellectuals were aware, but that's a tiny percentage of the population and few of those, if any, supported Rand's work. She was roundly criticised for lacking intellectual rigour and considered a lightweight who was subsequently smeared to hell. I couldn't have told you anything about the underlying philosophies a year ago, I hadn't a clue about objectivism either until 18 months ago. My philosophy, such that it was being Miseian. The USA was never objectivist, particularly after 1900 when it took on a distinctly statist approach. Indeed it was Rand who warned of the direction it was going later that century. If you haven't read Atlas Shrugged you should do so, just because of the accuracy of her predictions, it's uncanny how accurate it is of today's situation. When you look at cities such as Detroit, you don't just see echoes of AS, but incisive descriptions of just such a city.

Rand was a Russian Jew though not German. She wasn't Conservative either, as conservatives by their nature about the status quo. Rand was a serious radical looking for change. So serious was her power that the establishment has sought to completely dismiss her philosophy-as they have with Austrian Economics. Still her books sell and remain one of the greatest sellers of all time. I don't think it's just the Jews that push for moral and economic success, lots of people are self motivated achievers and moralists. I'm not a Jew, my parents weren't Jews, my friends aren't Jews so it doesn't only apply to Jews does it ?

At least it doesn't make him a dictator :-) objectivism is about taking the pleasure from values achieved and having respect and pride in the self. That does not mean all work and no play, but the opposite. It says to be serious about the things that are important, don't evade them, pretend they mean nothing, or laugh at the good whilst dismissing the evil through compromise. So, earn yourself a good meal with friends, or a holiday, or buy some music, or have enough food in your belly that you can dance. Celebrate life but on your own efforts, not those of your brother, nor he of yours. There are times to be serious and there are times for fun, make sure one is not eclipsed by the other.

You mean that you see the difference ?

I don't know any other Jewish tradition ? Rand was no fan of racism and objectivism has no racial affiliation.

Yes, morality, but beyond any back check with reality. Mans 'will' as the standard of value. This is completely different than mans life as the standard of value. Will is whim from that stand point, even if we were to substitute 'reason' as the standard of value then no connection is made to reality. Reason becomes a floating abstraction. You mean Jewish religious tradition ? If so, then emphatically not, she would not tolerate any aspect of mysticism, spiritual or material. Morals are not derived from God in some intrinsic sense, neither is man a victim of determinism, not pragmatic whim, not social or societal. Mans life is It's own reason, it is something specific with identity, but it's morals are derived from that value choice of life and must conform in that way, not because someone demands it, or because it was received in some revelation, but because man chooses his life a primary value and must discover how to maintain that life. Ethics are self chosen principles to gain or keep the values that sustain life. It doesn't matter if the man is a prince or a pauper, if he succeeds in gaining values or fails utterly, the hero is not in what he becomes, but in his pure application of those reasoned principles without compromise. This might seem to an outsider as a mandate for religious morality, but it is completely removed from it in ever sense. Each man must discover these morals for himself. If you understood the three treasures as you refer to them, then this makes sense. A man is required to use his mind to reason and to use his body to be independently productive. This does not mean on his own, or that he must contribute to some thing, but that he does, and does for his own sake. That he neither his brothers keeper nor his brother his. This doesn't rule out any form of voluntary association in this respect, but it cannot be expected, forced, or the other person believing they are acting in an altruistic way whilst he takes advantage of it. The contract must be clear. You do this because you want to, not because it is a duty, not because sacrifice to others is a moral principle. If that were the case it must be immediately refused.

We won't be in the EU so they won't be breaking any rules, many countries outside the EU have nominal free trade agreements without any of the rope that goes with them. If we had to accept a small 4% WTO tarriff on their side of the fence-remembering that just puts up the cost to them and not to us, then that's fine. However I doubt that's practical. If we sold them RR jet engines and wings, then the cost of any aircraft would jointly rise thus making them uncompetetive with other manufacturers. It's pretty much the same with most of our trade, it isn't going straight to a domestic customer, but to a manufacturer who doesn't want his material prices to rise as a result of his Government slapping import duties on them. The EU isn't about trade, had it been, then we wouldn't have been voting out. It's about am anti-democratic bureaucratic, Neo aristocratic elite and crony corporatism getting its way and doing very well out of it whilst the rest of us who don't do so well have to shut up, tolerate it and starve. Over the last few years the arrogance of the EU, corporates and our own Government has grown to an extent that they don't give a toss for anyone but their own little clique and the referendum stuck a sharp stick in the eye of those who have been living high on the hog. The people have spoken, I suspect those who were scared by operation fear will begin to realise they were hoodwinked by the elite as time goes on. Theresa May has realised this at least, but I don't think anything is in the bag at this point, there us still work to do, but be assured there are as many people (or more) that are happy to give their all to make it a success as was the referendum despite the odds.

No it isn't the prime of objectivism. It isn't the master of self but the moral master of self. The morals being derived from the single value of a mans life with respect to existent reality. Remember 'rational selfishness' is the credo. Rational derives from reason and reason from reality, therefore ethics and morality are not simply adjuncts to be interpreted as one sees fit. Nietzsche regards morals as anything that suits the purpose of becoming a superman, where as Rand regards morals as a necessity for human voluntary consensual activity ( trading in all aspects) and in the case of a Robinson Crusoe scenario directly to self. Nietzsche agrees with Rand on the subject of altruism and self sacrifice, but instead of morality he goes straight to the power of will. In other words this is man acting as God and that may include any man and not a 'leader' King or whatever. In the end the result could well be a monster such as Hitler who had whimsical morality disconnected from reality. This is the difference. It takes a lot to get the head around it. Very much more difficult in comparison to other Mystics, but ultimately just an inversion. Instead of a God/ Society ruling men, men act as Gods themselves. I can see that would be very beguiling to you, probably because you had a fire and brimstone religious upbringing and anything that rebels seems anarchic. I'm psychologising of course, I don't know that's true, but it's a best guess. Luckily I never had indoctrination like that, though my father was socialist he never rammed it down our throats so we adopted it more out of familiarity. It made it easy to let it go when the time was right and not feel bruised by it-as Rand surely did coming from Russia. I can see why mild socialists/statists think the way they do-Lerner being a case in point.

Rubbish. Instead of being so negative, why not look to the future. Of course Brexit stops immigration from open borders with Europe. The problem with the supposed EU Jihadis is that they look awfully like pathetic little scumbags with No self esteem and heads full of drugs, pills and booze. The problem is one of domestic policy coupled with uncontrolled immigration. Personally I have never made immigration an issue per se, the problem is uncontrolled immigration. Big business is corporatism has had its day. It's one and done. The banking system that supported it is in turmoil and the spotlight has been turned on them. The people ignored the fear mongering of the establishment-ain't listening anymore and have disposed of their political apathy during the referendum. The people up here are bouncing around looking for a fight and that seems country wide to me. Our MP is absent having backed the wrong side in the referendum and her own party. We will take back control.

Out means out :-) I know you Remoaners unable to accept it, but it's done and over. Instead you should get behind making Britain great and looking outwards to the world instead of acting like little Englanders. Many of those who voted to remain are beginning to realise their good fortune and luck escape-given that in 2017 article 50 will effectively block any other country from leaving unless they get agreement from half of the chamber-something not mentioned until after the referendum ! China, India, Brazil, New Zealand, USA, Canada, Australia are desperate to begin trade negotiations. We will have a free trade deal with Europe without any strings attached, the problem for the EU is that every other country will want to leave if they give in before 2017. After that it's too late.

Cash-hurt

Riffs dead easy. I've been playing the Johnny Cash cover of the NIN song 'hurt' recently. I really like those slow ballads and if I get it right I can make the guitar sound like piano keys in the chorus. Makes me smile when it works as it has this lovely overtone. I also add a couple of extra finger picked notes into the verse which gives it a slower feel. Cash does that easily because his voice -even at that time-has a slow, soulful quality, where mine is sweeter. Kind of compensates.

Being a lazy bum. :-) I read through this piece, which, when taken with my understanding of Objectivism and of the generalised objection of Nietzschian philosophy found it Rand's/Piekoffs more succinct passages from essays/books/lectures, it would ring true. I really don't want to get too hung up in the evaluation because for me it isn't critical. It maybe more critical for you as you possibly identify in part as a Nietzschian and that familiarity helps to know objectivism from that angle. There is something similar in atlas Shrugged in which Ragnar steals from the Government in order to give back to those that had it stolen. This is Justice in direct action. http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/nietzsche&fountainhead.htm As an addendum, on a personal note there was a time a time I thought 'if all these people want is a master, then why don't I have that position and give them what they want". I see that this would be a moral abdication and that apparent slavery of this type must be both explicit and voluntary. At present we have a population trained to act as slaves, the answer isn't to take advantage of that position, but instead to reveal to them, over time, that they have a choice. When I ran the business support unit I woukd often make reference to the Northern worker that still doffed his cap in deference to any boss, but it is important to differentiate between ones loyalty to an employer and that of a politician/thug/tyrant/gang leader.

Be a while. I'm not a big fan of novels, used to love them, but these days I prefer big, dusty non-fiction.

Only because it's physics. No current can flow unless there is a potential difference for it to flow.

The problem immediately is 'beyond good and evil' in other words the exact opposite to objectivism. Nietzsche is saying that social norms of morality are whims anyway and this slave mentality is what holds back the creation of a heroic superman. This is true, but it isn't true that we can be beyond good and evil. Objectivism rejects this approach, but the fountainhead seemed to suggest the opposite-I'm reading it at the moment so I will get a better understanding.

You understand here that I'm not a specialist on Nietzsche philosophy so I have to use some of the work done by others to help identify the differences. What I see here is that he does not connect reality to cognition which effectively denies identity. What we end up is not hedonism from the point of view of reason, but from Nietzsche's refutation of reason. In other word it comes down to the whim of the person and then morality is a floating concept in comparison to objectivism. His rejection of hedonism is fine, but because he does not connect reality, reason and identity with morality it becomes simply a matter of a persons will. In that way, though he rejects hedonism, he does so without any anchor. He rejects hedonism only because he rejects hedonism, but his philosophy itself has no path to that rejection. In essence I agree that he does not support hedonism, but his philosophy leads to decision by whim instead of reason-by will alone-and that cannot preclude hedonism. http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/deeper-dive-blog/4426-nietzsche-and-ayn-rand This isn't exhaustive, or necessarily an accurate interpretation, it's a first pass based on what I can glean, but, without further study it seems sound.

I tune by ear but would always tune top E with anyone else I was playing with, then tune the rest by the open string method. My friend can tune a string by ear in the middle of a set purely by ear. He built the speakers I use for my hifi system. Of course it was beautiful, if you play from a place of emotion anyone with half an ear can hear it.

It didn't rub off onto you then ? My old man played hours and hours of classical so I was well aquainted with it from age 11 upwards. He couldn't play an instrument, but he could name the piece, it's variation, who was playing it and the conductor of virtually any music on the radio.

The book is her philosophy, her characters represent the ideas. This is a very common form of structure. Funny how you would be happy to quote a philosopher, a phrase from a book or film, something that a teacher told you in school and yet you think that it's silly ? Why not discuss the philosophy instead of resorting to ad hominem?

You didn't read it did you ? No, of course not. Silly me :-) She was neither, bitter nor nasty, neither did she personally accept any money from 'the Government' as you put it, although she was fine with people doing so. She certainly wasn't happy with being told not to smoke, she admitted in later life that it was bad. Rand wasn't a saint, she was a passionate and warm human being who had a very successful career in writing, plays, screenplays and lectures. She worked right up to the moment she was unable to lift her pen. I know of very few who have read Rand and understood her philosophy. There are many who like to read what the Internet tells them about Rand, but it's easy to tell who hasn't read it and simple to tell who hasn't understood it. Those that have 'grown out of Rand' is an hilarious concept.

She does mention this from the perspective of 'productivity'. It's the same with charity/kindness.

Ok, then can you give your understanding and the text which confirms it. I have often heard it said that Rand and Piekoff misunderstood various philosophers-this is entirely plausible, but needs proof. I will add that since being exposed to a lot of philosophy and logic that it it becomes pretty easy to read between the lines-except for Kant which I find to be indecipherable mush, I think Keynes was channeling Kant when he wrote his economic thesis.