Coffee is for the Weak!

I like to start my morning with a shower - I try to make it the first thing I do after I wake up. It's kind of a nice way to start the day and it really does help me get my eyes open if I'm tired (that can happen when you don't always get enough sleep). Anyway, about a week ago I tried a new technique to heighten my morning alertness. Near the end of my routine, I'll change the water temperature to, well, very cold (I know Jason, it's important to use the word very sparingly. That's my first time). Not surprisingly, it works wonders. It's a funny way to artificially kick start the body by initiating some kind of panic reflex. I try to leave it running for about 10 seconds before I switch back to warm to get warm again.

Well, this morning I found an even better method. Instead of just 10 seconds of cold in the shower, try waking up in a house with no central heating and a fire that went out hours ago at about, oh, 6 in the morning with an inside temperature of maybe 35-40 degrees.

Then walk a half mile to a neighbors house in even cold temperatures without proper warmth-enhancing attire.

Finally, bring some wood up and take the 10 minutes to really get a fire started. I wanted to want to go to sleep, but I just couldn't make myself want to anymore. I was awake.

PS: Pictures courtesy of Matt's Christmas gift to me. Wow! A fire!

Confidence and Ignorance

Ever notice how confidence and ignorance are so often paired? It's almost like a scale when it comes to some topics: the more confident you are, the less you know about it. The adage is true: the more you know, the more you realize you don't know. Logical deduction allows me to, uh, deduce that the less you don't realize you don't know, the less you know (It's pretty much a direct inverse relationship).

The reason I bring this up is a friend recently mentioned that I seem really confident in my world view and personal aspirations. At first, I took this as a compliment to my strong values, but now I'm wondering if maybe it was a subtle insult that I wasn't supposed to catch. I have to admit...that would be pretty funny!

Flying Away

So, I'm at the airport. They have a little desk for me with a power outlet and free wireless internet while I wait a little while for boarding to begin. A nice woman, unusually alert and awake for such an early hour (4:30) checked me in (even though I went through self check-in) just because "it's so much faster than that machine"...and it was fast.

The shops and restaurants are closed, dark behind all the bright and attractive marketing. Some have metal gates pulled down, protecting them from curious airport patrons in the same situation as I. In others the Holiday specials tempt potential buyers, out of reach for those of us who have chosen to fly before the rest of humanity begins their collective day.

I think I'll enjoy my quiet flight into Phoenix, just like I'll enjoy my time there. Boarding has started, I suppose I should go find out.

Iraq Study Group Report

Iraq Study Group Report

The report detailing the "situation" in Iraq and the 79 recommendations for President Bush. I can't read it now so no thoughts on it yet, but maybe soon.

I don't like Parties

Yep, you read right. I don't like parties. I don't understand why we have them. What is the purpose? Are parties really beneficial for our country?

Political parties, of course. I don't want to critique the democratic party, the republican party, independents...at least not specifically. Instead, I want to question the usefulness of the entire party system.

I have an honest question...Why are political parties useful? Theoretically, a political party creates an ideology and a set of goals. Theoretically, a candidate from a party has a very similar set of goals and a similar ideology. Of course, in practice this isn't the case - the ties can be loose at best. This is the primary benefit (for voters) that I see in the party system.

Of course, they are very useful for politicians. If you choose one of the "big two" you are able to gain access to all the resources of that party - for example, presidential campaign financing.

On the other hand, the two party system we have here in the United States has a number of problems. The two are in a constant battle to one-up the other. Elections are often less about stating an agenda for political change than they are about making sure you look better than "the other guy". You can't tell much about a politician's agenda from his party - for example, in California we have Arnold Schwartzenegger as governor, a republican who seems to have much more in common with the democratic party...part of the reason why he has been reelected in a heavily blue (democratic) state.

Maybe a reader can shed some light for me, maybe I'm missing some of the benefits to the party system. I haven't fully discussed the perceived downsides to what I'm starting to view as a defunct system (ease of corruption, partisan voting, teeter-totter election schedule, more) but I think it's possible there are things I don't understand. Lecture me :)

Just the Facts

The Iranian president called out to the American people to reject US foreign policy today. You can read about it here (BBC) if you want.

My favorite lines?

Mr Ahmadinejad's letter, which makes no mention of Iran's nuclear programme, comes during a period of especially tense relations between the two countries.


or maybe

Mr Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, urged the US people to support the right of the Palestinians to live in their own homeland.

Awesome work there, BBC. Way to keep your delivery smooth and impartial.

Free Will

I read dilbertblog fairly regularly. It's a blog written by Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert. It's normally pretty interesting, but that's irrelevant to this post. What is relevant is the constant debates over whether or not free will exists that take place in the comments for the blog.

Adams is a firm believer that free will is a collective illusion: we do not have any power to choose an option, we're simply "moist robots" whose conditioning and genetics control all of our choices.

The most common argument against him is very flawed: If free will doesn't exist, then why do we have prisons? Why do we punish children who do wrong? They have no control over their actions. The obvious retort is that prisons and other forms of punishment are a form of conditioning: even though the children don't actually make the choice, they won't misbehave in the future because they've been conditioned to value doing the right thing out of fear of punishment, or because they've been convinced that doing the right thing is what's important.

The argument made by the detractors shows a fairly gross understanding of what Adams defines as free will. He doesn't argue our lack of free will equates to a world where nothing anyone does will make a difference since the choices we'll make are set in stone...in fact, his definition of free will is nothing like that. Adams free will is, put quite simply, that there is a reason for every choice we make. When we are faced with a choice we will always do what our brain tells us to do.

When the viewpoint is stated plainly, it's fairly difficult to furnish an effective argument. If free will is the capacity to choose something we don't want to choose, free will can't exist. For example, right now I have no desire to slap myself in the face. Slapping myself in the face doesn't prove I have free will, just that I had a desire to slap myself for whatever reason (perhaps to prove the existence of free will, perhaps to show that I have power over my actions, or perhaps because of a hidden masochistic tendency). I'd only hit myself in the face if I wanted to hit myself in the face. This is a pretty simple experiment that you can try right now. I guarantee that you won't hit yourself unless you decide you want to: try it as many times as you want.

I don't know why Adams likes to define free will in this manner - normally, it will just inspire argument. It's like saying, "The earth isn't round!" and letting people argue while all the while all you're really saying is that it's spherical -- amusing, but counterproductive.

The real question of free will (by Adams definition) is not whether we have any power over our choices but instead over the conditions that cause us to make our choices. We can't choose to be hungry, but do we have the power to choose whether or not to eat? Is there a choice or is it merely a complex calculation?

My opinion: of course there's a choice. But you don't get to hear my argument, as I have to get to work. While you make your own decision, ponder this: "How could someone as smart as Aaron be wrong?" =)

The Alchemist

Thoughts on "The Alchemist" by Paulo Coelho

Coelho's "The Alchemist" is a book I can wholeheartedly recommend to most people who believe that a big part of life is realizing our dreams. The primary message of the book is that the happiest people are the people who aren't afraid to chase their dream. Our dream is obvious when we are very young, but as we age we prioritize other things. It eventually becomes painful to remember our unrealized dream, so we forget it.

It's a book appropriate for most ages (12+), and a quick read. If you liked "The Little Prince" you'll probably like "The Alchemist": both books have the same innocence, and both books have a quality that make them appealing to children and adults. The rest of this post will be some personal observations or insights made in relation to specific passages or themes in the book. It probably won't be very interesting unless you've read the book, and even then I can't guarantee anything.

"It's the possibility of having a dream come true that makes life interesting". -Santiago
Santiago says this very early in the book, and it's very revealing of his idealistic and innocent lifeview. I think, for someone who truly wants to realize a dream, it might even have some truth. For most of us, life is not about realizing our dreams (which might be a lot of hard work) it's about choosing a path in life that might make us happy. It's funny how easy it is to be lazy - but can we ever be happy if we're lazy? It's counterintuitive, but happiness doesn't come with leisure, it comes with the hard work of working hard for something you believe in. I don't think you can be happy unless you're satisfied with yourself and the path you've chosen.

We know our life dreams as children or at a very young age, but we forget them as we grow older and integrate as an acceptable citizen of society.
Why is there always an idea that we know what our life goal is at birth? How would we ever know our Personal Legend before we understood life? I think this idea merely sounds appealing - much like the idea of karma. It sounds so simple and we want it to be true because of how wondrous it would be...but that doesn't make it true. Perhaps the values we discover/create at a very young age will have a large bearing on our "Personal Legend", but I think that as children we might not have the necessary knowledge to deduct what our legend will be.

While I'm talking about Personal Legends, why can't we choose one? Why can't we decide upon a dream?

"The closer we get to our Personal Legend, the more that Personal Legend becomes our reason for being." -Santiago
Whether or not you can make a choice or not about your Personal Legend, this statement had a lot of truth for me. As you work harder and harder to achieve something, the other things in life become less important and the achievement's importance is amplified.

I am left with questions though. For the sake of simplicity the Personal Legend of Santiago was something so simple and something so obviously achieved: finding treasure. I don't think that everyone will have a life goal that can be achieved in such a cut and dry manner. Coelho tended to simplify life goals into a single achievement: for example, the crystal seller who wanted to travel to Mecca, but feared that if he ever reached Mecca his life would lack meaning.

Is a personal legend ever a simple black and white achievement? I think we could say that Mother Teresa lived a life very close to her personal legend, but was she ever actually done? I think most Personal Legends are unreachable goals - it's not something simple like owning a house, making a trip, or even becoming rich. It's something undefinable or unreachable: helping the poor, enlightenment, a happy life. We work towards these ideals by setting concrete goals: I will donate this much money, I will...well, you get the idea.

Maybe I'm overcomplicating things. Coelho would say so: Santiago's wisdom and personal strength came from his ability to see the simplicity in life, and this was encouraged by The Alchemist.

Simplicity
Coelho's focus on simplicity over complexity is probably most apparent in the contrast between the Englishman and Santiago. There is a clear recognition that both are working diligently towards reaching their Personal Legend...but there's also a clear bias towards the methods of Santiago. The Englishman is presented as inferior to Santiago, mostly because of his inability to recognize simplicity and his inability to learn from personal experience. His inability to recognize simplicity is most apparent when, after Santiago has read all of his books, he is greatly disappointed when Santiago merely states a few simple facts that are the basis for all alchemy. The reader is left feeling that Santiago is the wise one because he has left with the universally important truths, and pitying the Englishman for not recognizing Santiago's wisdom. His inability to learn from personal experience is also highlighted at the same point: he tells Santiago that after days of watching the caravan travel through the desert he has learned nothing. While Santiago has a talent for recognizing the unity of all existence, the Englishman has a strong desire to view everything as a separate entity. This difference is one of the primary reasons Santiago is approached by the Alchemist.

Santiago and Fatima
This is probably one of my least favorite parts of the book for one reason: Coelho puts a strong focus on love at first sight. I believe this is a dangerous idea to teach to children and even adults - it puts emphasis not only on appearance but also on initial impressions. Isn't the divorce rate high enough?

Love
Despite my misgivings about how Santiago and Fatima "fall" in love, I love the mature view of love presented in the book. I love the very literal "setting free" that Fatima does for Santiago (If you love something, set it free...). Culturally, this idea is not always supported. There are a wide range of beliefs about the best way to find and keep love...sadly, I think there is a lot more emphasis placed on the latter. Don't get me wrong, I understand that love is difficult, but I think it's much more important to find someone we truly love than it is to keep a relationship with someone we thought we loved. Fatima's acceptance that Santiago had to live life before their relationship could truly begin is symbolic in many ways, but most noticably it allows Santiago the opportunity to realize that his love for Fatima is true.

This is a minor point, but I also like the idea that love should never hold us back from doing what we want to do or being who we want to be. As I've already made clear, we won't be happy unless we are who we want to be. If we aren't happy, we can't really love.

Fatalism
The word fatalism is never directly spoken in The Alchemist, but there is a brief section where it is brought up that the leaders of the tribesmen "do not want to hear their future because it is difficult to fight with all your valor if you know you will die". This is the same predicament many fatalists run into - why try when the future is already decided? The leaders of the tribesmen realize that whether or not fate (their future) exists or not is immaterial - knowing that the future is already decided should not affect your actions.

Journeys
The wisest characters in the book were very aware of their own mortality (save, of course, The Alchemist who wasn't mortal). Even if they lived a life seeking their Personal Legend, they recognized that they might die before they reached it. Seemingly in spite of this, they were ready to die on any day. The idea is "We should live lives striving to reach our Personal Legends, but we should be proud of the journey to reach them."

Perhaps the lack of wisdom is again best exemplified by the Englishman. Both the Englishman and Santiago worked very hard to achieve their goals, but Santiago worked hard and was happy. This important distinction allowed Santiago to face the sword of the Alchemist (and his own death) without fear or regret. Were the Englishman placed in the same situation, he would not have faced his death fearlessly - and if he knew he were going to die he would feel his life wasted as he had never reached his goal. "You cannot seek only the treasure of your personal legend, you must live it."-Alchemist

Fatima vs. Santiago: Goals
Fatima is not portrayed to have the same strength or drive as Santiago. She is portrayed as a wise character, but The Alchemist himself says that her Personal Legend is Santiago. She is pigeonholed into a traditional female role where she waits diligently at home while her love explores the world. I think the book would have been more effective if Fatima had already reached her Personal Legend, as it is, it comes off rather sexist. This isn't Coelho's intent and Fatima is presented with great respect, but on a second glance that respect seems unearned.

"One is loved because one is loved. No reason is needed for loving."-Fatima
This is not only Fatima's viewpoint, this is how love is presented in the book. I can't believe this is true. Overly romantic but lacking substance.

"Even though I complain sometimes, it's because I'm the heart of a person and people's hearts are that way. People are afraid to pursue their most important dreams, because they feel they don't deserve them, or that they'll be unable to achieve them. We, their hearts, become fearful just thinking of loved ones who go away forever, or of moments that could have been good but weren't, or of treasures that might have been found but were forever hidden in the sands. Because, when these things happen, we suffer terribly."-Santiago's Heart

"Our heart can never suffer if we are following our Personal Legend." -Alchemist
I like this part, and I like Coelho's explanation of why our heart might discourage us from following our dreams. That's all.

"When you possess great treasures within you, and you try to tell others of them, seldom are you believed."-Alchemist
It's funny, but this kind of reminds me of what Will Smith said in the preview for his most recent movie: "People will try to tell you that you can't do something because they couldn't do it themselves." Both statements are true, because it's easier for us to believe that if something is too difficult for us it will be too difficult for someone else...sometimes even though we never really tried.

"That is what Alchemists do. They show that, when we strive to become better than we are, everything around us becomes better too."-Alchemist
A fundamental tenet in many Buddhist belief systems and also a statement I believe in strongly. Good begets good.

Lingering Question
At the end of the book, a thief tells Santiago about a vision he had about his own Personal Legend. I wonder, how was that thief able to come so close to achieving his own Personal Legend? How could someone who almost achieved their Personal Legend ever become such a mean person?

A final complaint
I felt it was unneccessary for Coelho to give Santiago actual treasure. I suppose the entirety of the epilogue was unneccessary (it was basically just Santiago going to find his treasure, finding it, and then thinking of Fatima). The treasure is much more powerful as a figurative object than a literal, and the book loses a bit of symbolism by having Santiago find physical treasure. I suppose I can dismiss it as a necessary simplicity to make the book easier for children to relate to.

Family and Politics

I don't know how it happened that I got so lucky with my family. I went down south to visit brother and wife Jason and Chris this weekend...it was a lot of fun. It was kind of a dual birthday celebration even though I didn't get either one a present :/. Fun times, though I won't mention the atrocities of Saturday night or the calamitous ramifications on Sunday. Nah, instead I'll talk about fun and kids.

So, let me tell you what I did and that it was really fun. Me, Chris, Tyler (youngest bro, 17) and Katie (niece, 9) played keep away in the living room with a pair of my socks (clean, of course). Yup. Keep away. We played in the living room, and adjusted the rules slightly so that if you were over the age of 10 and you were touched while holding the socks, you were it. It's the kind of thing you'd think we were just doing for Katie...but no. All four of us were pretty into it. OK, all four of us were very into it.

I don't really know what to make of it. How can people spend so much time bored when it's so easy to have fun? I guess the real situation is that I'm lucky to have other people who can have fun doing simple things. I have to admit, Katie was a bit of an impetus - I doubt we would have played without the kid there as well. Jason did a good job finding Chris, she fits right in with the weird family that will do things like that...the kind of family where all 4 boys play ping pong, ddr...everything.

---------------------------

On a completely different subject...I was looking for an interview of Leonard Peikoff for Lydia a while ago, and the recent election has kind of brought something he talked about here (that link won't stay good if you're reading this far in the future, but I'm quoting the relevant part anyway).

How you cast your vote in the coming election is important, even if the two parties are both rotten. In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power.

Socialism - a fad of the last few centuries - has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast—the destroyer of man since time immemorial - is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government.

Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad."

First off, let me say that so far I'm not particularly fond of Peikoff. Peikoff follows Rand's books like a Bible - his viewpoint always seems to match hers exactly, beyond the point of logical deduction and closer to a kind of worship. I feel that Peikoff does not come to his own conclusions but rather attempts to mirror Rand...I wonder if wears a bracelet "wward" (sigh, that joke really had potential, but I couldn't deliver it well for some reason).

Anyway, now that you're done reading that it's really irrelevant. It doesn't matter if I like Peikoff because it's not him we're talking about, it's his ideas. Or in this case, a particular idea of his. Democrats = socialism and Republics = religious rule. The reason this has stuck in my head is because I (sadly) believe there's a lot of truth here. Sure, originally the republican party was in favor of big business and individual power while democrats...well they want more governmental programs but at the same time more constraints on big business. Obviously that's changed -- I'm fairly sure we've got the majority of those with the lowest economic status supporting Bush, for example (where democratic governmental programs would help them and republican big business support would hurt them).

So is it fair to say the Republican party is turning into the "Christian" party? Bush does say he is a Christian, and I think that there are a large number of Christians who want a Christian president. I wish this wasn't the case - I wish that Christians would realize that it's immaterial whether or not they are right, separation of church and state is the way to go. Religious empires fail, and religion corrupts government more than, well, anything. Obviously this is a dandelion wish, not something I actually foresee happening.

I'm done.

Proposition 83

California is in the process of passing a law, proposition 83, that will ban all convicted sex offenders of coming within 2000 ft. of a school and also require them to wear global GPS trackers at all times.

I understand that sex offenders have done something terrible. I know there are lifetime effects on the victims, though I think very few can claim to understand them.

That said, there is no evidence that how close a sex offender lives to a school is related to repeat offenses. This proposition is going to be passed (and it will) not because it's an effective deterrent, it's going to be passed because it's safe for politicians to back it and difficult for them to oppose it. Everyone hates sex offenders, so defending them in any way is equivalent to political suicide. People accept that if a proposition like this exists, it's sensible - it must be because it's going to reduce problems. I don't think it does reduce problems, but it's simple and it's easy and supporting it makes a politician look good.

In California, where this law is being passed, it will be basically impossible for a sex offender to live in a city. It will be even more than it already is to find employment. Really, it will be difficult to ever re-enter society. It seems that what people really want is an execution, but we can't do that...so instead we do what we can to make them feel like they are no longer human. But why dehumanize them? If sex offenders are going to be allowed back into society, shouldn't the emphasis be placed on recovery (instead of doing something that could possibly cause them)?

Is it inconceivable that a sex offender might, well, recover? A study in Hawaii showed that only 2-6% of offenders repeated the offense ( http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/07/ln/ln07p.html). According to the article these numbers are less than national figures, but it still gives you an idea. What proposition 83 is doing is making a sex offender something less than every other citizen, no longer fit to live with the rest of humanity (ever). I can only guess at the psychological ramifications, but I wouldn't guess that this ostracism is any kind of deterrent...it makes a road to recovery that much more difficult to find.

-------------------------

Speaking of execution, I'm against the death penalty. To me, the death penalty says, "There is a justifiable reason to kill a human being." When an entire culture proclaims that as true, what's to stop people from making their own reasons?

Why do I work?

I've had the opportunity to think a lot lately on why I work from home as opposed to finding a secure job where I could earn a lot more money. It's not that I didn't know the reasons before, it's that I couldn't have articulated them as well.

Almost as important as the reasons I do work from home are reasons other people have for desiring my situation. I believe that some of these are counter-productive to working at home. I'll start with them:

Reasons that don't make sense for the entrepreneur

1) Money
Sure, it sounds great. You're taking out the middle-man. You can offer your services without having your company take out all the middle expenses.

Be realistic.

Entrepreneurship is a risk. You're not guaranteed success or money. Be ready to accept that you'll possibly be making less money than you would at a full-time job. With no benefits. And less security. There's a chance that you'll make it big, but there's a much greater chance that you won't. Recognize that it's a gamble.

2) Fewer Hours, More Freedom
This sounds silly, but I have friends who want to start their own business so they don't have to work so many hours (ie, 40). If you're serious about your entrepreneurship, be willing to devote more than 40 hours if you want any measure of success. I haven't done that, you say? True. But few would call me successful. I've been lucky, but not everyone will be. Don't assume you'll be lucky too.

You can get more flexibility working for yourself. Don't confuse that with more time off.

-------------------------------------

Those are the reasons that come readily to mind that friends have had for wanting to "entrepreneur". Now, why do I do it?

1) Freedom with myself
I'm my own boss. I work for my clients and they are the people I need to please, but I get to choose how the work is done and what is important. I have creative freedom to do things how I see best, and I don't have any bureaucracy or red tape to cut through. I can work efficiently without having to justify myself to anyone but the end client.

2) Freedom with boss (clients)
I chose to work for the poker clients, but I was never excited about the work. Why? Because they didn't really care about their product. They were in it solely for the money, and they could care less about the end product we created for them as long as it did what it needed to. That's very unfulfilling work as compared to my primary client. When you work for a client that cares about what they do, you work in a situation where your own effort and hard work is recognized and appreciated. When I work, I work hard and I try to deliver a quality product. Maybe it sounds weak, but it's so much more meaningful to have that recognized.

3) Freedom with organizational structure
I aspire to grow my work to a level where I have enough work to warrant the use of several programmers to create teams. At that point, I have almost complete freedom over how the business will be run (I use almost because there are laws I'll have to follow). Perhaps I can avoid the office environment you find in Dilbert with creative management. Until I do have employees, I also control my internal systems. I decide the level of paperwork required and any other procedures. This is a liberating freedom.

-------------------------------------

I like working for myself, but more importantly I like my work.

Incompetence

I think one of my greatest motivators has been fear of my own incompetence. When I look at periods where I'm unusually driven, it's normally out of a desire to improve what I feel is an unacceptable state. My motivation does not come from wanting to be the best I can be...it's simply unacceptable to be below average.

It's not that I don't have other motivation - I can inspire myself to do better because I know it's the right thing or I know it will help me, but the innate drive to avoid incompetence is effortless and irresistible. I can never be below average for long about something I care about - I'll do whatever it takes to make sure that's not the case.

What does this say about me? I'm not sure. I don't even know for sure if it's unusual, but I imagine it is.

Part 2

So, part 2. I'll be making a lot of ties between the discussion and Rand's works/philosophy...try to keep up.

I ended my last post mentioning the group of intellectuals that began gathering. This group discussed Atlas Shrugged as it was written. I have to admit I have some jealousy here...I have not once been in a group of great thinkers in discussion of what would become the second most influential novel of all time. Not once.

I'm going to jump ahead right into one of Branden's criticisms of objectivism.
"If you are thinking rationally, your feelings will follow. If your feelings and logic are out of sync, your logic is bad." He also says that feelings that don't match are simply "swept under the rug" - basically, they are ignored. Is it human condition to have feelings that don't make sense logically?

I don't want to discuss the chemical aspect (ie eating chocolate makes me happy when logically I'd be sad). I think, specifically, Branden was referring to his doubts and the fact that he didn't love Rand. What about the initial feelings of like, dislike, or the connection we feel with some people that we don't feel with others? I'm still thinking about it, but I think that all of our feelings do have a logical base. It's easy to argue that Branden simply had perceptions he was not aware of - basically, he gathered information that his brain had processed but it hadn't fully developed in his conscious mind. Maybe he repressed the information, as it was a truth he didn't want to face. I think that our initial feelings can also be described in such a way - we make a judgment, consciously or unconsciously, about a person based on the information we have - their appearance, their body language, etc. I don't feel my ideas here are well developed, I'm kind of writing as I think.

One thing that I found interesting (and I'm surprised my sole reader Lydia didn't brandish the topic angrily) is how Wilber tried to spread the credit of Atlas Shrugged upon the whole intellectual discussion group. This is at odds, of course, with her books if she considers herself a "prime mover". Roark, Rearden...her creators are the ones responsible for the end product, not those that help them create. I cannot verify it, but I've always felt Rand, at some level, based her leads upon herself. Of course we say that Branden is the basis for Rearden, but what I mean is that Rand also had an amazing passion for her work and for creation. I think she would hate to have the credit for her work and ideas go out to this group.

The book was released to a culture that didn't accept it. I've got two theories on this - one that's not mine and is smart, and another that is mine. First, though, I'd like to mention another book similarity. Rand was depressed that Shrugged was so horribly received. According to the interview, critics gave it horrendous reviews and the intellectual crowd rejected it as well. Rand reminded me, at this point, of her architect Henry Cameron from "The Fountainhead". Cameron was a "true" artist - he loved his work and his work was quality. Cameron was already disenchanted with society by the time we are introduced to him; he is jaded beyond retribution. If Rand was depressed she must have felt like Cameron - she must have felt there was nothing that could be done to make society appreciate true art.

Rand's leads have an uncanny amount of personal strength, perhaps an impossible amount. Maybe it's unreasonable to expect her to take that role: she sees them as ideals that even she cannot live up to. I suppose Rand didn't give up, she was merely disheartened...understandably. She had put so much effort into her novel only to have it dismissed as worthless - it's hard not to compare her to a lead.

So why didn't culture accept it? First, let me cite the work of a relatively unknown expert in objectivism. She asked me not to quote so I'll have to paraphrase:

The basis of Rand's objectivism was very similar to the basis of the philosophy of modernism - "a trend of thought which affirms the power of human beings to make, improve, and reshape their environment..." Rand's ideas took place after a cultural shift had taken place and the intellectual community was focused on postmodernism. Postmodernism counters many of the founding principles of modernism by questioning if they truly exist. The similarity to modernism may have caused people to think that she was encouraging a return to an old philosophy - a philosophy believed to have been improved upon - and therefore dismissed her ideas.

While I agree with the above, I have another perspective to add. Rand was a bit of a victim of her own vision (yet again). One of the guiding principles of art, in her mind, was its originality. For example, her architect did not believe in simply using old styles of architecture, nor did he believe in taking the best of the most recent style and attempting to improve upon it. He had his own style - a wonderful, original style without any historical origins. I believe she attempted to craft her philosophy as such - she didn't want to build off an existing philosophy, she wanted to start anew ignoring what she felt were obsolete methods of thinking. Perhaps it was it's originality, and not it's similarity to modernism, that led to its dismissal.

For a good part of the majority of the interview, Branden discusses the bias of objectivism towards feelings, especially feelings that don't fit the logical framework. I don't have much to comment on this part, other than there is a statement worth thinking about: "All of the major mistakes I've made in life have been when I've neglected something I was feeling." I need to make some more major mistakes in my life before I can discuss this without feeling awkward. Branden feels there's a relationship between reason and emotion - that emotions should be used as guideposts.

I think what Branden means by this is that our emotions can be a source of information. They can be a way to tap into something we might not consciously realize. I don't know how valuable they are. A simple the example is that first impression emotion I made earlier. There have been people that I just didn't like after looking at them, or possibly talking to them once...but I didn't have any logical reason I could think of for this dislike. Obviously, that first impression was wrong and my emotions were, well, worthless. This doesn't mean that I don't pay attention to my emotions, it means I don't know how to tell which ones are valuable and which aren't.

So, time for an Aaron observation. "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" is Branden's most popular book. I think authors can relate best to others when they first start a philosophical or psychological journey. Most of us start with premises that are at least fairly similar - at the very least you will have an audience that starts with the same premises. I don't believe that everyone progress past the first steps, though, and I also believe that we don't all move in the same direction. Branden's later books are written after he's further along his spiritual path as he is an individual who is serious about personal growth and therefore not the type to stagnate in the beginning steps. It's much more difficult to find an audience for books written in this state - they almost have to have enjoyed his previous books and started a path similar to his to get value from the books.

It's interesting that Branden felt (rightly so, I believe) that many of his objectivist friends ended their friendship after the Rand breakup not because of Rand, but because they were worried Branden was continuing down an intellectual path and they didn't want to change their personal philosophy. It's common, I believe, to become content or to lose interest in developing our world-view. In my experience, most people actively stop developing their world-view when they leave school. I think a sure sign is when instead of looking for new ideas you look for material that supports your existing ideas. Basically, it implies that you think you're right...or at least right enough. I think I'm still in development...or possibly that I stopped when I was 7 or 8. I have always been very stubborn.

The last thought that had importance to me in the first interview was "Nobody was ever led to virtue by being told he was wrong." I disagree - sometimes you have to tell someone if they're wrong. I like it when people tell me I'm wrong - if it's something important, I'll react petulantly and probably ridicule them as a self-defense mechanism, but I'm likely to think about it later. So I like this idea, but the use of the word "ever" is poor. In the act of virtue-guiding, you have to choose your leash wisely.

My metaphors are horrible.

Soccer

God I love to play soccer.

I love the feeling of not feeling anything but yourself and your body that comes, fleetingly, for an instant. I put everything my body can do into a movement, into a decision and it responds. I'm in a different mental state - the world no longer exists, there is only me. There's a confidence that comes with practice - a confidence that I can succeed. In these instants, there is no confidence, only a knowing that what I wish for will happen.

I love that feeling. I love those instants.

The Branden Interview, Section 1

I haven't started writing it, but I can tell you now this blog entry will be long. I'll be discussing my thoughts and reactions to an interview of Nathaniel Branden by Ken Wilber. You can find links to the interviews below if you're interested in listening to them - it's about 2.5 hours, but not bad for listening to on a long trip if you have interest in the subject. If you're going to put them on CDs you have to put Part 1 and Part 3 on a CD, and then Part 2 and Part 4 on a CD (Part 1 and 2 are too large for 1 CD). In this section I'll only be discussing Part 1 and 2, I don't know when I'll get to the next two...possibly not until next weekend.

Download Links:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Background Info:
Ayn Rand is an author whose most famous work, Atlus Shrugged, is consistently rated the second most influential book in people's lives (second to The Bible). She is the founder of a school of philosophy known as Objectivism; -"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute".

Nathaniel Branden was a follower of the Objectivist movement and is thought to be the basis for the main character in Atlas Shrugged (Rand's portrayal of the "perfect" man). He and Rand were romantically involved during the writing of the book and he founded the Nathaniel Branden Institute, a school that offered lecture courses on Objectivism. He later left Rand and attempted to transcend the theories of objectivism, and became a writer.

Ken Wilber is a Buddhist writer/philosopher/psychologist/theologist. I can't say I know a lot about him, if you're interested feel free to Google.

Down to business:

Despite the obvious influence of Ayn Rand's writing and philosophy it has been largely ignored by intellectual and was shunned by both media and many intellectuals on its release. I believe Rand had the misfortune of writing the right things in the wrong time. In the 1950s, many intellectuals had a strong belief that capitalism was failing and it was soon to be replaced by the superior collectivism. If her work had been released upon a culture more like ours: an anti-communist society with less trust of the government, we may have been more accepting. Nevertheless Rand's work strongly influenced many people, including Nathaniel Branden (who was first introduced to the work as a teen).

Early on in the interview, Branden brings up some teenage philosophy he felt guided him through a portion of the beginning of his life. He felt that the entire world was trying to push its view upon him and that it was important to maintain his individualism. In order to do so, he decided he wouldn't accept anything as truth that he couldn't personally verify. I think Objectivism supports this view in a sense - it puts ultimate value in the individual and his or her judgment. I also think Branden is right on in his evaluation of the mindset: "it was extremely helpful, but you waste a lot of time rediscovering the wheel".

Branden sent a letter to Rand when he was almost 20 years old with some questions about the book. It's ironic that Rand's husband, Frank, is the one that recognized the intelligence in young Branden's letter. He suggested that she contact him and help him develop his ideas. I think it's important to note that Branden mentions that upon meeting Rand he felt, for the first time in his life, that he belonged. Stealing from God's Debris (page 112 or so), this was a meeting of two "idea people". Not only that, but their ideas connected in a way that allowed them to build upon their own ideas (just speculation). As an idea person myself I can verify - it's a very rare but a very exciting moment to meet someone like that. In fact, let me clarify even more...since it's my blog, I get to write about myself.

Well first of all, that passage from God's Debris is wrong. It's wrong on many levels, but most importantly it's wrong in stating that idea people only like to talk about their own ideas, they don't like to listen to others. Anyway, I'm really not very good at small conversation. Fortunately I have very good listening skills and since most people are perfectly fine talking about themselves this doesn't cause many problems. But the truth is I get bored easily talking (listening) of things with little significance. I suppose it's normal to get bored talking about things you don't care about - there are just a lot of things I don't care about. You know, it's probably safer to stop this train of thought before it causes problems. I really wanted to say "stop this train of thought before it hits me" but that doesn't make sense - its just a funny image.

So when Rand and Branden met, she asked him three questions. I feel she must have thought these questions very indicative of a "good thinker" - most good thinkers think other good thinkers should think similarly to them. That's a mouthful. She asked #1) What do you think of reason? #2) Is man intrinsically good or bad, and #3) What do you think of life? Is it good or bad?. Each of these questions have their own significance - they are covered in the interview, but I'll review here.

The reason Rand asked question #1 was because of her supreme reverence for reason as the only source of information. The question was basically "Do you believe there is any other way to gather information other than through reason?". It's an interesting question because to answer yes is to completely discredit intuition or any metaphysical guidance. I recently read "Power vs. Force", and I somehow simultaneously enjoyed and hated the book. I hated the book because the main idea the author tried to push was that every idea, action, object...everything had an objective numeric value to our life (between 1 and 1000). By thinking about the object and listening to our body, we could find the value of that object. The basis for the idea is that positive things make your body go strong, weak things make your body go weak. A real-life example (that does work, by the way) takes two people. Have one person hold their arms out straight (Person A), and have the other person try to push one arm down (Person G). You'll need to do this twice - once while the Person A is thinking about how (possibly even saying out loud) they simply can't stop the other person from pushing their arms down. The second time, Person A should be thinking/saying confidently, that they can hold up their arms and stop Person G. For whatever reason, the positive thought affects our bodies ability to resist. Person A may not stop Person G, but person G will certainly notice an increased resistance. Anyway, it's a long jump from their to the author's conclusion. I did find value in the book though because even though I hated the method, I enjoyed some of the results. It was interesting to hear the numeric valuations of various objects and philosophies, even if I had no faith in the method with which they were conceived. I suppose the most interesting valuations was that of the different states of conciousness. Maybe sometime I'll write more about this. I doubt it. Back on topic.

Rand asked question two mostly because she wanted to verify there wasn't any Christian belief that man is born corrupt and there is no chance to redeem ourselves. Man, I hate the idea of original sin as well, but I’ve covered that before.

The third question was interesting and I think it has a little to do with common philosophies at the time. Sadly, I don't know enough about philosophy to name them but I'd bet on existentialism and determinism - maybe my New York philosophy expert (or any other reader) can help me out here. Anyway, the point is that she wanted to make sure that Branden didn't believe it wasn't possible to be happy or to achieve anything in life (Branden's words were "life was impossible because the cards are stacked horribly against you"). Branden's answer was exactly what she was looking for and also what I believe - if we find the right way to live we can be ecstatic. It's interesting that in Atlas Shrugged Rand's characters could never be happy as long as they were part of (dysfunctional) society. The answer she wanted from Branden is at odds with her philosophy as written in her books.

So Branden spent more time with Rand, a small intellectual group was formed, and I'm going to call it quits on this post for now. It's much longer than I thought it would be, and I'm not even 1/3 of the way through my notes about the things I want to discuss. I'll post this as is, but I may remove it or edit it after I get a night's sleep and realize I should cut the parts that aren't interesting (all of it) and leave the parts that are.

A Work/Life Update

Hey! My first update on Blogspot. I'm switching because I don't like that Xanga requires you to register to leave a comment - now whoever you are, you can comment freely! The actual update is fairly mundane, sadly...just a little Aaron information.

I keep telling everyone how work is keeping me so busy and about all this work I have. Have you ever wondered what I'm actually doing, and especially how I manage to do this and still be so destitute? Be honest, now. Anyway, these are the reasons I have abandoned my family so.

#1: Big Block
I've been working with Big Block since day 1, basically. I started work with them late 2002 and provide constant programming support for them. It sounds weird, but they never run out of things to update. I'm fairly confident this work will be here as long as I want it to be.

#2: HB Machine
Those of you with strong recollection skills might remember that HB Machine was my "college job". They have been in touch with me recently about updating some software that I wrote while I was working there...yeah it's pretty ridiculous. They are still using this antiquated, novice, poor-quality software that I wrote while I was in school. Anyway, it seems possible that I'll be doing a significant amount of work for them. I had to get up early today to finish off a proposal, so I better get the work. Yay, money.

#3: Poker Kingz
This is the newest client to add to the list. It's a fairly cut and dry thing - they're paying us to write some software for them, we'll probably finish early next year. They have high aspirations, but for whatever reason I'm not excited or optimistic about this work. Don't tell them that!

#4: HAR Management for ODOT
It's ironic - this is the work with the most potential that I pay the least attention to. This is the software for the traffic department (if you talk to me I'm sure I've mentioned it). The plan has been, for a long time, to finish it and then sell it. Progress has been sluggish to say the least -- it can be difficult to work on something without any guaranteed payout. Or maybe I'm just lazy. Either way, if we don't finish this by early next year we might lose our opportunity. By we I mean mostly me.

-----------------------------------------

I guess I'll take a little more time and give a life update. My friend from Colorado (Dan) is still living with me (he's only been here about two weeks). He's trying to find work, and by my standards has had decent luck. He'll be moving out once he finds work. Matt Johnson, everyone's favorite solo pianist, might join me in my glorious abode while he studies how to teach English (in Japan) for an undetermined amount of time. I'm still playing soccer 2-3x a week, and still on a pretty good streak of no serious injuries in soccer, well, ever. I miss spending time with all the nephews and nieces and am going to have to make time to see them soon - maybe in November I'll return to the good ol' schedule or some variation.

Still single of course, though the US customs agent asked my 3-4 times if I got married in Vietnam. My answer was the same every time: a look of incredulity followed by a definite no. I don't understand why he felt he might get a different answer if he asked it more than once. I suppose I was pretty exhausted, maybe I wasn't putting enough enthusiasm into my rejection so my "No" came out as "Ask again later" in some magic eight-ball sort of way. Oh, while I'm on the subject of Vietnam I have a sizable pile of souvenirs sitting on my floor to distribute. Also on the subject and Vietnam and my being single I'll clear something up: Yes, I met a very nice girl in Vietnam. She spoke German, and the three years of German I took in high school meant we could communicate very well. Yes, we're staying in touch and no, there is basically no chance of being anything "more" than friends: she lives in another country and we don't share a primary language. How could I ever be with someone that didn't appreciate my extraordinary vernacular? She is a great person though, and I'm glad we're staying in touch. There's even a remote possibility I'll go to Germany with some friends and visit - then I can really put my German to use! Deutsch fuer das gewinnen!

Speaking of appreciating my vernacular, I accidentally met an interesting person who has unintentionally motivated me to get back into reading (yes, you Lydia) - I've been slacking off because I have these 3 books at the top of my personal reading queue, none of which I'm really that interested in but all of which I want to read. I've decided I'll just read the books I want to read now, and I'll get to those books when I want to read them. So I went and got "The Fountainhead" (Ayn Rand), "The Alchemist" (Paul Coelhe) and "No Boundaries" (Ken Wilber). I also want to read "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" (Nathaniel Branden) but the library doesn't have the book, so I'll have to buy it. Oh, the last two books were chosen because I decided to listen to this dialogue between Wilber and Branden and it reignited an interest in their philosophy. I'm considering posting a review of the discussion as my next post.

On the larger scale of things...I'm very happy with life, and with mine. I get frustrated because I have a very clear vision of the person I want to be and I'm not always that person, but that's probably part of life. One of the advantages to being single is that it gives you a great opportunity to grow as a person. Very often, when people find someone they love they lose themselves in that person - for a while anyway. Instead of identifying themselves as an individual they identify themself as part of a pair, and life is for the enrichment of that pair.

Well, now you all know why I never get any work done on project #4. I wanted to take a 1/2 break and it's been almost an hour. Oh well, blogging can be important too. Hope you enjoyed the read, reader. Sincerely, the writer.


Edit: Immediately after finishing this post I checked my email. I had some mail from HB Machine (#2) basically saying whatever I recommend is what they'll do. Yay, money.