Karl

You seem to have gone a bit tangential this afternoon :-) I have no idea what you are on about, other than the senses, sense things and give us perceptual data. That much is certainly true, but what is conceptualised and extrapolated from those perceptions is quite another thing. However, whatever we do perceive is exactly how it is even if we can't yet figure out how what's going on.

It won't be prosecuted until the state let's banks act as any other business and effectively stops protecting its monetary drug dealer and utilising it to enact monetary/fiscal policies. Not sure what you mean by your austerity quote-I like the description I just can't get my head around how you mean it. The reality of the situation is that some people (the banks) lent money to some other people (Governments) who couldn't pay it back and now some other people (the rest of us) are going to have to foot the bill. Government refuse to accept they blew up the economy and point at the banks, but the Government runs the banks, makes policies through them and takes loans from them. The policies the Governments enacted through the banks resulted in a boom, the Government got more GDP, more tax revenue and high money velocity. It was a giant windfall that Labour (it could just have easily been the Conservatives) used to effectively buy votes. When the bust came they were spending and had borrowed far in excess of what they had allowed for. The problem with Governments is that they have this mental block when it comes to Austerity. They fear that real austerity will get them kicked out of power and that cutting back will mean a loss of state control-it will. Then there are all their mates in the banking sector they must keep sweet in order that they can carry on borrowing at low rates - plus these are the same people who are likely not only useful allies, but likely to be family friends. We have had little to no austerity in the UK. The defecit is increasing and more debt is added every day. The real austerity is being enacted in front of us all and heralded as a good thing-that's low interest rates and subsidised lending schemes. George is frightening everyone about falling house prices, higher interest rates and a falling pound, when, ironically that is what we need. In order to stop goosing the economy with cheap cash he needs to stop spending and borrowing. He needs to act radically to cut public services, pay and pensions. Of course, whilst he is in the EU he can talk about economic headwinds and problems in Europe, but the only economic headwind is coming out of his back side.

There wasn't a previous universe, that's the point. The universe might have been smaller, larger, hotter, more dense or a host of other things, but it has always been the universe. There was no previous one and there won't be a future one. If you mean the previous incarnation of the universe then perhaps you are correct, but personally I have no idea. I'm at my limit with 'atom' and even then I have a conceptual kind of image of clouds of particles whizzing around a emphemeral core. A black hole to me is just a super dense mass which cannot let light escape from its surface, probably because the immense pressures prevent ignition anyway, a kind of black body radiator which is a super cooler, but it's miles out of my sphere of understanding.

They should not be 'influencing' anything beyond law and order. As long as the assets are bought and paid for legally, on a voluntary basis by those who own the assets from those that buy the assets. Unless the new owners are a threat to us, then they are welcome to buy whatever they want that can be legally sold. The only time this becomes an issue is 'privatisation' or 'franchising'. This is where the state continues tax payer funding, but let's a company buy the asset, or is involved in some way with the operation of a franchised service such as trains. That means the businesses are not Laissez Faire free market and cannot decide how to operate and therefore are effectively still Government managed-not for the better in many cases, but it can work better in some areas than the open ended tax funded model previously existing.

That's nothing to do with sovereignty. Sovereignty rests on the electorate and its Government to decide its fate. Selling land or resources is immaterial.

The remain campaign is backed by Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. If you wanted only one single reason that illustrates which side of the debate the bankers that blew up the world and got bailed out are on. Then add in Mark Carney-a central banker, and the IMF. The argument you make is valid in and of itself-that Britain isn't going to be instantly liberalised when it leaves the EU. However, the establishment the holds the reigns are all on the side of 'remain'. So, the question is about sovereignty, local governance and FWIW democracy. I'm not suggesting it's perfect, indeed I imply the opposite, but at least we are closer to making our own destiny. Whether that's a value to you personally, that's for you to decide. I probably think, by your replies, that it isn't. That's not a stance I can agree with. As far as I see it, there are no advantages to remaining locked into a union in which the main continent is in its economic and social death throes. The risks of remaining are proportionately higher than those of leaving- we already had to put in extra money to bail out Greece. When the UK erroneously joined the union we were the sick man, now it looks like Europe has entered the sick man period. Our economy roared ahead through deregulation of the banking sector and the cutting up of socialistic nationalised industries. Europe is now a dead weight for everyone except for the crony capitalists (Goldman and Morgan's are among that group) who are making a bundle by tax subsidies, Tarriffs and anti-competitive eu regulations. If I could see one bright point in the EU I would expose it, but there isn't, it's a mess. What I find extraordinary is that much of the remain campaigners accept its a mess, but think, if we stay in we can reform it. At that point you have to throw up hands in utter disbelief. We have been threatening to change it for 40 years, even to the point that Cameron threatened a referendum to leave, yet, even now the EU Eurocrats are telling us that if we leave they won't deal with us ! The simple fact is that this is a German/US project and there is no place for UK influence. We arrived as the sick man and as far as Germany and France is concerned that's our ultimate position. They have a plan and nothing is to get in its way, that's not a plan where we will be anything other than a bit part player and a cash cow. These are the facts, you have to make your mind up on those things that we see and know. Britain won't be a perfect utopia outside the EU, but it most certainly will be in a position to make that call on its own terms. If we fail, then that's our hard luck, we woukd be crazy to stay locked in a union that is already failing. Much better in the lifeboat than in the sinking passenger liner. I don't see the EU being rescued in the short term and though the lifeboat doesn't guarantee safety, at least we aren't drowning.

You will get the answer to that on 101. I'm sure it will dispel your misunderstanding of the objectivist view and you will see that there is no conflict with subjectivism on that point. An objectivist is neither materialist or intrincisism.

You are making a typical error in understanding perception in objectivist terms. What we perceive we perceive. We perceive reality directly no matter what science discovers about the physics of the object, we only have our senses, so, as we chase down the nuances of molecules and atoms we now perceive those. Where things can be in error is the conceptual stage. There is no conflict with the subjectivist ideology at that point. Objectivists don't say they reason/conceptualise with omniscient accuracy. We alo have to account for new information which can alter the conceptual integrations over time. However that does not alter the perception. The perception continues to remain that of direct reality.

"Unknown things about the universe" not a whole Unknown universe- which presumes a new universe. You have confirmed your thoughts by mentioning the deaf person hearing again. It's an equivocation on the word 'world' by the way. It's another version of "true for you but not for me" which is the sophist view. Ive covered Objectivist view of perception in great detail in O101 :-) so, if you want to have a discussion on that it can be done there ?

....more unknown things about THE universe :-) it didn't open up a new universe as that would be logically impossible.

It's a non sequitur. Other countries outside the EU put bankers in prison and some didn't . Some countries inside the EU put bankers in prison and some didn't. That's the argument: some people who like toast get heart attacks, some people who don't like toast get heart attacks so therefore we should eat toast. The law of each country decides who to prosecute and not the Government. Maybe the banking irregularities in Portugal were more clear cut than in Britain. Neither you or I know, it's just conjecture on your part and not a logical reason. If you provide me some proof that Britain would be more lawful/just within the EU than out of it, then that would be a rational argument. However, you haven't, you have provided no evidence but an arbitrary statistic which I can drive a moon through.

Only in back to the future.

Next to Junko's waterfall.

He was certainly a mystic. He was a muscle mystic (often mistaken as a stronger objectivist). He was the opposite end of 'sacrifice self to the greater collective/God/state/society/poor' he believed everyone must sacrifice to the one superman. His view of the universe was of a malevolent kind. Contrast with Rand who viewed the universe as benevolent and believed in the rationally selfish individual without anyone sacrificing to anyone else.

Yes, what happened to that ? It sounds very Hitch hikers guide. There is a restaurant at the end of the universe. Although, technically 'end' is a very slippery word when related to the universe.

You know that's very probably true. I have a horrible feeling that you might have a tendency to use a big hammer on troublesome things.

I'm not sure the universe ever comes into a court of law.

You are definitely a direct relative of William James :-) Pragmaticallyinyrincist I bet you would drive a Christian preacher insane.

Plato didn't have a direct perception anymore than you or I. This is typical intrincisism, which, you as a spiritual mystic are fine with. Same goes for your second sentence. Science has been in the hands of Kant and Hegel for several hundred years now. It's materialism/reductionism which is in effect muscle mysticism. I think this is the part you probably don't fully grasp, as you see me in that light, but you misunderstand objectivism. It rejects materialism/reductionism and intrincisism. Because objectivism seem not to be spiritual in the sense of the Dao, God, Ying Yang etc, then you assume I'm playing for the other side, but that isn't the case I'm playing for neither side. Interestingly MH plays for both sides. An objectivist just removes the mystic label from both sides and hence there is no more conflict. It moves the spiritual side into the soul-the human consciousness and unites it with the metaphysical flesh. It puts morality and choice into the hands of living humans and removes the need for after life, floating consciousness, or the glandular squirtings of muscle mysticism. Yes, science is observation to test theory and repeatability. Notice how the muscle mysticism has migrated to quantum effects. Consciousness now linked to light waves in the same way a plug is wired to a toaster. Global warming is now a 'consensus' science. This is the result of Kantian philosophy which has stripped science of reason. Scientists are now fortune tellers and philosophisers, it's all going back to the Ancient Greek oracles where, instead of Gods, it's collectivist subjectivism. That doesn't mean science isn't still being done, but mainly the useful stuff is done in engineering companies be it mechanical, electrical, chemical. The intellectuals are sodding about with God particles (if that isn't a wind up for the spiritual Mystics I don't know what else is, they are saying we are doing proper science not woo woo, but in actual,fact they are not doing proper science they are just doing a different form of woo woo). Oh and I'd be useless at science. Not clever enough, no eye for detailed analysis or accuracy and extreme boredom.

Yes, finite but boundless. :-)

Your last sentence. :-) I did say you were both, but that's the problem, you have an intractable dissonance between two opposing philosophies that don't meet in the middle. It's why you are fairly comfortable with myself, Brian and Michael. Brian and Michael have logically consistent and therefore valid philophical premises, but you have stitched two together, but the stitching is a virtual fog. You are closest to an objectivist in many ways, but then you are a equally a mystic of both spirit and muscle. Drop the mysticism and they unite just fine. However....and I'm saying this whilst laughing at my own pessimistic outlook....if that happens, it won't be by me making that observation, that's for an absolute certainty. It's not harming you in anyway, you seem to thrive on it, so why change anything ? Well, only to stop me pulling my hair out (not really, it's like a boxing partner that occasionally uses a foot and shugs when I complain ..... "what ?" "You used your foot" "So?" "It's boxing, your thinking of kick boxing" "They are both boxing so I don't see a difference" "But ones kick, the others err just boxing" "It doesn't say minus the kicking" "No, but it's implied" "Well if it doesn't say specifically I'm going to do it anyway" "Well it's not right, but as your the only partner available I'm going to have to put up with it" "Exactly, I'm an anarchist, that's just what we do"

It's the force between objects, so it's the nature of the objects, in that case between hydrogen atoms.

Apologies, I hurried it bcause I was in the middle of something. Jupiters nature is mass, Gravity is the observed effect on other objects. It's a reliable measure of the action between objects, but Gravity isn't a thing on its own in the same way consciousness needs a body. We can view the effects of consciousness internally and externally, but we can't find the consciousness.

Gravity is the observation of the objects. Gravity does not go beyond specific objects it operates between them, but it isn't a thing in and of itself. If you read 101 I've got an example of billiard balls hitting each other. We cannot ignore the object that struck the ball, or the nature of the balls, table etc. We observe that motion is transferred from man to cue to ball to ball and then infer the causality by observation.

Now this is great and definitely coherent in respect of one single philosophy. I will argue with you at another time, but you are the bit about 'Dao' that MH has tacked on to materialism like a lump of weld.