Original comment threat clipped - Separate discussion and irrelevant to comments
below.

Kitty,
Interesting, and surprising response.

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty" wrote:
> --roy
>
> [Roy, please recall Paul's introductory comments about his background,
> the purpose of which was to show you that he had read *all* the
> contemporary libertarian and Objectivist arguments by 25 years ago.
> (This includes every word that Ayn Rand every published up until the
> mid 1970s, after which she published nothing fundamental, but merely
> commented on current events (mostly political). (I have read most of
> Rand's published writings through to her death, even before meeting
> Paul.)

I respect your and Paul's background. This is why I am talking to you. But it
doesn't mean I should accept what you say without question. And, that's all that
I am doing, questioning.

> Paul is getting very frustrated by the lack of anything new coming out
> of this discussion and your apparent inability to see the importance
> of the flaws that he is continually pointing out (some of which other
> libertarian philosopher's before him have also written about but were
> unable to find a solution - as an example, see
> http://selfsip.org/dialogues/dfriedman/index.html ).

I do not feel obligated to defend or explain what other libertarians may have
said or written. I read Friedman's thoughts and Paul's response to them at the
above link. An interesting discussion. But even though I call myself a
libertarian, Friedman is not me, nor are his views necessarily mine. The fact
that Paul has addressed Friedman's ideas, does not mean that Paul has addressed
mine.

I think the problem may be the word libertarian. I has too many implied meanings
that I do not completely subscribe to. I think for the purpose of discussions at
MoreLife I must declare that I am no longer a libertarian, nor a Libertarian.
Although I may agree with some libertarian ideas, I am no longer willing to
defend anyone's ideas but my own.

That said, I don't understand the source of Paul's frustration. Certainly, it
cannot be that I don't accept everything he says without question. Learning SMN
is a little like learning a foreign language. Are you saying that I must be 100%
versed with all the nuances of SMN before I can ask questions, or make comments?

> And I understand Paul's frustration since I note that you completed
> this last response in less than 24 hours after Paul's message was
> posted - a very brief period of awake time free from work-related
> activities in order to fully digest the related material in the SMN
> essay, the NSC, its annotations and other linked/supplementary
> writings, work that took Paul literally years of thought and writing
> to create in a logically sound fashion.

Forgive me for responding too quickly. Believe it or not, I spent at least a
full 8 hours reading, studying, and writing my comments. Did I read and study
enough? Maybe not, but my comments were well considered.

I'm sure it took Paul years of thought to put together his theory on SMN. He
must understand it better than anyone. That's why I'm asking him the questions,
and bringing up things that do not "seem" to make sense to me. My goal is not to
prove him wrong, but to gather enough information so that HE can prove ME wrong.
Asking questions of the expert after read his writings is my way of doing it.

I am sure that continually re-explaining concepts and answering the same dumb
questions over and over again from non-academic types like me can get to be very
frustrating. I apologize. But at least, I am one who is willing to ask the
questions. Many I'm sure reject Paul's ideas out of hand. Who needs them. You
may find some that accept everything with no question. Who needs them! But then,
there are those like me who want to learn, and are willing to go through the
learning process. Aren't we the kind of people you DO need?

> Both I and Paul never leave anyone's substantive message unaddressed,
> so he will be making a reply to most of the above message after he
> completes his point by point response of your previous message
> (#2019). However, we will not then accept any response to these since
> the logical level of your responses is of no value to us.

If explaining your concepts to an new member like myself is of no value to you,
then please stop. I had hoped that I might bring up issues that would help
sharpen your arguments to other people like myself who are new to SMN ideas.

> If you have interest in further dialog with either of us here, then
> you will have to go back to the SMN treatise and tell us *where* you
> think its definitions, premises or logic is flawed. It is *not* good
> enough to merely tell us that you disagree with some conclusion. If
> you cannot tell us *where* the premises or the logic in a conclusion
> is flawed, then you cannot logically disagree with the conclusion.

I don't believe I have disagreed without backing it up with an argument I
thought to rational. Also, my comments where specifically in response to your
comments. I was not aware (at first) that all of my comments had to be phrased
in terms of SMN in order to be considered valid. But in my last post, I made an
honest effort to do just that.

> If
> you do not understand these things, you do not adequately understand
> the logic of formulating definitions and the logic of deductive
> reasoning (and, unfortunately, both were weaknesses of Ayn Rand and
> are still of most libertarian writers).

As I said, I am not an academic. This does not mean I am irrational, nor that I
cannot understand and use deductive reasoning. It simply means I don't fully
understand the language.... yet.

> However, if you have a question regarding a specific premise or the
> logic that follows, then please quote that portion of Paul's text
> and phrase your question. **Kitty]

Paul, please do not feel obligated to respond to any of my earlier comments. Do
so only if you feel there is any value that may come of it for yourself. I am a
strong believer in value-for-value associations. In the future I will ask only
questions that are specifically referenced to text from SMN, from the contract,
or from your other writings.
--roy