[Ask the Gulch] I have been here for several days and have as yet to meet any actual Objectivists. What's your advice?
Posted by EgoPriest 7 years, 12 months ago to Ask the Gulch
- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
I think the difference may be, correct me if I am wrong, that Ayn Rand changes some peoples lives and they follow her work. But to me, and perhaps yourself, Ayn Rand just beat you to the conclusion and her work didn't change you it simply clarified what you already knew.
The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out
by Leonard Peikoff
Integration is the process by which people interrelate concrete data to make a connected whole, data such as individual facts, values, laws, the events in a novel, the provisions of the Constitution and so on. In all these contexts and more, The DIM Hypothesis identifies three different methods of integration and their consequences for the West’s past – and for America’s future.
One type of mindset works to integrate data by rational means (which Peikoff calls “Integration,” or for short “I”). Another seeks to integrate by non-rational means (“Misintegration,” or “M”). A third opposes integration of any kind (“Disintegration,” or “D”). Thus the acronym DIM. (One example of I is science; of M, religion; of D, non objective art.)
The purpose of the book is to demonstrate the role of these three methods in shaping Western culture and history, and their implications for America’s future.
In Part I, which deals with epistemology, Peikoff explains what integration is, why it is the most crucial aspect of a thought process, why there are only three possible interpretations of it, and which philosopher is the source of each.
In Part II, which deals with culture, the DIM approach is applied to four different and culturally representative fields. The analysis shows that, within the modern era, each of the main trends within these fields is an expression and consequence of the DIM category dominant at the time. The fields are literature, physics, education, and politics.
In Parts III and IV, which deal with history and prediction, the book uses the DIM approach to analyze the progression of Western cultures from Greece, Rome, and the medievals to the present. By surveying the status of the four fields in each culture, Peikoff is able to identify each society’s ruling method of integration; he can thus discover the logic of these societies’ succession across the centuries. Extrapolating from the historical pattern he has identified, Peikoff concludes by predicting, as he sees it, the most likely future in the twenty-first century of the United States.
http://www.peikoff.com/books/the-dim-...
And I now understand this is a place for people who've and maybe liked The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged (or only the movie perhaps), but who may not have much understanding of the literature or don't necessarily have a clue what Objectivism is. That's a pretty low threshold.
That much has been made obvious to my mind more than a few times here, and I think such people as lack interest in Objectivism are a waste of time.
as best as I may
for as many Cheryl Brewsters
AS may come my way.
:-)
There are many here, but they don't hold sway anymore.
I read Fountainhead, AS, and the Virtue of Selfishness. I found Fountainhead nearly by accident six years ago.
See www.BreatheFreePrinciples.ORG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VSBG...
Never the Twain shall meet but it is they that have ceased the day, (du jour, as you put it.), while we have been just living our lives.
Which three books did you have in mind?
He probably wouldn't have.
It is necessary to LOOK many times to see the underlying truth. It isn't always there at the surface. And CERTAINLY, neither you nor I have a right to demand it be presented to us on a silver platter.
We have to seek the truth, not demand it.
We have some good advice on how it should be but living in those predictions, those thoughts and living in those books deprives one of the interactions needed by Conscious Human Life and the discussions of ideas, understanding another's ideas and articulating yours...that is what conscious humans do.
Change happens slowly:
Just think of all the greats in our history...did they make instantaneous changes in governments, in societies, in cultures? No they didn't. Those changes were incremental along with many discussions inbetween.
Our problem today as I observe is we are trying to discuss things with those without a mind, those that have given up, taught bull crap and somewhere along the way have lost what it is to be consciously human. In fact, many, 60% perhaps didn't even know there was a question that needed to be answered...to be or not to be. To be consciously human, create value for one's self, family and as a result of the values created, others would benefit as well, if only to be not a drag upon others....or...not to be that creator of value and suck the life out of those that do.
Governments have been that clearing house, that vaulted asylum for the mentally ill, psychotics, schizophrenics, or simply bicameral parasitical humanoids that never achieved the mind...it's been that way for a long time, back to Babylon and probably long before.
We do live in an upside down paradigm where the elite on the street create the values for self and others but ruled at the same time, by the great unwashed, the non-conscious, without conscience or a real identity within existence. They are prone to be corrupted by power because they were corrupt in the first place.
So how do you make headway?...you do the best you can everyday, you pay attention to history as it happens because surely it will be confounded. You have discussions with like minded friends, with others that have something of value to bring to the table and prepare, once again for the never ending cycles of silliness, perversions, lies and deceptions and make the best choices you can, champion small victories, understanding you can't get it all at once.
The Key here, and I would think Rand might agree, is that we are not playing our game, we are play theirs, by their rules. Running to a gulch won't solve the problem in today's world, pinning over brilliant and true philosophical speeches won't either. But one takes his knowledge, his objectivity, his vision and rebuilds the world, one brick by irreplaceable brick at a time...until it's real and it's ours.
Many of your comments make assertions of what the other person thinks or means - that quite often leads to false assumptions. Perhaps you should ask the person to clarify if the statement seems fuzzy.
It is nearly impossible to make a 100% clear statement of ultimate truth in a two line statement of text. So, seek out what truth is there and don't focus so much on what is missing.
Would you have noticed John Galt working at the railroad?