Introduction - Pyr Oura

[Pyr Oura]

Hello everyone. Here's what I'd submitted, which made it past preliminary screening. I've also recently submitted the longer questionnaire - it's been a while since I've experienced this kind of anticipation.

1) What are your unique characteristics that set you apart from most
people? (your views, achievements, etc):
Let me recount my first notable action in Eve during my trial period:
I found myself in over my head in a particularly difficult mission.
Twice I'd warped out to avoid certain destruction. I asked for help in
local chat, and promised half the rewards. A veteran pilot offered to
help. After completing the mission, the pilot declined my reward, and
instead gave me 1/2 million ISK, a Thrasher and Rifter. I accepted the
gifts. After putting the Thrasher to work for a few days I sent the
pilot who helped me 2 million ISK.

Ok, a little more about me. I've experienced what Buddists describe as
enlightenment. It was triggered during a conversation I had with my
father, who was well aware of what he was doing. However, I no longer
have any contact with my parents or family. They were a destructive
force towards me and my wife to be, and after a year of fruitless
attempts at reasoning with them, I had to sever all contact.

I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged many years ago, and found
Ayn Rand extraordinary enough I read about her thoughts on writing.
But in so far as applied philosophy is concerned, I find my thoughts
more deeply shaped by Robert Pirsig's Lila.

2) Why are you playing EVE?
Something new and different to explore. I'll have a lot more to say if
I'm still playing after three months.

3) Why are you applying to Taggart?
For an interesting experience. But I'm not interested in expounding
Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality, nor am I looking for answers in
Objectivism. Just hoping to have a few interesting discussions about
zen and the art of building an empire.

[Oleksandr]

Your full application is now being processed in HR department.

Welcome to the forums.

o7

[whisperii]

Hello everyone. Here's what I'd submitted, which made it past preliminary screening. I've also recently submitted the longer questionnaire - it's been a while since I've experienced this kind of anticipation.

1) What are your unique characteristics that set you apart from most
people? (your views, achievements, etc):
Let me recount my first notable action in Eve during my trial period:
I found myself in over my head in a particularly difficult mission.
Twice I'd warped out to avoid certain destruction. I asked for help in
local chat, and promised half the rewards. A veteran pilot offered to
help. After completing the mission, the pilot declined my reward, and
instead gave me 1/2 million ISK, a Thrasher and Rifter. I accepted the
gifts. After putting the Thrasher to work for a few days I sent the
pilot who helped me 2 million ISK.

Ok, a little more about me. I've experienced what Buddists describe as
enlightenment. It was triggered during a conversation I had with my
father, who was well aware of what he was doing. However, I no longer
have any contact with my parents or family. They were a destructive
force towards me and my wife to be, and after a year of fruitless
attempts at reasoning with them, I had to sever all contact.

I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged many years ago, and found
Ayn Rand extraordinary enough I read about her thoughts on writing.
But in so far as applied philosophy is concerned, I find my thoughts
more deeply shaped by Robert Pirsig's Lila.

2) Why are you playing EVE?
Something new and different to explore. I'll have a lot more to say if
I'm still playing after three months.

3) Why are you applying to Taggart?
For an interesting experience. But I'm not interested in expounding
Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality, nor am I looking for answers in
Objectivism. Just hoping to have a few interesting discussions about
zen and the art of building an empire.

Not having the time to read Pirsig's Lila, could you give us a synopsis of why you like the book? Also, when you say 'zen and the art of building an empire', what do you mean?

[Pyr Oura]

Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance was Pirsig's first book, which gave him recognition. In the preamble he notes that it isn't very informative of zen or of motorcycle maintenance either. It does however cover an interesting and thoughtful journey, full of problems and issues, and a marvellous ending. If I could have a similarly thoughtful journey and triumph in the end, I'll be happy. Hence my reference.

His second book Lila builds upon his initial ideas. I like Lila because of the reasoning tools he provides that allows me to think more clearly about myself and everything around me. There are enough layers in his books that giving a synopsis reflects more on the bias of the reader than of the book itself. So my take on what I found most useful out of Lila is how Pirsig describes everything about us in a hierarchical fashion, individuals, collection of individuals, collection of collections, etc. He establishes a framework that describe the dynamics of how these different levels interact.

Where Rand focuses almost entirely on the individual, I find Pirsig more applicable in real life. However, despite Pirsig's intelligence, he suffered a mental breakdown and was hospitalized (he talks about it in zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance) because he couldn't reconcile his beliefs with that held by the philosophical establishment, and society at large. There is some irony in my belief that I think he wouldn't have had his breakdown if he read Atlas Shrugged, or if he did, that he took her more seriously.

[whisperii]

Where Rand focuses almost entirely on the individual, I find Pirsig more applicable in real life. However, despite Pirsig's intelligence, he suffered a mental breakdown and was hospitalized (he talks about it in zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance) because he couldn't reconcile his beliefs with that held by the philosophical establishment, and society at large. There is some irony in my belief that I think he wouldn't have had his breakdown if he read Atlas Shrugged, or if he did, that he took her more seriously.

Ok. I wonder if by reading Rand, you felt that the extremism of her characters was indicative of how one should live. Man is not confined to a box and as such ought to associate with people at an individual and group level. This is explained in some detail as the concept of Psychological Visibilty by Nathaniel Branden. But if I had read his work, which I have not, that does not necessarily mean that he would not have suffered a breakdown per se. I have met MANY would-be objectivists who have had difficulty integrating Rand (specifically Atlas) into their life among other less-than-rational people. I myself was one of those.

Also, attempting to reconcile with the currently dominant set of philosophical beliefs (held by the intelligencia) is something that I personally believe is unecessary and would be a fundamental flaw in a person's premises to want to do. Having a rational debate with someone requires agreement on at least the basic tenets of what you are debating about. If you cannot agree on something as simple as A is A (or other axiomatic principles), then there can be no conciliatory action. And to beat yourself to death (or insane) trying to make something into something it is not, is a waste of energy and likely, in my mind, an act of evasion.

Good luck on your application.

[Oleksandr]

Good post, whisperii.

[Petyr Baelich]

Good post, whisperii.

Ditto. But we all know you only quote Nathaniel because you want to get closer to Barbara! ;p

[Pyr Oura]

I wonder if by reading Rand, you felt that the extremism of her characters was indicative of how one should live.

No, certainly not - at least not literally. I thought blowing up a building as Roark did in Fountainhead was wrong. I think I understand what Rand was trying to symbolize by his action, but I do wonder if it would have been more effective if Roark wasn't the perpetrator. Anyway, I digress.

Also, attempting to reconcile with the currently dominant set of philosophical beliefs (held by the intelligencia) is something that I personally believe is unecessary and would be a fundamental flaw in a person's premises to want to do. Having a rational debate with someone requires agreement on at least the basic tenets of what you are debating about. If you cannot agree on something as simple as A is A (or other axiomatic principles), then there can be no conciliatory action.

Agreed, but by reconciliation, I don't necessarily mean agreement - more of coming to terms of just what reality is, even if it means detaching and leaving it to decay as in Atlas Shrugged. Pirsig wouldn't compromise his ideals, but he couldn't detach, so he cracked.

Who's Barbara?

[whisperii]

If you had used a different example, I would allow your digression, unfortunately you chose one so blatant that I find myself unable to ignore it. It couldn't have been anyone but Roark. The whole point of it was that HE did it to symbolize that he would rather destroy his work then allow the rotters and looters to touch it. If someone else did it, then it would be vandalism.

Agreed, but by reconciliation, I don't necessarily mean agreement - more of coming to terms of just what reality is, even if it means detaching and leaving it to decay as in Atlas Shrugged. Pirsig wouldn't compromise his ideals, but he couldn't detach, so he cracked.

I can't put my finger on this, but it seems like a false dichotomy. The definition of reconciliation is agreement, or at the very outside, making things correspond. Do you see that detachment from a negative force is not a compromise, but a bloster of correct ideology? In other words, what you are saying, if I read that correctly, is that Pirsig sacrificed his sanity (which is necessary to rational thought) by the practice of evasion (thinking he could make a difference)? Now I have to read this, it's just too silly to be that simple.

Conversely, it's a best-seller isn't it? Seeing as how the reigning principles of living seem to be altruism and socialism, maybe it isn't silly at all that someone would write a book like that. I'll read it anyways.

Who's Barbara?

Barbara Branden is the sweetest, kindness, most loving, honest and rational woman on the earth. I have taser marks to prove it.

[Petyr Baelich]

If you had used a different example, I would allow your digression, unfortunately you chose one so blatant that I find myself unable to ignore it. It couldn't have been anyone but Roark. The whole point of it was that HE did it to symbolize that he would rather destroy his work then allow the rotters and looters to touch it. If someone else did it, then it would be vandalism.

Bah, you beat me to my post, MD. (Which brings up another issue: What do you wish to be called? Everyone calls me Petyr no matter what alt I'm on, I find that makes things easier, do you wish to be known forevermore as Mystic Death, or what?)

[Oleksandr]

Changing forum account name is easy.

[whisperii]

If you had used a different example, I would allow your digression, unfortunately you chose one so blatant that I find myself unable to ignore it. It couldn't have been anyone but Roark. The whole point of it was that HE did it to symbolize that he would rather destroy his work then allow the rotters and looters to touch it. If someone else did it, then it would be vandalism.

Bah, you beat me to my post, MD. (Which brings up another issue: What do you wish to be called? Everyone calls me Petyr no matter what alt I'm on, I find that makes things easier, do you wish to be known forevermore as Mystic Death, or what?)

I think Tyn would be best. It was my first account and by far the one I enjoy playing the most. Or you can use my real name, which I have a tendency to respond to.

However, unless the mgmt takes issue, I would prefer not to change my login name.

How about it Oleks?

[Pyr Oura]

Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance was a best seller, though I should point out that Atlas Shrugged is much more popular (at least according to amazon.com best seller ratings) - so please no snarky comments about best sellers and socialism. Anyway, I found his second book Lila much more interesting, but it would be tough reading it without the background from his first book.

... if I read that correctly, is that Pirsig sacrificed his sanity (which is necessary to rational thought) by the practice of evasion (thinking he could make a difference)? Now I have to read this, it's just too silly to be that simple.

Ugh.. that just seems like the wrong reason to want to read the book. But at least you form your own opinion of him. If you do get through it, try reading Lila too. Lila provides some interesting tools, and I think will also let you see the problems of socialism in a different light.

The whole point of it was that HE did it to symbolize that he would rather destroy his work then allow the rotters and looters to touch it.

I read that as it being too unbearable for his ego, so he had to destroy it. That's not a good enough reason - I found myself asking, but why. I assume Rand did it to symbolize the individual as the final arbiter, an absolute force. For a while I thought Rand was having a go at the male ego, as some kind of oblique reference men are responsible for much of the destruction around us, justifiable or not.

[whisperii]

Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance was a best seller, though I should point out that Atlas Shrugged is much more popular (at least according to amazon.com best seller ratings) - so please no snarky comments about best sellers and socialism. Anyway, I found his second book Lila much more interesting, but it would be tough reading it without the background from his first book.

... if I read that correctly, is that Pirsig sacrificed his sanity (which is necessary to rational thought) by the practice of evasion (thinking he could make a difference)? Now I have to read this, it's just too silly to be that simple.

Ugh.. that just seems like the wrong reason to want to read the book. But at least you form your own opinion of him. If you do get through it, try reading Lila too. Lila provides some interesting tools, and I think will also let you see the problems of socialism in a different light.

The whole point of it was that HE did it to symbolize that he would rather destroy his work then allow the rotters and looters to touch it.

I read that as it being too unbearable for his ego, so he had to destroy it. That's not a good enough reason - I found myself asking, but why. I assume Rand did it to symbolize the individual as the final arbiter, an absolute force. For a while I thought Rand was having a go at the male ego, as some kind of oblique reference men are responsible for much of the destruction around us, justifiable or not.

I'm going to reserve further comment on the first part until I read at least one of those books.

For the second part, your comment begs the question: How could his situation not have been bearable to his ego? Is it nobler in the minds of men to suffer the slings and arrows? If you create a thing, just you, and you know that is the best that can be done because at least for then, there are none better (not that the ability of others is particularly relevant, but I believe it will help demonstrate the point), then how could you allow someone 1.) To deface it and, 2.) To steal it. Make no mistake, both of those things occur to Howard Roark throughout the story.

As for oblique references, I would have thought that if you read Atlas that Rand doesn't really do oblique. Also, all her heroes, with the exception of Dagny Taggart, are men. Strong, smart, able men. And they are all creators. I would think that you would find just the opposite of your statement to be true. But, I'm sure I could site a few examples from any number of her fiction and non-fiction writings demonstrating that although she is a feminist, she was far from being a man hater. In fact, one of the biggest criticsms she faced (at least ones that mattered) was that she loved men too much. But that's really a different conversation.

Oh, and I wasn't being "snarky", only meaning to say that even the slightest hint of such subject matter might be quite enough to make a book a best-seller. Look at Harry Potter for a fine example. I personally have no shame in saying I loved the books for the writing and general expertise of it, but Harry Potter is a life-hating altruist. I'll not spoil the end though in case you plan on reading it, unless you want to challenge the evaluation.

Look forward to your reply.

[Oleksandr]

... that although she is a feminist,...

Err, excuse me?

Ayn Rand have explicitly said she was not a feminist, and she absolutely despised all feminists and the movement itself.

Where are you taking this from?

[Pyr Oura]

As for oblique references, I would have thought that if you read Atlas that Rand doesn't really do oblique.

I only thought that for a while, and the reason I brought it up was because of my over analysis of Roark's actions. I read Atlas Shrugged after Fountainhead, and a collection of Rand's thoughts on non-fiction writing: indeed she is probably the least oblique writer I know of.

I understand why Roark did what he did. I'm quite sure I understand why Rand had Roark do what he did too.

My issue is her expression that a man's ego as an absolute, seemingly unbounded arbiter. A sort of my will be done attitude. Her story makes it black and white, but it doesn't sit well with me. Consider this: I build a car. A vandal comes along and destroys it. I catch the vandal. Do I hand him over to the police and law (let society deal with him)? Do I destroy his car/home (eye for an eye dogma)? Do I destroy him (ala Ender Wiggins)? Police and law is the acceptable solution in real life, but if that weren't an option - what? Can I kill him? The point I'm trying to make, which I have no simple answer for is that my ego is not an absolute final arbiter. If I kill him, what if I discover he was a silly twelve year old?

I enjoyed Harry Potter too. Rowling's writing is mesmerizing. But I found Ender Wiggin (Ender's Game) a much more interesting character than Harry Potter.

[Petyr Baelich]

As for oblique references, I would have thought that if you read Atlas that Rand doesn't really do oblique.

I only thought that for a while, and the reason I brought it up was because of my over analysis of Roark's actions. I read Atlas Shrugged after Fountainhead, and a collection of Rand's thoughts on non-fiction writing: indeed she is probably the least oblique writer I know of.

I understand why Roark did what he did. I'm quite sure I understand why Rand had Roark do what he did too.

My issue is her expression that a man's ego as an absolute, seemingly unbounded arbiter. A sort of my will be done attitude. Her story makes it black and white, but it doesn't sit well with me. Consider this: I build a car. A vandal comes along and destroys it. I catch the vandal. Do I hand him over to the police and law (let society deal with him)? Do I destroy his car/home (eye for an eye dogma)? Do I destroy him (ala Ender Wiggins)? Police and law is the acceptable solution in real life, but if that weren't an option - what? Can I kill him? The point I'm trying to make, which I have no simple answer for is that my ego is not an absolute final arbiter. If I kill him, what if I discover he was a silly twelve year old?

I enjoyed Harry Potter too. Rowling's writing is mesmerizing. But I found Ender Wiggin (Ender's Game) a much more interesting character than Harry Potter.

If you don't understand the difference between someone destroying an inanimate object that they created so that thieves and looters could not benefit from it, and someone killing a 12-year-old in a fit of rage because their car was stolen/vandalized, then you're an incredibly immoral, (as well as enormously stupid) person. What should you do if someone steals your car? If you exist in a country where there are no police, then it seems you have larger issues than your car being stolen. Concentrate on that.

Ego is not the final arbiter. Reality is. The proper manifestation of a man's ego comes about when his values are in exact accordance with reality. To say that Rand regarded man's Ego in and of itself, as the end-all-be-all of existence is absolutely ridiculous. If Ego is the final arbiter, then we live in a subjective, relativistic, nonexistent state where the Cartesian "I think therefore I am" is the greatest truism. Ha! Absolute garbage.

[whisperii]

... that although she is a feminist,...

Err, excuse me?

Ayn Rand have explicitly said she was not a feminist, and she absolutely despised all feminists and the movement itself.

Where are you taking this from?

I thought I read that. Clearly I am mistaken.

[Pyr Oura]

Seems like we're veering off towards metaphysics. Let me get back on track. What was done against Roark was wrong, but him blowing up the building was disturbing - it felt wrong. Part of that wrongness is due to his reason to rather destroy it than see it in the possession of looters - this reason is not good enough for me.

[whisperii]

Seems like we're veering off towards metaphysics. Let me get back on track. What was done against Roark was wrong, but him blowing up the building was disturbing - it felt wrong. Part of that wrongness is due to his reason to rather destroy it than see it in the possession of looters - this reason is not good enough for me.

Fair enough.

[Oleksandr]

Seems like we're veering off towards metaphysics. Let me get back on track. What was done against Roark was wrong, but him blowing up the building was disturbing - it felt wrong. Part of that wrongness is due to his reason to rather destroy it than see it in the possession of looters - this reason is not good enough for me.

So, let's see:

Roark signs a contract. The contract is broken. The government provides Roark no way to resolve this. All legal attempts would be worthless. So, Roark's property was stolen, and the entire society is falling into Communism/Socialism.

And you are saying that Roark should have left them his creation?

[Petyr Baelich]

Fair enough.

Saw that coming.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Seems like we're veering off towards metaphysics. Let me get back on track. What was done against Roark was wrong, but him blowing up the building was disturbing - it felt wrong. Part of that wrongness is due to his reason to rather destroy it than see it in the possession of looters - this reason is not good enough for me.

The greatest thing that John Galt figured out in Atlas Shrugged was that the only reason the looters could live was that the producers LET THEM.

Therefore, it was much more moral for Galt to say, "screw you", and leave, and destroy all his stuff so the looters couldn't have it, and live for himself only. Same with Francisco, and same with RAGNAR (the best character in AS ).

Roark was the same. The building was his, and his contract was broken. The immoral thing to do in that case would of been to let it stand.

When a thief murders your child, it is EXTREMELY immoral to forgive him and let him get away with it.

[musashi]

Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance was a best seller, though I should point out that Atlas Shrugged is much more popular (at least according to amazon.com best seller ratings) - so please no snarky comments about best sellers and socialism. Anyway, I found his second book Lila much more interesting, but it would be tough reading it without the background from his first book.

... if I read that correctly, is that Pirsig sacrificed his sanity (which is necessary to rational thought) by the practice of evasion (thinking he could make a difference)? Now I have to read this, it's just too silly to be that simple.

Ugh.. that just seems like the wrong reason to want to read the book. But at least you form your own opinion of him. If you do get through it, try reading Lila too. Lila provides some interesting tools, and I think will also let you see the problems of socialism in a different light.

The whole point of it was that HE did it to symbolize that he would rather destroy his work then allow the rotters and looters to touch it.

I read that as it being too unbearable for his ego, so he had to destroy it. That's not a good enough reason - I found myself asking, but why. I assume Rand did it to symbolize the individual as the final arbiter, an absolute force. For a while I thought Rand was having a go at the male ego, as some kind of oblique reference men are responsible for much of the destruction around us, justifiable or not.

I'm going to reserve further comment on the first part until I read at least one of those books.

I read and enjoyed both, but they are dramatically different stories. First off in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (ZAMM) – that guy just plainly needed a Honda! Seriously - my take away was that the story provided introspection on complex personal relationships and our navigation through the events and feelings. I enjoyed Eli Goldratt’s similar book Its Not Luck a little better only in the sense that he provided more practical insight into conflict resolution.

I’m not sure how to compare Ayn Rand’s stories with ZAMM.

The whole sanity thing is a red haring to me. I enjoy James Taylor songs and Van Gogh painting, both men had moments in their lives when the art came through in spite of their mental state.

[Pyr Oura]

If all was truly lost in Roark's world the jury would have convicted him instead. They didn't - they set him free.

It would have been satisfying to see Roark fight to outmaneuver, and defeat his enemies then win back his building... somehow. Not as thought provoking though.