SirJamesIII

But all objects require conceptualization between objects (except an object that cannot be broken down into smaller components). Does the word apple need to relate more than one object with another for it to have meaning? In a colloquial sense, no. To a laymen observer, it is a single object. In a literal sense, yes. The concept of an apple relates sugar and other the molecules that comprise it. An apple is still a multitude of objects (molecules, atoms etc.). The identity we use in this scenario is still an arbitrary distinction which requires conceptualization and a conscious observer. No different with the universe. To answer your question, if my level of distinction is on the single apple level, then I have two objects. If my level of distinction is apple pairs, then I have one object. *furiously attempts to make universe-sauce by blending two universes

Would you be surprised if I told you that objects are sometimes comprised of objects? Is a human an object or the summation of multiple objects (organs, cells, molecules, atoms, or subatomic particles)? Is the universe an object? What level of distinction satisfies you?

Let me define some terms first: Phenonmenon: Something detectable by some sensory instrument Epiphenomenon: A phenomenon created by a process. Object: Something with shape and occupies space. Identity: A label, subjectively chosen by the observer, to name a phenomenon or noumenon. Exist: Something that is phenomenal Objects exist because they can be measured and detected. Likewise, a process exists because one can meausure and detect them as well. Processes must exist because if they didn't, then epiphenomena wouldn't exist, and epiphenonmena do exist as objects. If the process of "fusion" didn't exist, then there would be no helium created from hydrogen atoms. Helium is the epiphomenon resulting from the process of fusion. Fusion exists because nuclear energy exists. (Stef is right, energy is not motion, kinetic energy is). Energy is not a relationship between objects. However, both objects and processes are phenomenon. Relationships between physical objects exist yet you say that concepts don't exist and that concepts are the relationships between physical objects. Relationships between physical objects do exist as they can be measured. To deny that a process exists is to deny time. Spacetime exists physically as the fabric of the universe. Gravity does not describe the relationship between two objects with mass, it describes the phenomenon of the warping of space time. An object with mass will warp space time around it and consequently the inertial path of any object that is near it. So you say energy doesn't exist? Well then I guess photons don't exist since photons are energy. The shape of a photon is not absolute as it falls under the wave-particle duality. And they also have no mass. So what say you of photons? Are they objects? Do they exist in your world? Matter can also be converted into energy, what are your opinions of that? I'd suggest that you learn about "downward causality." Non-physical things (things we believe not to "exist" because they are immaterial) affect physical things provided the physical thing is concious. According to the laws of physics, shadows don't exist, but the are still phenomenal. A shadow is the absence of light, but we can define it as a positive thing if we want to. Like a photon, they have shape but no mass. A shadow can even move faster than the speed of light. Your definition of exist needs to be refined. You jump to erroneous conclusions when you say that no objective definitions can be derived from making observations. Just because a distant star wasn't detected before the telescope, that does not imply that these stars were not detectable. This just means that our description of the universe becomes more complete as our detecting insturments become better. The speed of light also does not change depending on the observer. Identites, however, are subjective. It was totally up to us that we called gravity what it is instead of pizza.

I would like to be updated while you figure this out. I come from the other side of the fence where I don't understand why people don't embrace criticism. I think it has a lot to do with our education system where kids are discouraged from providing wrong answers (not that we should encourage them either). The public eduction system is set up such that teachers become authority figures. Pre-K through around the second grade, kids are still developing social norms. They may not know how to "play nice" yet, so they are taught moral lessons by teachers instead of parents. Maybe when you grow older, providing wrong answers feels like you are disobeying some authority figure. During my high school and now college years, I found that I asked a lot of "dumb" or "obvious" questions (stuff like, "what does this word mean?" or "how does this relate?"). I found that the obvious questions often have the least obvious answers and that kids were apprehensive in asking these "dumb questions" because they feel like they are already expected to know the answer. FLCL has been on my watchlist for a while. I'm thinking about starting an anime recomendation thread.

Well it's more like he is sharing Portnoy and Sheehan fans than making his own brand. A lot of virtuoso guys have resorted to this tactic with a lot of sucsess. He just wants to stay honest. Entering the "celebrity scene" also amounts to creative restrictions, and this is dishonest to Kotzen. He'd rather invest and do everything himself. He has the skills and the capital. With the internet, he's been able to continue his career honestly. The OP song was probably my favorite from his new album. I endorse the direction he's going in entirely. Personally, I've been on a bit of a Soul/R&B run recently, so I really like what he's doing. But it doesn't seem like he has much experience writing this kind of music. I think his previous album, Peace Sign, is superior, but I think he's on the right track for making a great album soon. I still think, stylistically, Peace Sign is less relevant.

Well he played for Poison in the 90s and then with Mr. Big. He was in the mainstream spotlight for a little bit. He made his money and got out of there. He doesn't even want to be famous. He just wants to make the music he wants to make, and he's a big success story in that regard. He even has a signature Telecaster. It's a pretty big deal to have Fender make a signature guitar for you. I think Poison is terrible, but this song is great. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3hmgkPYUuk]

Well in my opinion, all insecurity is contrived. If something is contrived then that means it was intentionally created, but since it was not created from a natural sequence of events, it is artificial. You've created an idealized version of yourself in your head and you think this ideal character is not pleasing to the world. But you're posting on the freedomain board, so you've come a lot further than most people in my opinion. You speak at least two langauges and your English is great regardless of the circumstances, yet you are very self-conscious of it. I speak one language, so in that department, I'm definitely not as good as you. And this is an obvious fact, and you shouldn't even need me to remind you of this. You just need self-validation and everyone deserves that.

I've never said have no empathy; I have empathy issues. I also have emotions, they are just more difficult to arouse, and music has helped me with this. I've never said I didn't want to go to therapy; I just said I didn't go see a school counselor. I have friends and the relationships I have with these people are meaningful, unlike the superficial ones my peers have. I'm good at detecting what people are trying to communicate when they are too afraid to say it because they think explicitly communicating it might not impress me. I make it clear that I have no desire to be impressed, but they think that is how they earn a relationship from me. I give the things to people that they want, but they were to afraid to desire and get for themselves. This is the love I give. To me, love is a kind of intangible property you can give to someone. Despite being intangible, it is also scarce because its quantity is limited by how much love the person wants to give. There is a cost associated to love, but it has no price for the person recieving it. It requires that you recognize the desires of someone else at the expense of your own desires. It is a selfless act. I come off as an asshole on the internet, but I'm pretty nice in person. I sound like your average kid. I seem perfectly functional at first glance, although perhaps I'm a bit strange to some. I speak open and honestly to everyone I meet. I'm a loner because I don't feel compelled to bring up my issues with my friends because they never have good advice. Most often I prefer my own company during difficult times than others. I have meaningful relationships but I have trouble staying in touch for extended periods of time. Most of my friends aren't close by anymore now that I'm in college. The amount of shitty people I have to sift through at college is a lot greater than it was when I was younger. I have made one good friend and a few great professional relationships. I've met a lot of nice people, but few that I know will make me happy (that's possible for me btw). I don't have patience for people who refuse the truth. They keep things quiet then problems begin to arise later on in relationships. I see this happening every day and that is not what I want. If someone has an issue with me, I'd prefer they state it explicitly so we work it out like adults and not wait for the emotions to build, which just results in a shit show. I also had no clue about my ex-gf's issues. These things are realized as the relationship progresses. I'm not some relationship clairvoyant. Where do you get the idea that I was exploiting her? And no you did not give me a taste of my own medicine. If you did, then you would have arguments to back up your silly claims. I have directly communicated with this girl. I've met her in person and she is the one who is intimidated by me and not the other way around. I know she likes me since since acts apologetically around me (I try to get her not to), but to everyone else she seems cold and kinda scary. She's very quiet, but I've had good conversations with her. But most importantly she is a good listener and she remembers the things I tell her, which is leaps and bounds above what most people do. I don't think I've seen her sustain a long conversation with anyone else though. I'm not afraid to approach people. I'm a pretty intense person. Yeah sure she is pretty, but that is incidental because there are a lot of other pretty girls whom I could mess around with and have messed around with. I'm not a loser. I hang out with the "popular kids" and I'm not the quiet nerd type. I look like a northeastern preppy jock douche bag. I'm on a family plan for health insurance, so why I should I pay out of my pocket for therapy? My parents don't really think I need it, but they are a willing to set me up with someone. You have still not given me any reason to believe why art is superficial. In my opinion that just your arbitrary assertion. The way you use the term symbolism is how you see fit. But all language is the manipulation of symbols through semantics and syntax. There is a grammar for spoken language, music, math and even visual art. Spoken and written language is probably the most arbitrary and cryptic out of the languages I have listed since contradictory phrases and words can be assumed as true. This is not so much a luxury in math or music, for instance, although paradoxical phrases can exist in these languages, but that is a very deep philisophical discussion. Would you deny that Stef's philosophy was heavily influenced by the fiction of Ayn Rand?

But herein lies my problem. I am so adept at this "self therapy" that I am totally content with my solitude, which isn't wrong or anything. I do think this means I have an advantage over other people, but it creates some issues. Amongst my peers, the impetus for forming relationships (the deep meaningful ones) is a desire for some sort of therapy. A lot of kids have a desire for codependency. It isn't such a bad thing that they look to others for support, but they seem to require it. This was made abundantly clear with my last girlfriend. From what I understand, I think a lot of kids nowadays has an internal sense of righteousness. They fulfill their duties as students, but they know from experience that they live in a bullshit world. My last girlfriend had pretty strict parents. She sort of used me as a standard to judge her righteousness. She trusted my judgement greatly. Whenever she'd have an episode with her parents, she would ask me if agreed on her take and I would (so would her therapist). But she wasn't perfect. Nothing about her escaped my judgement. She ended up breaking up with me because she said I made her feel bad about herself. I never insulted her personally or physically, but she never could muster the ability to agree to disagree with me on my criticisms. I try not to be arrogant with my personal assessments. I try to only make suggestions. I'm only come off as arrogant in certain subjects. The problems were created simply because she was insecure and people who are insecure lie to themselves so they can feel comfortable with their own "flaws." (Most often traits aren't even flaws. They feel that they should fit a mold and if they don't they feel insecure). Her issue was that she required superficial affirmation in order to feel comfortable in her own shoes. This was probably induced by chronic criticism from her parents. Her parents expected perfection and this probably programmed her to think that she should expect it from herself. If she wasn't told she was perfect, then she'd feel like a failure. I on the other hand just had parents who expected competence, but encouraged perfection (excellence is a better word) if they saw I had the capability. I remember I had a knack for hitting a baseball really far when I was a kid. My dad saw this as an oppurtunity to invest in my skills. He would take me to the batting cage pretty often and he would be excited to help me achieve my goals. It was him who took the time to selflessly adopt my goals as his because he loved me. My girlfriend on the other hand probably had parents who wanted her to achieve their goals. Whenever my girlfriend was not motivated to achieve her parents goals, this probably invited discipline from her parents. But goddamn was she studious. I mistook that as self-discipline. But it was probably just fear of criticism from her parents that motivated her to be studious. I think she realized that a bit when she met me. I was taught the value of self-discipline at a young age and that intrinsic motivation can be incredibly powerful. She started reading for pleasure because she saw how much I enjoyed doing that on a daily basis. But so many kids nowadays who are righteous are also insecure. Another thing that promotes insecurity is failure praise. If the kid is not perfect, then the parents see the solution as simply telling them they are perfect. But they aren't so they are always in for a rude awakening. I usually help with that rude awakening. I'm blunt. The worst thing is that a lot of other kids do the same thing to me as my girlfriend did. They ask me for my opinion on their righteousness because they find great value in my opinion. But I won't always agree with them. So I probably just invoke the same feelings that their shitty parents do. Probably even worse though. I do a good job with convincing people that they don't need to fit into a mold. I'm pretty out there compared to most people and they see that I'm still happy being strange. But there's always some point where I'll point out something in them that they are afraid of changing.

What they offer for free is "short-term counseling" called "talk therapy." From what I understand, the people who provide these services come from a wide range of professions. It could be a psychiatrist, a social worker, or a nurse practitioner to name a few. They do offer psychiatry services at a charge, but I don't need meds. If I were to see a therapist, which I want to and I have asked my parents about it, then I'd like to go see a psychologist or psychotherapist who is fulfilling their full job description. This "short term counseling" just seems like a pain numbing thing to me. If it was an emergency situation then I would have probably rushed to get counseling. But since it was the end of the year and all, I was more preoccupied with keeping my stress levels down, which I can do on my own perfectly fine. I don't think it was the right time to fill my head with distracting thoughts about myself. But I guess something clicked once a lot my peers became depressed and stressed themselves, so the timing wasn't all that great. So I don't really have any experience to base my opinion off of. The only thing I could tell is that these counselors mostly get traffic from kids who are stressed out. That's the biggest reason why they are there. I probably will do some counseling down the road.

I know Stefan likes Freddie Mercury, so here's another Freddie that reminds me of him. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jlPW-kglX0] On another note, Paul Gilbert is one of my idols. I had the pleasure of taking a clinic taught by him when I was in the 8th grade. He's a great guy.

Simply one of my favorite artists today. This was probably my favorite song from his new album. He is a master guitarist and a superb vocalist. I was going to see him play at the Iridium, but I had to go to a wedding. Here's a great Hall & Oates cover [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT_BFyNwIWY] This is one of my favorite songs of all time. A modern take on "selling your soul to the devil." It seems it wasn't his choice. He sure has chops now though. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwfA9ON90TU]

Would still like to, but I'm not something that is broken that needs to be fixed with therapy. I am curious if I have ASPD (if that is a real thing and I have my doubts). Mind if I ask what your credentials are since you're the expert? As opposed to what other kind of thinking? Creative thinking? I am a musician. Should I not take pride at all in any thinking? Projecting a hypothesis here. What evidence do you have of my neglect? Are you asserting that I am in denial? My threshold for incompetence has been low since the day I was born. If I had neglectful parents, I would have ran away. Another projection. As an INTJ, I'm more of a big picture guy than a details guy. Pardon me for mentioning my research paper, which is usually the kind of paper that deals with details. If you read carefully, it influenced the imagery I used to get my arguments across in my paper (these images were not the substance of my argument. They are for embellishment.) The seven chakras thing reminded my of the seven stages in As You Like It by Shakespeare, which coincidentally had a character named Touchstone which was also the innovation required for the standardization of prescious metals in Ancient Lydia. Absurd. Please elaborate because there is no argument here. You would not be able to communicate this to me were it not for symbols. Who said I was trying to impress anyone? Absurd yet again. No argument here, so I'll have to ask you to elaborate again. Who said I was pursuing these things professionally? My college research paper was on an economic subject. Pay attention. And so what if I do pursue that as a career? Money is money. If you are one of the few with simple original ideas that can make a profit, you will furthermore be exploited by people who are more deranged than you yourself think you are and can manipulate you more subliminally than you could not imagine is even remotely possible. Yep. Speciffically one that involved animal shit once. But I prefer making my own money, which I do. But I guess those who have never had shitty jobs are worse people than those who haven't. Right? Plus kids nowadays have to compete with 50 million mexicans for the shitty jobs. Elaborate or stay away from this thread. Do you seek pleasure in putting down people whom you think you are smarter than? So far I've read empty criticisms and unsubstantiated advice. If you are a troll, I warn you that you cannot get a rise out of me. It's the psychopath thing.

Does the cloud counter have any use for number theory considering one cloud+one cloud=one cloud? Or how about counting raindrops on a window pane? How do you think all this number theory would make the feel?Suppose this is how we count numbers: 1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 6, 7....

One may be tempted to say that, "euclidean geometry is false because non-euclidean geometries also govern physical phenomenon because empirically we are forced to believe so." But the same would be true for non-euclidean geometries. The truth is, this is not a commentary on whether or not euclidean geometry is true or not, but rather, that euclidean geometry is limited to the extent that it can describe percieved reality (as with any other formal system of logic). Moreover empiricsim itself is limited to the extent to which it can describe percieved reality. If my hypothesis is that there is a one in pi chance that x will cause y, then it will take an infinite number of experiments to prove this. There is no "evidence" one can point to to prove such a proposition, yet the probability of such relationships existing in nature is extremely high considering the set of uncountable numbers will always encapsulate the set of countable numbers.

meant to say "In the realm of non-violent action, there are no "wrong" actions..."[/font]

As long as you tell yourself that you are an outcast, then you will be an outcast. If you truly are an outcast, in the strictest sense of the word, then you would be dead by now. The term "social outcast" is useless considering all social interaction is a combination of exclusionary rules (private property rights) and inclusionary rules (contracts/mutual exchange). I'm at a part where I have excluded almost all my peers, but I am no outcast. This was my choice. The way you use the term "outcast" is completely contrived. Your self-damning has origins in your parental abuse since you felt ostracized by your parents. But in the anarchist tradition, we know that we have a right to self-ownership and private property rights so that we may exclude those whose behavior is not universally preferable. It is your parents who would be ostracized in a free society. What you exprienced was slavery, not ostracism. You did not conform to the values of your parents, and they saw this as justification for abuse. But value is completely subjective, therefore violence justified on the account of breaking values can only result in a black hole of abuse. Self-abuse is equally unjustified because you have an internal value system, which you feel justifies self punishment when you do not follow your own code. This creates another black hole that is impossible to climb out of unless there is a paradigm shift in your thinking. In the realm of non-violent action, there are "wrong" actions, only actions that are preferred over the less preferred actions. But this is a praxeoligical constant for everyone. Everyone is continuously moving the least preferred state to the most preferred state, so if you are beating yourself up over this, then everyone else in the world should also do the same, but that is absurd. Food addiction lends comfort to your insecurity, but your insecurity is contrived, so your food addiction will never end as long as you admit to yourself that you are an outcast. You'll need to grow your balls a bit, but it's not your fault that you were castrated by your parents.

I think you are misunderstanding a bit. I've been doing the whole loner thing for a while and I have no issues with it. I just want something better. I do the whole sitting by rivers thing. I enjoy my own company. But to equate social interaction with getting "caught up in 'someone else's' vision" is a gross exageration. In fact I know for sure that I cannot materialize some of my visions without the help of others (I do not ignore the division of labor). I've only been recently having these thoughts. The view of this river is fantastic, but I would like to share this view with someone else because they may offer a different perspective. Is that not what Stef has made career out of? Is he not sharing his view?

I am not a bitter person. I lied about not having primary response emotions. While we're on the topic of music, I feel direct emotional responses from great aesthetic input, and that is why I study and play music. Spoken language is a terrible system for emotional communication. It can be riddled with contradictory phrases that people are free to assume are true. Music on the other hand, is much more rigorous. It doesn't take a genius to notice the difference between the dissonant sounds from the harmonious sounds. So as a language, I find it much more effective at communicating emotion than spoken language. The girl in question probably feels similarly to me. She is probably even more disconnected from spoken language than me. She is a visual artist. I think one reason for the way I am is that I was probably desensitized by my parents. I was showered in art and love, even though my parents aren't even the artsy types. There was no censorship in my house. Word around the neighborhood was that my family was the fun family and we let kids watch R rated movies. I traveled all across the world at a young age as well. And being educated in a private school, a lot of the kids who went to these places were raised similarly. Now I go to a college full of kids who probably weren't raised correctly and they have no idea what love is. Love is my one emotion (I define love more as an act though) and I give it unconditionally. But people now are just straight refusing it or they don't acknowledge it when I give it to them, and for the first time I'm feeling something similar to anger. I don't think isolation is dysfuctional or bad. I'm "ok" by myself too and I'm not ashamed of it. But social cooperation is more productive than hermitism. Now when I'm alone, I think about all the things I could be doing with people if I wasn't alone. I have dear friends and they value me as well. I find my social situation to be better than the majority of people. I pity those who crave superficial relationships. They are just a waste of time. Besides Iron Maiden, Rush is my favorite band. I don't listen to much rock nowadays, but I have recently revisting a lot of old stuff and I'm discovering that metal was probably the biggest contributing factor to my skeptical nature during my youth and it was how I got into music.

Love Nevermore. I'm a guitarist so I'm a big fan of Jeff Loomis and Chris Broderick. I'll edit the op. I copied and pasted that from some lyrics site. hmm seems the edit timer is pretty quick on this site. So scratch that.

Hello Freedomain board! Strange that I have had this account for over a year and this is my first post. I'll cut the small talk, so I'll skip an update on my personal status for the few who are curious. I didn't go see a therapist. I don't regret it since I felt they are more equipped to deal with emotionally distraught kids, and not those who suffer from chronic apathy (except now I'm no longer apathetic about my own apathy). It is not guidance that I seek, but gratitude, love and self-knowledge (moreso the first two since the path towards self-knowledge never ends). I'm at a point in my life where I have most of the answers that I need, and I'm just struggling with implementing and materializing those answers. My empathy issues stunt me a bit, but that's not really an issue. I'm sure there are others with empathy issues who can empathize (the girl referred to in the call) [] But my strangeness and inherent aloofness keeps the general population from forming personal connections with me even if they find me valuable as an acquaintance/colleague. Stef really helped me get over my comfort in isolation. Isolation is tempting and it even helps when I enter "depressed" states (I don't know if depressed is the right word). It is sort of like a reset button. It helps me isolate the variables that trouble me, but now the variable is isolation itself. I was stuck in an infinite regress of isolation. It took an outside source for me to realize this. Stef said relationships can help one offload processing power to someone else. I was stuck in a situation where the very algorithm I use to process my problems was the problem itself and only someone else could fix that. The very phenomenon Stef was describing was happening during the call. I was by default stuck in a dumb state and I had someone else who provided oversight. As for the girl, there still has been no direct contact. I say direct because every time I'd send her a message, there'd be a corresponding post on her tumblr as a variation on the theme of my message. It would be like clockwork. It didn't strike me as a string of extreme coincidences. At least she listened carefully to what I had to say to her and that's a heck of a lot more than what other people do for me. People think they can ego stroke their way into relationships nowadays, but since psychopaths nary have an ego (except the one we make for ourselves and we come off as egotistical), it doesn't really help their case. I could get into the details, but that would be better for another thread. I'll stay on the psycho theme. She frequently posts gifs and quotes from the movie "American Psycho." Turns out I owned the movie on blu ray and I never watched it. Great movie, but Bateman wasn't a psychopath, he was a sociopath. But after taking a closer look, this seemed intentional. The psychopaths were some of his colleagues and his fiance. After discussing this with my film buff friend who goes to NYU Tisch, he seemed to agree describing how it was a commentary on corporate America. The first clue to his sociopathy was that he admitted, albeit subtly, to Paul Allen that he was a child of divorce. Another clues was that he wanted to "fit in" while ironically sending an axe through Paul Allen's head to the tune of "Hip to Be Square" by Huey Lewis and The News. (I'm square as fuck on the other hand and although I though A Trick of the Tail was brilliant, I still prefer "artsy" Genesis.) The most obvious clue was practically an admittance to sociopathy. Near the end of the film Bateman narrates, "My pain is constant and sharp and I do not hope for a better world for anyone; in fact, I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to escape, but even after admitting this there is no catharsis, my punishment continues to elude me and I gain no deeper knowledge of myself; no new knowledge can be extracted from my telling. This confession has meant nothing." I on the other hand feel little pain, even in the literal sense since apparently psychopaths tend to have high pain tolerances as do I. So what's with the ambiguous nomenclature regarding my mental condition? As a diagnostic category, apparently psychopathy has been replaced by ASPD. On the PCL-R checklist, I recall I was either a 16 or 17 while the cut off point for psychopathy is 18. This just means I have "psychopathic tendencies." I probably do fit the criteria for ASPD though. People with ASPD are still considered to be law breakers and trouble makers. They are also considered to be impulsive. I couldn't be further from impulsive. I am quite spontaneous and eccentric on the other hand, which is similar. Someone like me who has few emotions would have great impulse control. A sociopath on the other hand, if they have poor emotional control, could be impulsive like Patrick Bateman. IMO neither psychopaths nor sociopaths are violent by definition, but rather, they have a high correlation with violence. A sociopath who's condition originates in abuse in early life will feel pleasure from inflicting pain in others since it feels retributive. A psychopath on the other hand doesn't want retribution. They inflict pain when it satisfies their self interest. Since laws are written by sociopaths that incentivize violence, there will always be psychopaths filling that void. In a free society, I can't see why a psychopath would want to be violent. Also since there are non-violent crimes that are considered to still be illegal, there will always be non-violent people and psycopaths who will be branded as criminals. This helps a lot with the silly diagnostic criteria. But I am a psychopathic person who chooses non-violence on principle (and also because I think it aids my self-interest). That's why I found libertarianism. But the crazy thing is that this option has only really been available to psychopaths until quite recently. Even after reading The Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard, I still had to take his word for it on the NAP thing. It was in line with my intuition and von Mises had proved that it is economically preferable regardless. Only until I came across Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics and Molyneux's UPB (very much two sides of the same coin and I'll make another thread about that) did I find a rational proof for NAP. So what have I been doing? I've been writing a little. I had a research paper to write for a seminar required for first year students. It was open ended, so I decided to write mine on legal tender law and private coinage. My thesis was largely buttressed by the research George Selgin did in his book, Good Money (good read). It deals with an episode in history during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution when there was a shortage of small coinage in England. Long story short, the Royal Mint was inept, so people started minting their own coins. From a legal standpoint, these were all fiduciary media, but that didn't matter because they were pretty much impossible to counterfeit, so instead of circulating as tokens for silver and gold, they floated freely valued at their copper weight. It is an empirical refutation of the legitimacy of legal tender law, and more speciffically, Gresham's law, which says "bad money drives out the good money," hence the title Good Money. I extended the threads of history back a bit further than Selgin did and I discovered some very interesting things. As you probably have already guessed, war is a big part of it. I begin with the point in history when precious metals were first standardized in ancient Lydia with the aid of the touchstone. I then go into the Austrian theory of the origins of money in the Mengerian tradition with a little twist that makes it easy to understand. I derived most of my theory from Hulsmann's The Ethics of Money Production. Anyway, I'm not done with it yet. The teacher got the shitty abridged ending, but it was a twelve page limit and I was at seventeen. I need help from one of my friends to finish it since I'm not so good with the rhetoric stuff. All the imagery is there, but writing something that gets people's juices flowing isn't one of my strong points. My friend is interested in all this wacky theory like me, but he's not as psychopathic. But one of the most compelling images I used was inspired by something this girl posted on her tumblr. It had to do with the seven chakras in the hindu tradition (she's kind of a yoga nut). When I saw that a lightbulb went off in my head. In Shakespeare's As You Like It there is a quote that says: All the world's a stage. And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages. And guess what the name of the wise fool was in this play? Touchstone. The word touchstone is also used as a metaphor meaning "the physical or intellectual measure by which the validity or merit of a concept can be tested" (wikipedia). There are even parts of my essay that seem to correlate with the progression through the stages. There is the earth chakra and in lydia there was schist (the rock used for the first touchstones). There is the water chakra and an important part of the essay deals with the little ice age and when rain turned to snow and how that stimulated innovation required to overthrow the Royal monopoly on coinage. Warmer clothes were invented and so were buttons. The button makers repurposed their machines to make coins. The quote I used describing the little ice age refers specifically how the lakes froze and how this disturbed the ecosystem creating food shortages. There is also the steam engine, which harnessed the power of water and was used in the largest factory in the world during the era of private coinage to steam press coins. There is the fire chakra and this was what kept people warm during the little ice age. This was around the time when the chimney was invented and only the metallurgists who were minting coins, or forging weapons, knew anything about the physics of drafts. You also need fire for metalurgy and to power steam engines. The fourth chakra deals with love. With the invention of the modern chimney, people began to live in modern houses that were warm throughout the year and cities where people work all year around. People started having more sex because the modern house provided privacy and warmth and since they made money all year, they could provide more, so the population rose, which increased the amount of wage earners, setting up the stage for an increase in demand for small coinage. The fifth chakra deals with truth and is blocked by lies. The housing boom increased the demand for glass, which caused decreased the supply of wood greatly because wood furnaces were still being used. The Crown wasn't so pleased so they introduced a slew of legislation prohibiting the felling of trees in certain areas so they could have more wood to build their navy. They also needed wood to heat the furnaces that would smelt their bronze cannons. Bronze is an alloy including copper, which was what small change coins were made of. The biggest lie of course was Gresham's law, which originates back to an exchange Queen Elizabeth had with her financial advisor, Sir Thomas Gresham. Queen Elizabeth happened to be the woman who was pissed off by the shortage of wood. The sixth chakra deals with insight. In order to make glass without wood to side step the bullshit laws, the first coal furnaces were invented. It also took the insight of entrepreneur, Mathew Boulton, to connect all the dots, employ James Watt for his steam engine and to use cylinders for the engines bored out by John Wilkinson in Coalbrookdale, so the engines could operate efficiently. Boulton was responsible for opening the competitive market for private coinage. The seventh chakra deals with some paradise stuff. We haven't gotten there yet, but we saw a sneak peak during the era of private coinage. Perhaps there's some confirmation bias, but the parallels didn't take any effort to uncover. Yesterday the girl posted this picture: It is a lyric to the song Heaven and Hell by Black Sabbath. Here's the whole song: [The King or Queen addresses the fool (the court jester kind) in the first verse] Sing me a song, you're a singer Do me a wrong, you're a bringer of evil The Devil is never a maker The less that you give, you're a taker (if you don't allow institutionalized theft, then you are a free rider) [Dio then sings...] So it's on and on and on ...it's Heaven and Hell, oh well The lover of life's not a sinner The ending is just a beginner The closer you get to the meaning The sooner you'll know that you're dreaming (they say a free society is a fantasy and that we need government) So it's on and on and on Oh it's on and on and on It goes on and on and on, Heaven and Hell I can tell, fool, fool! Well, if it seems to be real, it's illusion For every moment of truth, there's confusion in life Love can be seen as the answer But nobody bleeds for the dancer And it's on and on, on and on and on.... They say that life's a carousel Spinning fast, you've got to ride it well The world is full of Kings and Queens Who blind your eyes then steal your dreams ...it's Heaven and Hell, oh well And they'll tell you black is really white The moon is just the sun at night And when you walk in golden halls You get to keep the gold that falls It's Heaven and Hell (The immorality of government is justified through propoganda. Truth is moral and lies create violence. The government is parasitical to production yet they convince us that they know the path to prosperity.) [Dio then yearns] No no fool, fool! You got to bleed for the dancer! Fool, fool, look for the answer! Fool, fool, fool! I'll finish this way too TL:DR post with a quote by Touchstone from As You Like It. "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." Being a fool was Touchstone's job after all.