Yes consistency is required (not "sterile"). Yes, you didn't say there is no distinction between branches of mathematics, and the abstract hierarchy of abstractions in concepts and of branches of knowledge you refer to is crucial.

I read Lakoff and Nún͂ez a few years ago, having bought it for reasons similar to what you wrote about it, but was disappointed in one major aspect of it. You are no "old fogy"; I would like to ask you some questions about your personal views of the book that are off-topic here. Could you PM me?

In my view your key word is "grasp". I use "understand" for the same concept. And there is an enormous difference between memorizing and understanding. For the first, it is just words. For the second it is concepts. Words are just labels.
Stay well.
Maritimus

I accept that you assert a "gulching is required. (I think that is what a "collapse" means).

I am not there yet. This will not manifest in my lifetime, unless war with China precipitates it. It may happen in the next generation or or the one after. If we are here to discuss "Gulching", I am fine with that. It is of value to consider. If we are here to discuss how to avoid the need to"gulch", even better. I am happy to engage and discuss.

I just want to make sure we are speaking about the same assumptions.

II have said that several times....so awesome. To what does your pronoun "that" adhere?
t is a simple question. Is Hillary worse than Trump. Many people can just answer.
For one, I assert "Trump is better than Hillary."

You have pranced around the simple question. I assert, that you are incapable of answering, because you enjoy the ambiguity. Answer the simple question. It really isn't hard, unless you revel in obfuscation.

I wish that was 1) possible, and 2) relevant, but oh well. Let's talk more about an abandoned religion no one advocates...

Even if we had the means Thoritsu, the Will would not step up until after the collapse starts.

If only you could change Pragmatic to Practical in your title the swirling would die down.

I have said that several times. We were discussing the role of principle versus pragmatism. Compromising on principle for the sake of pragmatism does not "work". Voting within the context of a limited choice need not compromise principle because moral choice only pertains to choices that are possible. One of Trump or Clinton was going to win, we had no choice about that. Every discussion does not reduce to repeating 'Hillary is worse'.

Peons, funny

Well good then, we agree:

"Hillary was a disaster. Trump was a negative, but temporary relief from disaster."

Yes? and likely the same in 2020?

Oh good god. blah, blah, blah.

While you think of a response, all day in retirement, wondering how best to tear down this person who dares challenge a firstborn of Objectivism, but who agrees with you on almost every point of the ideal state, ask yourself, "why do I alienate the people who believe so like me."

If the answer is: He is a a fundamental dissident, and I will not share a foxhole with him, fine. You and I have nothing in common, but a love of freedom.

If the answer is: We generally agree, but he resists my perspective so. Then maybe we should identify the basis of the resistance.

I really like couching terms like "legitimate". It makes the rest of the assertion so much easier to be correct, but so often irrelevant to the discussion. Congratulations.

We are "here". Socialism has taken hold. Public services are everywhere, and growing. Private competition is generally controlled by the government in favor of stability...or favor. I prefer "favor of favors" to describe over-reach, but whatever.

So most services that are provided by the government:
1) should stay that way
2) should be abolished and replaced with private services paid for individually, or
3) transitioned out in favor of private enterprise.

Let me help you. 1) is wrong. 2) has no chance of succeeding politically. 3)...maybe some people come along.

A. If you enjoy being angry for the rest of your life, watching the continued erosion of freedom, pick 2), start now, enjoy angry, and stop commenting on my notes.

B. If you realize that showing examples of the success possible of engineered solutions, basic incentives and private enterprise, pick 3) and let's explain a rational, functional future to people (the majority) who presently control the outcome of political decisions.

C. Go Gulch. You recommend going gulch, and waiting for the breakdown...which won't happen in your lifetime...ballsy. Maybe. I question your integrity if you say you are doing so.

Like I said I loved Chemistry. I did a little organic. Not being a ChemE, i never did P-Chem, but heard/saw it separating the men from the boys. Sounds awesome. We had some like that in ME too. Compressible fluid dynamics (shock waves and supersonic weirdness) was hard for me, but I think it was really the teacher, him being a formula-nut, vs grasp of the physics, but who knows. I do mostly electrical now, but do love acoustics and controls.

I knew a girl in HS that scored 1600 on SATs, two actually. One failed out of college physics, into astro physics, into languages... The other did similarly, but I forget the details. They were astounding at rote retention, but not so good with fundamental understanding. The best example was one of these girls (women now) setting up a physics experiment, St Louis motors (I think). I gave her a few red leads with banana plugs. She said "This won't work. Negative electricity won't flow through a red wire." A comical example, but true.

So happy to see another engineer here. There are a few. It is all in the grasp of fundamentals.

Shocking that you didn't respond to this one.

I'm still waiting. You could've just been quiet, but you jumped on my answer. What is yours?

Oh, I know, we wake up tomorrow and their is laissez-faire! It's been hiding under the couch all the time.

...so we don't have to tell the truth to a stranger at the front door asking arbitrary questions. Excellent. Glad we cleared that up.

We were all very confused about why it was ok. It never had anything to do with our own self-interest or rights...It was all about the guy lying to himself...great...

I tis impossible not to up vote this comment!

Thank you very much for making those things so clear. False dichotomies are a real problem.

It is probably possible to match a commandment with a principle that underlies it. We are breathing the thin air in a land where naming the tune that angels dance to is a respected hobby. Needless to say, I enjoy the headiness of such dialogue and name the tune as Running Down a Dream by the late, great Tom Petty.

Objectivism is not supposed to be a philosophy of "commandments", but of principles. The principle, as I understand it, is : look at things for what they are, and don't misrepresent things. In the case of the "bad guy", he has already been misrepresenting things, at least to himself, by convincing himself that it is all right to commit murderer, and he is trying it now. So he is not entitled to the truth, and if he assumes he's getting it, that is a matter of his own self-deception. In that case, the basic principle remains the same. That does not mean that the basic philosophy changes.

I think of physical chemistry as quantifying of chemistry. When I think of concepts like equilibrium, structure or change, I see a necessary imposition of mathematics into the thinking about chemical elements or compounds and their behavior in reality.
My first course of organic chemistry was remembering thousands of compound names by rote. Turned me off completely. Mendeleev came up with periodic table without a clue about quantum mechanics.
As you can tell, I still love physical chemistry. It helped me understand the world. And with the philosophy helping me understand human life, I am all set. They together helped me practice the art of engineering for 44 years. No complaints.

Chemistry is nothing to sneeze at. I loved it in HS, and thought about Chem Eng, but opted for ME for breadth. Still love Chemistry. Can't believe how many people have forgotten the valence of everything.

Sounds like you did some interesting stuff. You do have me by a few years. Still working, I do navy power and propulsion now.

Hallow Thoritsu,
Thank you for the compliment.
Just two clarifications.
I perceive mathematics as a ladder into the skies, infinite, building each rung on the lower ones and branching into some specialties. That is why I recommend that book. It goes from finger counting to the Euler equation. The book clearly shows the continuum and the branching. I wish I had read it some 40 years earlier. (It was published only about 19 years ago!)
I must not pretend.
I did not study engineering. I graduated in physical chemistry (undergraduate) and graduate (physical chemistry of macromolecules). All my life I did, or managed others doing, what you would call development engineering. My father and my mother's father were prominent engineers in their time. I guess genes get things to go their way. Now, I am just an 84 years old fogy.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Maritimus
EDIT: Corrected two typos.

as a student and judge of "high school debate clubs" for the last 50 years, it is ...define or be defined...you cannot have a meaningful discussion without first agreeing to the definition of the words you use...it is "first use" terminology...you go nowhere without it...

I have never advocated Hillary and supported keeping her out with Trump since before the 2016 election. That was the only means possible in the election and not a compromise on principle.

Neither should suggesting reading it for an explanation too long to post, which suggestion, contrary to Thoritsu's personal attack, is not an "assignment", "homework', "arrogant", "lazy" or "ignorant".